Obama is looking better every day

[Guest]

What a pool of under qualified REP candidates we have. After each debate it becomes more apparent that the republicans have no chance of getting the WH back. And even more apparent is the fact that REB incumbents are looking bad for reelection to the house and senate. When the party splintered off on the likes of Bachmann and Perry and now Newt, we dug our own grave of failure for 2012. The only hope Republicans have now is to get a spokesman to publicly say "Obama is OK, but ########## can do even better. To continue with the pool of under qualified on the current debate members is to hand the WH to the Democrats without opposition.

After repeated insults I received in this forum for my take on the Candidates, I decided to sit back and take another close look to be sure I was not making bad judgment calls:

WELL: I now even more than before feel that Backmann is missing a few chunks out of her DNA making her a real nut case.

Also, Perry is truly the FREAK BOY I labeled him months ago.

We Conservatives need to admit it when we are wrong and stop being a bull headed bully. That means getting behind Romney or just don't bother with going to the polls at all.

[Guest]

A VOTE FOR ROMNEY IS A VOTE FOR A LIBERAL AND A VOTE TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO:

~is actually a fan of the Department of Education. In the GOP primary race of 2008, Romney remarked that he had come to “see that the Department of Education can actually make a difference.”
Oh, and he is a proponent of “No Child Left Behind,” a law that has served to strengthen the federal government’s grip over state schools.
~endorsed “the Brady Bill”— a federal piece of legislation requiring all would-be purchasers of firearms to wait five days before they can follow through with their purchases. He commented that his decision to do so was “not going to make me the hero of the NRA [National Rifle Association].” But that was fine with Romney, for as he proudly noted, “I don’t line up with the NRA.”
In 2008, on the eve of the declaration of his candidacy for president, Romney acquired a membership with none other than the NRA.
~supported the government’s bailout of the automobile industry. Not only, though, does he call for the federal government to subsidize this industry, he also believes that it ought to continue subsidizing the agricultural industry. Romney wasn’t always this sympathetic to the latter, though. While he was running for the Senate in 1994, he demanded what he referred to as “the virtual elimination” of the Department of Agriculture. However, in 2007, when he was pushed on this point, one of his Iowa spokespersons assured farmers that “Governor Romney believes that investing in agriculture is [the] key to our economy and families.”
~doesn’t just believe in “global warming;” he thinks as well that human beings contribute significantly to it. In and of itself, this belief is neither here nor there, but as we know all too well, believers in “global warming”— especially when they are politicians, like Romney, with dreams of amassing vast quantities of power — invariably jump all too easily from this belief in an impending apocalypse to the conclusion that “we must do something to thwart it.”
And this, of course, means that we need bigger and bigger government.
When he was governor of Massachusetts, Romney authored a 72-point “Climate Protection Plan” and supported the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — both measures designed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
~“Romneycare.” Still, it bears repeating: Romney’s socialized health care scheme for the citizens of Massachusetts was instrumental in the formation of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”— i.e. “Obamacare
Furthermore, in the hard cover edition of his book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Romney said that he would like to do for all of America’s citizens vis-à-vis healthcare what he did for the citizens of Massachusetts. Since “Obamacare” became woefully unpopular, the paperback version of his book has been released. Only this version is slightly different from its predecessor inasmuch as it omits this line
~in spite of his assurances that he is opposed to abortion, for most of his political career he has been a proponent of women’s “right to choose.” Mind you, it isn’t just that Romney refused to ally himself with the opponents of abortion; he actively sought to counter their efforts.
In 1994, while he was running for the Senate in Massachusetts, Romney was photographed at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. That same (election) year, he insisted that “we should sustain and support” Roe v. Wade, as well as “the right of a woman to make that choice” to pursue an abortion or not. Whatever Romney’s or anyone else’s “personal beliefs” regarding the wrongness of abortion, he adamantly rejected the possibility that it would be appropriate to interject them “into a political campaign.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/jack-kerwick/9832-an-honest-look-at-mitt-romney

[Guest]

It is either Romney or Obama. Take your pick. Even Romney will have a hard road ahead, but the rest of the REB mob have no chance at all.

[Guest]

Herman Cain will get my vote in the primary. If Romney is the GOP candidate I will be voting for Ron Paul, who will then most certainly will run independently! :ho:

[Guest]

Herman Cain will get my vote in the primary. If Romney is the GOP candidate I will be voting for Ron Paul, who will then most certainly will run independently! :ho:

I like Ron Paul, but he just cant win. A vote for him is a vote for Obama.

