General Chat / Obama

The wryness of MA's comment is that I have a bizarre obsession with names, and my own name in particular, so EVERYBODY knows it, so it's not surprise. You're just out of the loop; I dobut retarded.
Kevin Enns Ist Krieg

Actually, I was just referencing the fact that your screen name is your name... But feel free to keep talking about great I am.

deleted

Midnight Aurora is really great.

Kevin, you seem to use the word 'fuck', a lot. Though childhood? Or do you just like to watch Gordon Ramsay?

I dobut retarded.

Edited by tracidEdge, 10 February 2009 - 01:59 AM.

deleted

^He's no infanticidal. A fetus is not an infant.

deleted

show me proof that Obama advocates killing babies that have already been born.

also, if you say a zygote is an infant human, then using the same logic you could make an argument that when people masturbate, they are killing their children.

Hey, I'm pro-life, but a zygote is NOT an infant. An infant is a BORN baby.



OK, I'm so fucking tired of people who think they know all about a political race but don't watch the debates, where you can actually see the candidates attack eachother/defend themselves.

If you're saying Barack supports partial birth abortions then I'll say Johnny hated the world and wanted to use up every bit of oil on earth without replacing any of it. Voting records don't express views. The reason Obama voted against the bill banning PBAs in Illinois was that they are ALREADY BANNED IN ILLINOIS. The whole bill was a hoax.

They never caught Jack the Ripper.

^Wow... Thank you for alleviating my nerves. As an Obama supporter, I feel that Kevin isn't correct in that Obama is a serial killer. Now, I would feel just as mad if McCain was insulted about abortion, but lets not bring my politics into this. Let's just say I'm a pro-choicer who'd rather not get into yet another abortion argument. I'm gonna leave it at that.

Oh, and X, thanks for that comment. It had a subtle brilliance.

EDIT: Wow. I'm suprised I actually commented in one of these political topics. Good job Kevin. You're expanding my horizons...

Edited by robbie92, 10 February 2009 - 08:55 PM.

Kevin, what exactly is the difference from abstinence and early abortion? Im sure as a Christian you believe in abstinence. But doesn't it stop innocent theoretical babies from enjoying happy lives? All a zygote is is a small clump of cells. An embryo isnt much more. And with the argument that abortions prevent a life from happening, then we should all be out making babies 24/7. Since theres so much room for more people in this world anyway.

deleted

A) Yes it is.
Even if it were not, which it is, Obama advocates killing off babies who have been born alive. That's superfluous though, as even a fuckin ZYGOTE is an infant human being, and Obama is a psychopathic infanticidal serial killer who belongs in a state penitentiary doing a life of hard time or better yet on death row with the other people like him like Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy*, Fred West, John George Haigh, and others, and Obama is also a devastating "man" who is Satan spawned to murder as many infants as possible to a degree not seen since Herod's infanticidal mania back in the days of the Birth of Jesus Christ, who Obama lies and claims to follow, as no Christian could support ruthless, coldblooded, unprovoked, nondefensive murder.

*Indeed, if anything, Bundy is MORE moral than Obama, as he became a Christian before death and talked againts porn.
Kevin Enns Ist Krieg

Well, shit. There's the Kevin Enns I know and love. All I had to do is ask...

You don't think your argument is the least bit outrageous? I understand what you're saying; You think abortion is murder. Got it. But how many people, infants, or otherwise has Obama actually killed personally? None. I assume you're just saying that his vote not to make it illegal makes him an accesory to murder.

But by that logic, so are gun salesmen. And car dealers are acessories to vehicular homicide and DUIs. Those door-to-door knife salesmen are responsible for stabbings. It's a pretty outlandish argument.


As far as your morality comment... There's more to morality than stance on murder and the belief in Christianity. You lack cultural perspective, as well as a logical basis of an argument.

Gwazi: http://www.humaneven...le.php?id=18647, for instance, I thought everyone knew about that.

From the cited article: "Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die..."

Seriously? I don't think this could be any more slanted. Intact extraction (commonly called partial birth abortion for added effect) children aren't "left to die". They are effectively terminated. More over, she phrases this comment to seem as if full-term children are dropped out and left on the floor to starve to death. Only 1.4% of abortions are done in terms longer than 5 months, and it works out to .17% of all abortions done in the US yearly. So that's 2000-3000 of these things done yearly... How likely is it that this chick has seen more than one of these performed? Obama was right to dismiss this chick, she's full of shit. (I'm using wikipedia as my source.)

What the article presents is that Obama is pro-choice. Which does not translate to Pro-Death. Thank you, incredibly biased article, I already knew that. The voting history it presents simply shows his commitment to that position of pro-choice, and his answers to the woman's questions show this, too.

