acemona

You're comparing an abortion to a vasectomy?

Yes, as far as a medical procedure. Psychologically it is a more troubling experience because of the POTENTIAL for life. If I were ever in that situation, I hope that I would be a part of the discussion, but I would not want to make the decision for her, or FORCE her to make a decision one way or the other.

So as a male you get your girlfriend pregnant and you should have no say in whether or not she kills your baby?

one, I don't think she is "killing a baby", two, I don't want her telling me about getting snips.

I would never encourage an abortion and would do everything in my power to prevent one. That said I can still see (not agree with) a woman making a decision to abort the results of a rape or act of incest.

Abortions should be safe, legal and very, very rare. But they should never be my decision (male).

Here is the biggest star you'll see at either convention, but I'm sure the only appearance will be at the Republicans convention. Wonder why that is....

Because they started two wars and cut taxes in the middle of them? I thought when you went to war you had "meatless Mondays" and those kinds of things so you could pay for it. The Republicans cut taxes AFTER going to war. CRAZY

Do they represent your beliefs? Not being sarcastic or anything, just wondering now that you've heard of them, do you agree with how they operate and what they're trying to accomplish?

So everybody on here is okay with my pre-game prayer and the beliefs conveyed therein?

This will be simple.

 

You are a liberal if you believe government can solve your problems without making more problems for you along the way.

Actually, that is not it at all.

A fetus is innocent.

So is the mom that you are forcing to carry a baby to term that she had no say whatsoever in its conception. You are victimizing her again with the pregnancy and public whispers and then with a baby that she may have never wanted. Why are you not protecting her life and her innocence? Or do we not really care about it.

There is a difference between killing and murder. Murder is defined by statute. Killing may be justified, and therefore not murder by definition. Self-defense is one of many defenses of justification. Terminating a fetus may be defined as murder.

I am not talking the legal definition I am talking moral.

Going to have to say no. If you think it's murder then how the baby was conceived shouldn't matter.

If someone is Pro-Life with no exceptions, then it would appear that self-defense would never be a defense for murder. Murder is murder, doesn't matter the circumstances.

Here would be my pre-game prayer, if I am coaching your son, are you okay with it.

Father God, Allah, Yaweh. God of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, creator of all things including all religions and all people - please help us to remember how small this game is in our life and the participation is meant to be fun and healthy. While we call athletics a struggle help us to remember that there are those who struggle much more than us. Help us to remember our Gay friends the bullying that they receive daily from some athletes and people like us. Help us to learn to love as you have unconditionally. Help us to remember our friends who are poor and that it is part of our responsibility to be constantly open to helping them whether it be through the donations that we give or the taxes that we paid on the nice shoes that we are wearing. Help us to remember our muslim and jewish friends and know that their quest for you is as legitimate as Christians, that I need to be open to a relationship with them and to have dialogue with them and that they have every right to practice and pursue their religion and their search for you as I do. Forgive me when I forget these things and try to oppress and suppress their growth. Please let us also be mindful of all of the students who have other struggles, our friends who have gotten pregnant. We know that they have tough decisions to make, but we trust that you will be with them as they make those choices and that you are with them in their struggles with the consequences of those decisions. Help us Lord to be loving and kind to all we meet and to be open to a strong, healthy relationship with them regardless of their socio-economic status, their religious creed or their color. Help me to constantly live my life with a helping hand extended and remember always what you have told us in Matthew 25 and that whatever I do to people, however I treat them, I must remember that is how that I am treating you.

In this particular game, help us to compete to the best of our ability and as true sportsmen. Understanding that it is not our job to show anyone up, but to play my best and celebrate and reflect appropriately.

Amin, Ameen and Amen.

Now go rip their heads off.

This whole thread makes me thankful that I had the ability to send my kids to Catholic schools.

I am glad that you have that opportunity, and I am very glad that I don't have to.

If you (general) want your kid to pray before games, send them to LCA, LexCath, Trinity, St. X, TFCA, CovCath, Bluegrass Baptist, whatever.