[Guest]

or the candidates need to start making feel good speeches with lots and lots of promises of what will be different if they are elected. But I am afraid that technique is probably worn out by a prior candidate.

The only real comparison to Obama would be to go back to one year prior to the 2008 election and look at Obama then. Where he was in the polls. Where he came from. What he had accomplished and was saying to that point in time.

Then using the same critical magnifying glass currently in hand, compare him to the current round of candidates.

The only thing Obama has going for him is he is an incumbent with a campaign war chest bigger than anybody of the other candidates. He is the only candidate that can have national air time and coverage from the media for free almost anytime he wants. He also has a three year head start campaigning as he has been doing it since elected.

If an unknown, unproven, lack of accomplishment, controversial person like Obama can come up from obscurity and snake charm enough voters to be elected.....what makes some think that couldn't happen again?

He no longer has the unique persona of being the only black to be a candidate. He used up his mojo for being the first one!!.

btk

[Guest]

I'm thinking I'll ignore this thread as it's just a rehash of V II's well known promotion of Romney for unknown reasons other than "he must be the candidate", and his inexplicable hatred for Perry and his distain for all other Republicans.

I disagree with his premise and I'll leave it at that. (Oh, and I think his headline tells you more of his feelings than his post)

[Guest]

no, i think V11 is just worried that maybe only romney can win the independents, which i don't think is true....that is what the media would like us to believe...katz, i usually agree with you but if we vote for a third party candidate, we will surely give obama the win! i don't think ron paul will do that as he knows how disruptive it will be...the only thing we can do is work very hard for our candidate of choice so that they win the primary fairly, but we must join together and support whichever person wins the primary, even if it is romney, as another four years of obama is unacceptable. i am leaning to herman cain or newt gingrich and i will not let the left wing media smears influence my decision.

[Guest]

no, i think V11 is just worried that maybe only romney can win the independents, which i don't think is true....that is what the media would like us to believe...katz, i usually agree with you but if we vote for a third party candidate, we will surely give obama the win! i don't think ron paul will do that as he knows how disruptive it will be...the only thing we can do is work very hard for our candidate of choice so that they win the primary fairly, but we must join together and support whichever person wins the primary, even if it is romney, as another four years of obama is unacceptable. i am leaning to herman cain or newt gingrich and i will not let the left wing media smears influence my decision.

Pro-Abortion candidate will NEVER get my vote. You would have better luck convincing me not to vote at all. A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything...I am not that person.

[Guest]

I'm with you 100%, chachacha.

[Guest]

katz, i appreciate your devotion to this cause, but it is one cause among many. i have worked for pro-life years before it became a popular cause...but i ask you to consider your vote as an anti-obama vote, and place it where it has the chance to do most good...every vote will count...we cannot be splintered. we must ALL stand together or fall apart.

[Guest]

katz, i appreciate your devotion to this cause, but it is one cause among many. i have worked for pro-life years before it became a popular cause...but i ask you to consider your vote as an anti-obama vote, and place it where it has the chance to do most good...every vote will count...we cannot be splintered. we must ALL stand together or fall apart.

Pro-Life is not one cause among many. Please tell me what cause is more important, or even equal to, fighting for the lives of innocent human beings? Food? Shelter? Money? Success? Security?...Abortion is THE root cause of our nation's demise.
Send 90% of your army home til you are down to 3000, then only take those who lap their water like a dog. You will now be down to 300 to fight your fight. OR circle the opposition for seven days just singing songs, until the seventh day. On that day give a mighty shout of VICTORY. OR...well, chachacha, I am sure you can take it from here.

[Guest]

katz, i appreciate your devotion to this cause, but it is one cause among many. i have worked for pro-life years before it became a popular cause...but i ask you to consider your vote as an anti-obama vote, and place it where it has the chance to do most good...every vote will count...we cannot be splintered. we must ALL stand together or fall apart.

I have to agree. Not casting a ballot against Obama is the same for casting one for him.

