General Chat / Obama Elected President

A) Because, on abortion, a life it at stake. To keep this game up, would say it is up to a child's own (here it comes) MOTHERFUCKING PARENTS (now that I think of it, this is a halfway accurate comment) if they suddenly wanted to Fucking Kill™ their son or daughter? That was a somewhat good argument, coming from you, at least, however.
I agree on not being a stupid fucking treehugging hippee dipshit fuckward neo-pagan Earth-worshipper (essentially).
C) The only thing I can think of offhand is cows, because then we couldn't eat steak anymore.

A) Well if they have the child and put him up for adoption, then that's contributing to the overpopulation problem here. I think that the parents should have the choice of what to do with a non-living 'fetus'. If they want to abort, though, they should make the decision before it becomes a fetus, as that is essentially when it becomes living. If they wait that long to decide about an abortion, they might as well just have the baby and decide what to do with it afterwards. My views are a mixture of pro-life and pro-choice. And "coming from you, at least"? The fuck does that mean? So does the fact that I choose not to try to make myself seem smart to people who I'll never meet make me automatically unintelligent?

I agree that environmental extremists are a bit ridiculous, however, my arguement was that we can't just carelessly destroy are environment and other creatures living in the environment because of overpopulation, when we could just as easily (and to a better effect) control our population. Whether or not we are treehugging extremists or not, we should at least try to take care of our environment and the life dispersed throughout it.

C) There's PLENTY of other examples. Just think about it for awhile.

Ugh guys just quit with the whole abortion thing you're not going to win. It's impossible to get through to someone as dense as Kevin.

To respond to Kevin's question when I think abortion is acceptable, I think it is okay through the first trimester and unacceptable after the first trimester. A pretty arbitrary point, but I think that is roughly the threshold of when the embryo becomes a fetus. Look, I am not in favor of suggesting we all get abortions every time we get pregnant. I am a strong advocate of sex education and free contraceptives to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Honestly, how does it help the situation if you want to cut all sex education, deny the use of contraceptives as immoral, and such? Oh wait, I think we knows what happens. Bristol Palin. Oh sorry, I'm supposed to keep her out of this. But I figured since her mother flouts her like her greatest political achievement... Yeah, I'm glad your daughter made 'the right choice.' Too bad that if we elect you, none of us have such a choice anymore.

Xin, you are a little confused? If I remember correctly, Jefferson opposed the ratification of the Constitution because it lacked the Bill of Rights. The compromise was that the Bill of Rights would be passed as the first amendments to the Constitution. Jefferson proceeded to interpret the Constitution very strictly. He felt that once the document had been introduced, especially in the first few years, it was imperative to the integrity of the Constitution to uphold to its word. (Interesting considering the modern partisan angle of interpretation of the Constitution is Republicans=Strict, Democrats=Loose, and of course Jefferson was a founder of the Democratic Party) But let me defend loose interpretation here; Jefferson was concerned with strict interpretation to prove the legitimacy of the document and the nation. Jefferson, for example, would have approved of the abolition of slavery, which by strict interpretation, the Constitution would not permit. Really, overly strict interpretation of the Constitution in the modern day is a bit backwards.

i reiterate, postit for president

deleted

You people really need to discern between a Protestant and a Catholic.

They're both fanatical organizations that blindly worship an imaginary figure. So... I don't see much of a difference.

Getting back to the Jefferson argument made by postit, everything mentioned there is true. It was also opposed by anti-federalists because there was no mention of God (which was a good idea). The Declaration mentioned God, the Articles mentioned God, but the Constitution did not. But when you stop and think about it, you'd figure that Jefferson would be all for the Constitution, seeing as he wrote the Declaration. That was all I was getting at.

bwahahhahhahaha

good stuff guyz!

Kevin, yer a laugh a minute, I just love it when people base how they feel(and THINK apparently) other people should act on some imaginary figure that tells them to do so illogically when the context is modern.

ON TOPIC:

Obama gives me the creeps, has strange connections, and seems to be trying VERY HARD to do and say anything people want to hear to become president. McCain wants to do some really stupid things (wall on US-mex border that will cost billions of dollars and not even remotely deter illegal immigration? Increasing presence in iraq but not mentioning the need to deal with palestine and iran or cutting ties to saudi arabia?), and he just seems to be illogical in a lot of ways, making the idea of him running my country scary as hell.

They're both fanatical organizations that blindly worship an imaginary figure. So... I don't see much of a difference.

deleted

Fuck you and the bullshit links you ride in on.

Obama gives me the creeps, has strange connections, and seems to be trying VERY HARD to do and say anything people want to hear to become president.

Actually that's exactly what McCain is doing. He's making shit up and pandering to anyone and everyone he can to get the vote.

Doesn't really matter, he's going to win anyway.

I just hit my head on my desk.

Because surely if there is a single possibly illiogical aspect of what athiests think, then every single thing the Christians say must be right!!1

There is so much more in the bible, etc that could be considered illogical. All science tries to do is provide an explanation for events, its not trying to force beliefs down anyones throat. Its much more logical in my opinion to admit you dont know everything for sure, but at least attempt to figure it out, instead of blindly accepting every bit of information you hear because you heard it in church.

Im not even saying a god of some form doesnt exist, there could be some sort of figure(s) in other dimensions that can see what we do, our thoughts, etc for all I know. Im just saying that the major monotheistic religions that were created thousands of years ago or more could have no idea how, if it exists, this figure works. And its completely ridiculous for them to attempt to explain how it does and say they are right, and even more ridiculous for people to believe them.

does anyone else notice how the McCain campaign is stealing virtually every successful line from the Obama campaign? i just heard yet another one tonight. "that's not change, that's more of the same"

Semantics are fun, aren't they?

deleted

C) No it's good to believe the Bible. Why is it so hard to believe this "some form of God" as you call it is benevolent?
Yes.

Why do you prefer the bible over other older or younger books like the quran for example? What makes the bible special. Nothing. Just the fact, that your parents told you as a kid, that it's true.
The fact alone that there are so many religions on earth (while most of them claim to be true) would make me think twice why mine should be the best...

Tiger Woods can walk on water.


Does that mean Tiger Woods is Jesus?

Yes. A lot of the Bible is not explained by scientific facts, and nor is atheistic belives. The difference is atheists pretend to be scientific whereas Christianity introduces true truth, namely, God.

No, no. They are scientific. If you want to debate whether or not science is pretend, that's a completely different story.

The rest of that statement is opinion, redundant, and an all-around shitty argument.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just asking for all of you to stop being so fucking arrogant.

To get back on topic, I think it's funny all McCain can do is take Obama's energy plan and misinterpret it.
"Obama says no to offshore drilling! He wants to raise energy prices!"

I like that one.