To be honest I never hear of atheists trying to get rid of Islam, Judaism, etc, just Christianity. I am guessing that those religious groups wont bow down to them like Christians have and our elected leaders are also afraid for some reason to make htem mad.

 

I dont think FKW pushes his beliefs, he may express them but has never condemed me for mine.

The atheists don't have to try to get rid of them, the Christian are doing that work for them - every hear of the crusades or Bosnia?

I can tell you what happened when I was there. Like I said above. Lots of different reactions when we prayed. It wasn't mandatory.

But your attendance was mandatory and you can't shut your ears like you can your eyes. You may not want your kid hearing about sex education at school because he should learn that at home, I don't want my kid learning YOUR religion at school.

With all due respect, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, however, from a scientific point of view, there is nothing in our code of genetic makeup that even hints at a DNA marker indicating a homosexual from a heterosexual.

 

There's no marker for my chocolate affinity either.

There is also no scientific evidence to conflate the two, yet you do.

There is nothing scientific about your post, yet you couch it in such a way to make it seem true.

There are all kinds of things that "are who people are" that are not defined with genetic markers.

Here, I will conflate two things that I shouldn't, but it might make my point.

There are no genetic markers for dyslexia, yet one of my children is dyslexic. S/he not have an infinity for dyslexia, or an affinity for struggling with common vowel sounds s/he has dyslexia. Another one of my children is incredible in math/science. S/he does not have an affinity for it, not sure s/he even likes it, but s/he gets it. Not genetic marker . . . yet. I cannot sing to save my life, I could be trained to sing differently and perhaps better, but I am still not going to hear the sound in head the way others do. No genetic marker for any of these things and yet they are a part of who all these different people are. I am not suggesting they are the same as homosexuality, even though it appears as if I am. What I am saying is that brains can be wired differently without having a genetic marker to define that wiring.

The survey found that only 34 percent of Americans can name any member of the nation's highest court.

 

And you know many of them vote. :eek:

This will sound snarky, but my real response is . . . "and?"

If you can jump that big fence on the Mexico/Arizona border or swim the Rio Grande then jumping through a few hoops should be any problem.

What does this have to do with the Voter ID law. Over 700,000 folks in Pa. don't have the necessary ID. Many of them elderly and probably unable to get a copy of their birth certificate. You assuming all 700,000 are illegal aliens who are trying to vote?

Will someone please tell me the policies democrats enacted that have helped minorities? Not ones that were intended to, but the ones that have actually been helpful.

Voting rights act of 1965

1964 Civil Rights Act

Social Security

In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 which outlawed segregationist hiring policies by defense-related industries which held federal contracts. Roosevelt's signing of this order was a direct result of efforts by Black trade union leader, A. Philip Randolph.

JFK's Executive order 10925

There is a start for you

You saykidnapping childern of gay couples has been attempted becuase lunatics suggested it, yet in the same post you claim noone will do what these guy suggest.

People won't do what the New Black Panthers say - my apologies on the confusion.

They are fringe, not even welcome by the Black Panthers

Well just let it go until some lunatic goes and kills a few white babies, it's ok though since Obama is black and so are his friends in the NBPP.

 

Seriously, someone saying what they did needs to be arrested for trying to incite domestic violence, but since Holder and Obama are afraid of their black brothers I guess we should all stock up on guns and ammo and protect ourselves.

You mean like lunatics who kill Sikhs because he thinks they are muslims, or lunatic who burn mosques, or lunatics who kill doctors, or lunatics who suggest that folks should kidnap children of gay couples.

Thing is, nobody is going to do what these guys suggest, but their have already been attempted kidnappings. Who are the real lunatics?

Yes Obama could put a stop to it by calling them out, but he won't because they are black and he is afraid to with the election coming up, it just shows me Obama is a hidden racist also.

You crack me up. If Romney becomes President, I am going to get on here every day and post some quote from some skinhead or KKK group and ask why Romney hasn't denounced them.