[Guest]

no, i think V11 is just worried that maybe only romney can win the independents, which i don't think is true....that is what the media would like us to believe...katz, i usually agree with you but if we vote for a third party candidate, we will surely give obama the win! i don't think ron paul will do that as he knows how disruptive it will be...the only thing we can do is work very hard for our candidate of choice so that they win the primary fairly, but we must join together and support whichever person wins the primary, even if it is romney, as another four years of obama is unacceptable. i am leaning to herman cain or newt gingrich and i will not let the left wing media smears influence my decision.

katz, i appreciate your devotion to this cause, but it is one cause among many. i have worked for pro-life years before it became a popular cause...but i ask you to consider your vote as an anti-obama vote, and place it where it has the chance to do most good...every vote will count...we cannot be splintered. we must ALL stand together or fall apart.

I'm sorry Chachacha, but I can't buy into your assessment of V II's motivations in light of his previous lives on this forum, and his beliefs and his professed political affiliation then.

I do agree with you in the supporting of your favorite all the way up to "final elimination round", and then getting behind the candidate left standing in the general election.

If Ron Paul does indeed run as a third party candidate he should be run out of the Republican Party on a rail after being tarred and feathered. This would be a betrayal that could not be forgiven as it would "Ross Perot" the Republican candidate and give us four years of a militant lame-duck Obama. You think the past four years was an abomination? You wouldn't have seen anything yet.

[Guest]

Katz-- If you vote for a third party candidate you are essentially voting for Obama. Obama is pro-choice.

[Guest]

Katz-- If you vote for a third party candidate you are essentially voting for Obama. Obama is pro-choice.

I agree. Support or vote for any candidate that cannot win is a vote for Obama.

[Guest]

I'm thinking I'll ignore this thread as it's just a rehash of V II's well known promotion of Romney for unknown reasons other than "he must be the candidate", and his inexplicable hatred for Perry and his distain for all other Republicans.

I disagree with his premise and I'll leave it at that. (Oh, and I think his headline tells you more of his feelings than his post)

I don't hate Perry, I do feel sorry for him. He has no business in a big boys game and is constantly making a fool of himself. I wish you would stop your guessing who and what I am. It just does not play well with others and serves no useful purpose on this board. Please stay with topic and away from insults. No one cares what you think of me personally. Please keep a civil on topic conversation. :wave:

[Guest]

For those that are concerned with the well being of the country and not what I ate for breakfast:
I do think Romney would be our best hope in the upcoming election. Right now, the number one problem this country has is the economy and Romney could sure do a better job than Obama with that issue.

Obama is pro-choice, so not getting him out of office is not helping the un-born.

Take the right step to get a Republican in office and then go to work on changing issue by issue that is of concern to you.

Insinuating I am a Liberal and a Democrat because I support Romney is not going to help anything or anyone so give it a rest.

[Guest]

I cast my vote for Mc Cain in 08 instead of for Ron Paul for the very reasons that you are now using to persuade me to stick with the GOP candidate at all costs...I cannot cast a vote for Romney. Mr. Katz assures me that Romney won't be the candidate and says that I should "just relax on this one for now". Hope he is as right as he usually is.:ho:
He's telling me it will be Gingrich and Bachmann or Gingrich and Cain on the ballot. I'm telling him to get his own account on TOTV:p

[Guest]

I cast my vote for Mc Cain in 08 instead of for Ron Paul for the very reasons that you are now using to persuade me to stick with the GOP candidate at all costs...I cannot cast a vote for Romney. Mr. Katz assures me that Romney won't be the candidate and says that I should "just relax on this one for now". Hope he is as right as he usually is.:ho:
He's telling me it will be Gingrich and Bachmann or Gingrich and Cain on the ballot. I'm telling him to get his own account on TOTV:p

I could go for Gingrich and Cain and I think they could win. I do worry what his problem with women will cause, but he could come out with some soft serve response to change the subject back to important issues. YEA, Newt and Cain could win this.
:crap2:

[Guest]

how about taking your plea for yourself:

"I wish you would stop your guessing who and what I am. It just does not play well with others and serves no useful purpose on this board. Please stay with topic and away from insults. No one cares what you think of me personally. Please keep a civil on topic conversation."

And just change a word or two:

I wish you would stop your guessing who and what Perry is. It just does not play well with others and serves no useful purpose on this board. Please stay with topic and away from insults. No one cares what you think of Perry personally. Please keep a civil on topic conversation.