Let it go man, l e t i t g o o o o

Various audiences and perspectives.

 

Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Upper (SES) Jewish community; just as Matthew was because he was a Jewish Tax Collector.

Mark wrote his Gospel for the Romans (that is why Mark himself writes aramaic translations into his work) and from the perspective of a teenager living during Jesus' time.

Luke wrote his Gospel for the Greeks because he was a Greek Doctor whom at the beginning of his work explains that his research was thorough and based on eye witness accounts because Luke was not around Jesus during his ministry.

John wrote his Gospel at the very end of his life, kind of his final memoir intended for everyone from this perspective of Jesus' right hand man.

 

Four different authors writing about the same topic gives the story validity.

Four different perspectives for different readers and no contradictions.

Indeed there are no contradicitons in the Gospels despite what skeptics claim.

If it is written from a perspective for an audience then it can't be LITERAL. While there may not be contradictions there are certainly parts that do not jive.

The internet. People can maximize their resources and their talents, all for the sake of profit. Its doing wonderful.

 

Other than that, the closest we have ever gotten was the 19th century. Please take note that I know capitalism isn't perfect but it is the only system where the individual has complete control over his own life and decisions. He/she is able to use their mind, talent, capabilities and anything else that makes them, them to the fullest extent. Everyone has equal opportunity.

 

 

 

I wish it did say it so people like you would quit demanding it to be taken from productive minds. Maybe the FF just figured it would be outlandish to think someone in the future would be so obsessive in demanding others property goes to those who haven't earned it.

Who hasn't earned it? The welfare queen was proven a racist urban myth long ago. The amount of money from the federal government that goes to welfare is miniscule and those that abuse this system is even smaller. So a small miniscules portion of a miniscule portion is the basis for your whole economic policy.

Were it not for folks with great foresight you would not have the internet, road, airtravel.

So we had pure capitalism in the 1800s during the time of slavery and the civil war and reconstruction. Really. Pure capitalism results in people OWNING other people. That is not where I want to live. But I think you are correct. It is where we are heading now if we let the radical right wing get control

I think I disagree. I believe that man has decided that some things are open to interpretation just because they do not like what it says. Symbolism and figurative language is very common in the scriptures but for the most part those passages are obviously symbolic or figurative. And what they symbolize is not subjective at all. I beleive that God wants us to understand the Bible as he has written it, not how we interpet it.

Then why do we have 4 different gospels, who cannot even agree on the basic chronology? Why not one simple story told by one person. Because God used different 'men' to speak to different people and to each they delivered a different message.

In Matthew and Sermon on the Mount Jesus says "Blessed are the poor in Spirit"

In Luke and Sermon on the Mount Jesus says "Blessed are the poor".

These are two very different things. Which one should I take as the literal words that Jesus spoke?

I've heard of it, Ace. You aren't the only person to have Wikipedia. If you haven't noticed, mixed markets fail everywhere they're put in place. You cannot name one that has worked.

 

Where in the Constitution does it talk about private property? Does that mean it shouldn't exist?

 

 

 

How does Obama appointing Czars, making bureaucracies/government bigger, and signing a law that exempts certain positions from Senate confirmation constitute as 'We the People'?

 

How does him withholding documents from Fast and Furious to save that weaselly AG of his establish justice?

 

How does the Obama Administration and the CIA using their drone program to kill american citizens without due process and keeping the patriot act in place a way to ensure domestic tranquility?

 

How does the Obama Administration and the CIA backing the rebels who fight with our biggest enemy - and biggest ally - Al Qaeda, provide for the common defense?

 

How does promoting the general welfare turn into providing for other people by taking the property of others?

 

Do you know what you are saying?