A just application of the same approach to different individuals....eh?

btk

[Guest]

how about taking your plea for yourself:

"I wish you would stop your guessing who and what I am. It just does not play well with others and serves no useful purpose on this board. Please stay with topic and away from insults. No one cares what you think of me personally. Please keep a civil on topic conversation."

And just change a word or two:

I wish you would stop your guessing who and what Perry is. It just does not play well with others and serves no useful purpose on this board. Please stay with topic and away from insults. No one cares what you think of Perry personally. Please keep a civil on topic conversation.

A just application of the same approach to different individuals....eh?

btk

Now this is the most confusing post to date. You could say that no one cares what anyone thinks about anyone else period. What is your point? Without members on here giving their opinions about political figures, there would be no one posting at all. You must have a positive, neutral or negative opinion or again, WHAT IS YOUR POINT.

Now to explain it to you what my point was:

I am a member of this forum that posts opinions. All of us are supposed to keep it non personal. That is what I am asking for. I will ask you also to give your opinions on political, but stop giving personal insults to me. I don't appreciate it and I am sure you would not like personal attacks either. Canyou imagine no one on this forum giving their negative opinions about Obama. Be reasonalbe.

Please lets keep on topic and drop the personal attacks.

[Guest]

Iowa's Republican Independent Women's Voice poll of Nov 11-13 indicates they want more than a candidate that will echo poll tested platitudes. They want a leader who will boldly propose reforming some of government's sacred cows. 77% polled want ObamaCare repealed. 28% put repeal at the top of the priority list while 93% make it among the top ten list of priorities. 82% say they will oppose any candidate that is willing to implement a state-level individual mandate requiring health insurance. As to Medicare, Medicaid,and social security 60% rejected the statement that these programs do not need to be restructured. As to the Occupy Wall Street issue polling revealed that the 99% worried more about a threat from Washington politicians ,insiders and unelected bureaucrats than the 1% wealthy Americans by 53% (WSJ 11/19-20)

In that same paper Peggy Noonan likened Obama as being a good salesman that knows little about his product. she was referring to Steve Jobs comments concerning CEO who turn their companies over to sales people from engineers, etc and hence products quickly become inferior. so rue so true of Obama as evidenced by our continual down turn.

We will have a Republican president come 2012

[Guest]

I think Romney is a candidate even democrats can vote for. I remember voting for him when he ran for senate, and he clearly stated he is pro-choice, pro-universal health care, pro-gay rights and pro-gun control. Just saying.

[Guest]

Iowa's Republican Independent Women's Voice poll of Nov 11-13 indicates they want more than a candidate that will echo poll tested platitudes. They want a leader who will boldly propose reforming some of government's sacred cows. 77% polled want ObamaCare repealed. 28% put repeal at the top of the priority list while 93% make it among the top ten list of priorities. 82% say they will oppose any candidate that is willing to implement a state-level individual mandate requiring health insurance. As to Medicare, Medicaid,and social security 60% rejected the statement that these programs do not need to be restructured. As to the Occupy Wall Street issue polling revealed that the 99% worried more about a threat from Washington politicians ,insiders and unelected bureaucrats than the 1% wealthy Americans by 53% (WSJ 11/19-20)

In that same paper Peggy Noonan likened Obama as being a good salesman that knows little about his product. she was referring to Steve Jobs comments concerning CEO who turn their companies over to sales people from engineers, etc and hence products quickly become inferior. so rue so true of Obama as evidenced by our continual down turn.

We will have a Republican president come 2012

Yes, I too want a leader who will make bold proposals to reform OR REPLACE some of government's sacred cows!!! Like the tax code......it is the source of most of our economic and healthcare finance problems. The whole darn tax code should be scrapped, not tweaked, and start over with a plan like Cain's or Perry's with no loopholes.

[Guest]

It is our goal to allow the passion and freedom to express your thoughts in political, but if it starts consuming too much time to moderate civility I'll just automatically close threads and restrict accounts. A particular user account was suspended today.

[Guest]

Herman Cain will get my vote in the primary. If Romney is the GOP candidate I will be voting for Ron Paul, who will then most certainly will run independently! :ho:

Spoken like a true Obama supporter.

[Guest]

Pro-Abortion candidate will NEVER get my vote. You would have better luck convincing me not to vote at all. A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything...I am not that person.

If one issue determines where your vote goes in a general election, you deserve and are seeking 4 more years of Obama.... if he stops at 4.

[Guest]

pro-life is not one cause among many. Please tell me what cause is more important, or even equal to, fighting for the lives of innocent human beings? Food? Shelter? Money? Success? Security?...abortion is the root cause of our nation's demise.
Send 90% of your army home til you are down to 3000, then only take those who lap their water like a dog. You will now be down to 300 to fight your fight. Or circle the opposition for seven days just singing songs, until the seventh day. On that day give a mighty shout of victory. Or...well, chachacha, i am sure you can take it from here.

freedom!!

[Guest]

This is the danger of voting on a one-topic ideology - the Rule of Unintended Consequences.

Remember, there are a lot of despots out there who are or were "pro-life". In addition, if memory serves, Sharia law bans abortion. Hitler banned abortion specifically so that more Aryans would be bred. In a not-so-radical example, Ireland historically banned abortion and there was quite an industry centered around cheap Ireland <-> UK travel so that women could get legal abortions. (I don't know if that's still true now that they are in the EU as the EU rules might preclude that)

I can think of other, more important issues. Like making it so abortion is *unecessary* - akin to the 'rising tide that lifts all ships". Look at WHY we have abortions and solve THOSE problems. I've said it before. Abortion is the symptom - not the disease.

[Guest]

I will not apologize for voting ONLY for PRO-LIFE candidate. Nor for Not casting a vote for any candidate with a pro-abortion history.
To call ourselves a FREE country is a LIE as long as the LIVES and therefore FREEDOMS of our unborn citizens are not DEFENDED!
As yet, no one has answered what is more important than the life of another...

[Guest]

I will not apologize for voting ONLY for PRO-LIFE candidate. Nor for Not casting a vote for any candidate with a pro-abortion history.
To call ourselves a FREE country is a LIE as long as the LIVES and therefore FREEDOMS of our unborn citizens are not DEFENDED!
As yet, no one has answered what is more important than the life of another...

Yes, someone did answer this. Their answer was FREEDOM. You don't like that answer. I know you won't like mine either. Freedom for half of the population of this country to make a choose about their bodies and their lives. And since the topic here is NOT abortion, this is the only thing I am going to post on it. Feel free to flame away.....which I am sure you will do anyway.

[Guest]

KP. do you know the difference between a Demcracy and and Representative Republic? If not go look up the thread on the defination.

[Guest]

This is the danger of voting on a one-topic ideology - the Rule of Unintended Consequences.

Remember, there are a lot of despots out there who are or were "pro-life". In addition, if memory serves, Sharia law bans abortion. Hitler banned abortion specifically so that more Aryans would be bred. In a not-so-radical example, Ireland historically banned abortion and there was quite an industry centered around cheap Ireland <-> UK travel so that women could get legal abortions. (I don't know if that's still true now that they are in the EU as the EU rules might preclude that)

I can think of other, more important issues. Like making it so abortion is *unecessary* - akin to the 'rising tide that lifts all ships". Look at WHY we have abortions and solve THOSE problems. I've said it before. Abortion is the symptom - not the disease.

Cut it out DJ. Mostly we have abortions in America because people are selfish. (and don't give me horror stories, because the cases are so infinitesimal to be almost non-existant)

[Guest]

KP. do you know the difference between a Demcracy and and Representative Republic? If not go look up the thread on the defination.

Didn't find the thread, but looked up via google the difference between the two.
Here is what I found:
DEMOCRACY:

A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.


REPUBLIC:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.


With this information, I am even more determined to vote pro-life to send a representative to uphold the Constitution and work to restore the Rights of LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS for all AMERICANS...apparently I'm a little dense today, what am I missing Figmo?

[Guest]

KP, I guess you added some editing to your post. Yes, there is a big difference between a REPUBLIC and a DEMOCRACY. Vote your pro-life candidate all you want. It will make no difference as in a REPUBLIC the individual is responsible for their own decisions. You really want to vote for the DEMOCRACY style government, because then if a MAJORITY of the population outlaws aboration you can get your way. Do you really want government in all aspects of your life. Also in a DEMOCRACY the government or a majority of the people control everything even if it goes against any thing you can believe in, such as LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

Just between you and me, I will work and vote for those that will follow the United States Consitution and keep this country a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

[Guest]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...."

Legal or not- abortion is not just for its victims?