 

 

 

You just proved my point. You perfectly explained what happens when government and business are too close. Do you not realize that big banks and other major corporations have 'regulations' in place to keep other competitors out of play? If we have a mixed market, this is inevitable. When you have any form of government mingling in the market, whether you think it is for the peoples benefit, it turns out just the opposite. Why would I want a government who labels their own laws as 'The Patriot Act' and then it takes away my privacy and freedoms, completely taking away from the word 'patriot'. I see the same thing when government decides to put regulations in place that will protect me from the evil businessmen.

 

 

 

 

Your putting words in my mouth. Where did I say I wanted government protection for certain companies? The society you promote does what you accused me of wanting. You don't even know your what your own ideas are about and the consequences that follow :lol:. A mixed market obviously enables the government to protect certain companies. What has happened in the past ten years with certain industries? You want to blame wealth being concentrated into a select few? Look at the mixed market we have had for the past 100 years.

 

Wealth to be shared by all? You mean like GW not admiring the fact he was getting taxed too much by the crown so he decides to start an under the table business so its tax free? He wanted his wealth to be shared by all?

 

When you tell me I have to share my money, you are saying I am enslaved to you and others. You become a parasite. Its my money. Not yours and not my neighbors. Deal with it, bro.

Where has pure capitalism ever existed and thrived. By the way, the Declaration COULD have easily said Property, since the gist of it was taken from Locke who talked about the pursuit of life, liberty, and property, but TJ changed it happiness. Interesting. Read Locke's 2nd Treatise and see what it says about labor and property and capital. No one in the history of the world, outside of the Russian Atheist, has ever suggested that the concentration of wealth like we see now is a good thing.

I've heard of it, Ace. You aren't the only person to have Wikipedia. If you haven't noticed, mixed markets fail everywhere they're put in place. You cannot name one that has worked.

 

Where in the Constitution does it talk about private property? Does that mean it shouldn't exist?

 

 

 

How does Obama appointing Czars, making bureaucracies/government bigger, and signing a law that exempts certain positions from Senate confirmation constitute as 'We the People'?

 

How does him withholding documents from Fast and Furious to save that weaselly AG of his establish justice?

 

How does the Obama Administration and the CIA using their drone program to kill american citizens without due process and keeping the patriot act in place a way to ensure domestic tranquility?

 

How does the Obama Administration and the CIA backing the rebels who fight with our biggest enemy - and biggest ally - Al Qaeda, provide for the common defense?

 

How does promoting the general welfare turn into providing for other people by taking the property of others?

 

Do you know what you are saying?

 

 

 

You just proved my point. You perfectly explained what happens when government and business are too close. Do you not realize that big banks and other major corporations have 'regulations' in place to keep other competitors out of play? If we have a mixed market, this is inevitable. When you have any form of government mingling in the market, whether you think it is for the peoples benefit, it turns out just the opposite. Why would I want a government who labels their own laws as 'The Patriot Act' and then it takes away my privacy and freedoms, completely taking away from the word 'patriot'. I see the same thing when government decides to put regulations in place that will protect me from the evil businessmen.

 

 

 

 

Your putting words in my mouth. Where did I say I wanted government protection for certain companies? The society you promote does what you accused me of wanting. You don't even know your what your own ideas are about and the consequences that follow :lol:. A mixed market obviously enables the government to protect certain companies. What has happened in the past ten years with certain industries? You want to blame wealth being concentrated into a select few? Look at the mixed market we have had for the past 100 years.

 

Wealth to be shared by all? You mean like GW not admiring the fact he was getting taxed too much by the crown so he decides to start an under the table business so its tax free? He wanted his wealth to be shared by all?

 

When you tell me I have to share my money, you are saying I am enslaved to you and others. You become a parasite. Its my money. Not yours and not my neighbors. Deal with it, bro.

At no point anywhere did I say "share YOUR wealth", I said share THE wealth. Unless of course we really want to live in an Objectivist world where money and power are concentrated in the hands of the few. That is much more of a danger to our democracy than anything the President has done.

As to Wikipedia and Mixed Market economy, I knew that all by myself. Public School teacher - social studies. i know, we all suck and education in America is horrible, blah, blah, blah.