[Guest]

Yes, someone did answer this. Their answer was FREEDOM. You don't like that answer. I know you won't like mine either. Freedom for half of the population of this country to make a choose about their bodies and their lives. And since the topic here is NOT abortion, this is the only thing I am going to post on it. Feel free to flame away.....which I am sure you will do anyway.

And such is the reason that evil can triumph throughout the ages...We can say "got my freedom! Sorry bout those unlucky aborted souls."

[Guest]

It was I who cried,

FREEDOM!!

I also happen to be anti-abortion.

I have no desire to impose my religious rules on others.

Be true to your GOD and let others be true to thiers. It is they and we who will answer his judgment.

It is interesting those fanitical pro-lifers seem to have no interest in the souls of others, just the bodies.

Vote Republican, any republican. Save the Nation.

[Guest]

It was I who cried,

FREEDOM!!

I also happen to be anti-abortion.

I have no desire to impose my religious rules on others.

Be true to your GOD and let others be true to thiers. It is they and we who will answer his judgment.

It is interesting those fanitical pro-lifers seem to have no interest in the souls of others, just the bodies.

Vote Republican, any republican. Save the Nation.


I understand...apparently you don't. Nor do you know what interest pro-lifers have in the souls of others...But thanks for the clarification.

[Guest]

I never hear pro-lifers say "Don't do it, it's a sin."

I hear them say things like don't do it or I'll shoot you.

Don't do it, it's murder.

I dont hear thim ask, Is the only option you have?

All I hear is My God is better than your God and he talks to me.

Katz, can you even think of one reason to accept abortion as an answer?

[Guest]

Personally, I would not say that President Obama is looking better every day - I would only say the Republicans have only found idiots so far to challenge the President. They will lose again.

Look at the field: Mitt Romney - been there, tried that, same old stuff.
Ron Paul - crazy as a bed bug. Michelle Bachman - makes a crazed bed bug seem almost normal. Rick Perry - Well, just another crazy bed bug - but a Texas bed bug! Santorum - who dat? Herman Cain - can't sexually a woman and expect votes - you lose, Herman, order another pizza. Newt Gingrich - an insider who has gathered more money for himself - and dumped a wife who had cancer and another who was not pretty enough. Loser, Newt!

[Guest]

I never hear pro-lifers say "Don't do it, it's a sin."

I hear them say things like don't do it or I'll shoot you.

Don't do it, it's murder.

I dont hear thim ask, Is the only option you have?

All I hear is My God is better than your God and he talks to me.

Katz, can you even think of one reason to accept abortion as an answer?

When I have present the prolife opinion via religious reasons, it is shot down as just religious opinion. I researched it from the scientific standpoint and found that life truly does begin at conception. You are right tho, abortion is a sin, and many pro-lifers speak this truth. There are many non-profit pregnancy centers in this country that speak this truth. These centers also provide options for mom, dad and the unborn. They also provide counseling for post abortion side effects.
Unfortunately, there are those who claim to be pro-life and yet they threaten and wave their guns...how can they think that is pro-life?
When is abortion the answer? I think never, but when it is for the life of the mother or result of rape, I would leave that decision between a woman, a man, and God. However, 99.9% of abortions today do not fit into either one of these categories.
It is a sin, but there is forgiveness. I have never found fault with anyone who has had an abortion. How could I, is their sin any worse than any of mine? Doubt it. However this particular sin has a fatal effect on another person and that person's parents may not know the truth of this issue. It is for this reason that I am so involved. We are called to defend the orphans and innocents of this world. But since sin is sin, I try to remember the words of Jesus-Forgive them for they know not what they do.
Does this answer your questions?

[Guest]

Katz, can you even think of one reason to accept abortion as an answer?

I would rather hear your reasons to accept in your heart and to bear the weight on your soul, the death of an innocent life.

[Guest]

I would rather hear your reasons to accept in your heart and to bear the weight on your soul, the death of an innocent life.

I cannot think of a reason but I will not judge. Others may have a good reason and they should answer to God, not man.

Who will you appoint to make the rules? The Christian, the Muslim, the Jew, the atheist? Who?

[Guest]

I cannot think of a reason but I will not judge. Others may have a good reason and they should answer to God, not man.

Who will you appoint to make the rules? The Christian, the Muslim, the Jew, the atheist? Who?

I'm pretty sure all your examples detest murder, if they're good people to begin with.

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure all your examples detest murder, if they're good people to begin with.

All detest murder but all embrace killing.

If life is eternal and the body is just the vessel for the soul, is it murder to burn down the house?

We can really get deep into this.

[Guest]

All detest murder but all embrace killing.

If life is eternal and the body is just the vessel for the soul, is it murder to burn down the house?

We can really get deep into this.

Deep? or just plain ridiculous???????

also...apparently you never were selected for jury duty. Someone has to make judgments on crimes that are committed. Without judgments, we are without parameters and consequences for actions that are taken that harm others. Pretty sure these are historically part of a civilized society.

[Guest]

Deep? or just plain ridiculous???????

So, what you believe is truth but what others believe is "just plain rediculars?"

Perhaps your true colors are showing?

[Guest]

Hardly...you posted that all detest murder and all embrace killing...what does that even mean? I don't see that as deep, I think it is a ridiculous statement.
Has nothing to do with my true colors, which is also a ridiculous statement. In fact, it is a very judgmental statement to come from one who claims that he/she will not judge.

[Guest]

Hardly...you posted that all detest murder and all embrace killing...what does that even mean? I don't see that as deep, I think it is a ridiculous statement.
Has nothing to do with my true colors, which is also a ridiculous statement. In fact, it is a very judgmental statement to come from one who claims that he/she will not judge.

They all have used war to settle disputes. Capital punishment has been and is justified by all. All gave killed in the name of thier God.

I misunderstood which part of my post you found resiculous.

[Guest]

How far would you go to defend your family and home and property?
How far to defend the life of your neighbor?

[Guest]

How far would you go to defend your family and home and property?
How far to defend the life of your neighbor?

As far as required. Killing if required.

You?

[Guest]

As far as required. Killing if required.

You?

I would do the same! I detest murder, but this does not mean that I "embrace" killing?

[Guest]

Cut it out DJ. Mostly we have abortions in America because people are selfish. (and don't give me horror stories, because the cases are so infinitesimal to be almost non-existant)

Define "selfish".

Now, I certainly would NOT argue that there aren't any of what you would call 'convenience' abortions. It happens. However, the vast majority of abortion happen in the first few weeks - this is why the 'viability' argument gets tossed around. And although I don't have the numbers, finances plays a HUGE role in it. One broken condom or a woman who gets sick and doesn't realize that antibiotics will nullify effects of The Pill for a time and you suddenly have someone going "I'm WHAT?"

But there's a discussion that doesn't seem to happen beyond the initial "'fer it, or a'gin it" shouting.

Let's say abortion is banned - and for the sake of argument let's ignore for a moment the resulting illegal aboritons that would happen. Let's also ignore the whole rape/incest/mother's-life argument for a moment.

So now you're forcing these pregnancies to term by rule of law.

The fact is a lot of people can't afford to properly care for these children (abortions are also disproportionate among minorities). What do you do at that point? If you're one of the conservatives who might have a "Can't Feed 'Em? Don't Breed 'Em!" bumper sticker on their car - what do you do at that point?

Do you provide public aid? Do you think adoption will solve the problem? If so, there are over 5,000 kids in the Greater Boston area that would disagree with you as they're waiting (they're just not the kind of babies that most adoptive parents want).

Do you take the kid away? If so, doesn't that go against the Conservative mantra of less government?

Again, abortion is the symptom - the 'disease' is unwanted pregnancies.

[Guest]

So, as I understand it, Katz and CMANN would kill someone to protect a valuable piece of property even if their life was not threatened. An unarmed burglar breaks into your home and takes Grandma's diamond ring she brought to the US in 1919. The burglar makes noise on the way out of the house; you hear him and grab the .44 Magnum pistol; spot the open jewelry box; see the burglar outside the house going to his car; you raise the .44 Magnum and cap a few rounds into him as he is entering his car.

Right or wrong?

[Guest]

So, as I understand it, Katz and CMANN would kill someone to protect a valuable piece of property even if their life was not threatened. An unarmed burglar breaks into your home and takes Grandma's diamond ring she brought to the US in 1919. The burglar makes noise on the way out of the house; you hear him and grab the .44 Magnum pistol; spot the open jewelry box; see the burglar outside the house going to his car; you raise the .44 Magnum and cap a few rounds into him as he is entering his car.

Right or wrong?

Buzzer goes off, you do not pass go, you do not collect $200, go directly to jail. Your life is not in danger therefore you have no right to take his life.

Now if he turns and points something at you, points whatever, and you think it is a firearm and you shoot him in the chest, pat on the back, community service ribbon, hero of the day award.

There is a thing called the "reasonable man rule." To be PC it should be called the "rreasonable person rule" so that we cover the ladies also. :angel: Now if you catch him coming into your house, after breaking a window or door down and cap "he's butt" then you most likely are in the clear, as again in the "reasonable man rule" you really didn't have any idea what his intentions were or are and he most certainly is not an invited guest.

Do some research on the 10 Commandments and the one that states:

"Thou shall not kill" is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew. The actual translation is:

"Thou shall not murder."

Really a big difference in meaning. It is a God given right to protect your life and those of your loved ones or neighbors from getting maimed or murdered. Therefore, if your life or your loved ones are not in danger and you "cap his a**" have fun living on the state dime for a few years.

[Guest]

So, as I understand it, Katz and CMANN would kill someone to protect a valuable piece of property even if their life was not threatened. An unarmed burglar breaks into your home and takes Grandma's diamond ring she brought to the US in 1919. The burglar makes noise on the way out of the house; you hear him and grab the .44 Magnum pistol; spot the open jewelry box; see the burglar outside the house going to his car; you raise the .44 Magnum and cap a few rounds into him as he is entering his car.

Right or wrong?

:popcorn:

Now I'm beginning to understand the problem within the GOP. They let the extremes dictate to the majority. I'm liking it! The Progressives try to do the same thing to the Dems, but occasionally common sense is victorious.

To my fringe GOP friends - stick to your ideals. Don't for a second think about compromise. Be right. You are all right. Right? Go down in flames.

Xavier

[Guest]

Glad you got the right answer, Figmo. See, all that government paid training paid off for you, didn't it?

[Guest]

are you forgetting it takes two to tango? or not!!

btk

[Guest]

How many does it take to foxtrot?

What do dance instructions have to do with shooting an unarmed burglar who is in the process of getting into his car after taking a family heirloom diamond?

[Guest]

Define "selfish".

Seriously, you need me to define this word.

1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

Does that answer your question?

[Guest]

So, as I understand it, Katz and CMANN would kill someone to protect a valuable piece of property even if their life was not threatened. An unarmed burglar breaks into your home and takes Grandma's diamond ring she brought to the US in 1919. The burglar makes noise on the way out of the house; you hear him and grab the .44 Magnum pistol; spot the open jewelry box; see the burglar outside the house going to his car; you raise the .44 Magnum and cap a few rounds into him as he is entering his car.

Right or wrong?

I guess that Figmo answered your post.

You presume a lot. Tell me, how does one know that a burglar is not armed?
Your scenario assumes that I also am a brain-dead idiot. Under the circumstances that you provide I would be acting on totally insufficient evidence. I have no idea whether the person outside my house is the same person that was in my house. Under such circumstances I would probably get his number and called the police after checking to see if I had in fact been burglarized.

Another thing that you have to take into consideration his attitude and training. I did not go off half cocked and it would never be my intent even when confronted by an armed intruder to kill said the intruder. That would be murder. Intent being the controlling factor. If I were forced to shoot him and he died his death would not have been my intent just his fate or God's failure to intervene.

[Guest]

What a pool of under qualified REP candidates we have.

What were Obama's qualifications again?

[Guest]

According to the White House it has concluded that Obama cannot run on his record, he will have to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and 40% on the economy, the President cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General election Average (43.8-43.%) Voters disapprove of Obama's performance 49-41% and 63% disapprove of his handling of the economy.

WSJ "The Hillary Moment" page A17 Nov21 authored by Patrick Caddell pollster for Jimmy Carter and Doug Schoen pollster for Bill clinton

[Guest]

A couple of pertinent poiints:

1. It does not matter what qualifications Obama had in 2008 - he won! The motley group of Republicans have no qualifications - and they will lose again!

2. Someone said the Democrats will have to run the most negative campaign in history in 2012. Somehow, I am betting that the G'Nopers are goiing to run an extremely negative campaign. The G'Noper campaign will be filled with vague half-truths, Big Lies, and all the other propaganda techniques they can muster.

[Guest]

No need to tell any lies about our Current President. He has done enough lying no one will need to help him out on anythng.