Dr. Dude: Okay, that makes sense. So, let's consider a partial birth abortion. Movin 8 in down the birth canal turns the fetus into a baby? Or is it earlier? How can you draw a line? I have prove Obama wanted partial birth abortions, you're opinion of McCain is based on guesswork. Whether or not they are banned is irrelevant, polticians like to change things. Obama, of all people, should realize that.

You have proof that Obama supports the right for women to choose partial birth abortions as a means of termination. What you're doing is drawing false conclusions, and I'd appreciate if you'd have more respect for us than to fill in the blanks for us on subjective subjects.

Whether or not they were already banned is completely relevant. Why would we waste time and money enacting another bill for the same purpose? There's more than one reason to vote for and against a bill, and this example shows that quite perfectly. Again, you're drawing false-conclusions.

Dave: Good point, and they'll probably never "catch" Obama in the sense that even most pro-life people don't even think of him on the same level as Jack the Ripper (oddly, of all the serial killers, he is the most like Obama, due to his penchant for dismemberment and other atrocities that belong in books, movies, video games, music and not real life, and he also never got caught, much like Obama probably won't, so you're analogy extension is cool).

wtf? Where's your source, dude? You've only shown me that he's pro-choice, not in favour of mutilation. If you have evidence of a bill he passed suggesting children should be aborted, I'd be happy to eat my words.

Cameron: Yes, I believe in absitence, I also pratice what I believe in, I believe in total absitence, not even bjs and suchlike.

I'm sure you don't have to turn them down very often. ZING!

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Maybe, but a theoretical baby differs from a flesh and blood baby in one key way: It doesn't exist, and can not feel tremendous pain. I don't care. If I hear "clump of cells" again, I'm going to say, "Fuck, these babykillers and their subtle terminology," to myself in my head. Life begins when the sperm fertilies the egg, so that's what? two cells? (the biggest and the smallest, incidentally). I'm not a Catholic, so I don't believe every sperm is sacred (at least that's the impression I get from that one Monty Python movie), life begins at conception. This believe is not even rooted so much in my Christianity as in human decency, like if I were an atheist, I would join Atheists For Life in 0.00000000000000000000000001 seconds. And do NOT get me started on how much room there is. The Bilderbergers and that whole crowd want you to think there isn't much room, as a much smaller population is that much easier to subject to domination.
Kevin Enns Ist Krieg

Er... I don't have anything to really say to any of that, but any effectiveness of your arguments gets lost when you start doing that stream of consciousness thing where you start talking about anything that bothers you...

I will say, though, that drawing conclusions about something from a Monty Python skit is further evidence of your tendency to see conclusions where ever you want to see them.

deleted

Kevin abortion is evil and also completely necessary.

Fair enough, but your forgetting one thing: Obama wants your childred dead, mutilated, and flushed into the sewers of the city. Johnny Gun Salesman doesn't that, Obama is actively trying to increase murder. Allow me to elaborate: Guns, in and of themselves, do not kill people, nor do knives, cars, alcohol, tobacco or firearms &c. Therefore the properitors of the above are not and can not logically be held responsible for PEOPLE fucking around with the above. Abortion, on the other hand, is murder, in and of itself. If you allow guns, no one gets murdered by defintion. If you allow abortion, children get murdered, by defintion. I hope you see where I'm coming from. And Obama may not have actually performed an abortion, but is like someone paying a hitman, or someone holding down a victim, or something. As far as I am concerned, he, and a lot of other people, are guilty of first degree murder.

As for the morality thing, that was just a personal opinion side note, not really an argument like the first part.

This is exactly what I just adressed...

Obama has never introduced a bill to make it necessary for parents to have an abortion, and until he does, you really can't assume that he wants your children dead. Certainly not if you're making that opinion from his voting record which indicates pro-choice.



A gun dealer makes guns available. You are free to choose when and if you are ever going to use it. If you choose to kill someone with it, then the gun dealer is not responsible

Obama makes abortion available. You are free to choose when and if you are ever going to use it. If you choose to kill someone with it, why would Obama be responsible? (If you want to get technical about it, he makes doctors available who perform abortions. Then your line about "abortion [being] murder in itself" is moot, because its akin to shooting.)

Let me just further muddy the water... The gun salesmen hates children and wants them all dead. He legally sells the gun to someone who is not expected or likely to shoot anyone, and this guy kills a kid with the gun. Is the dealer responsible now?

Your double standard is not making sense to me. Care to explain it further?

As for the morality thing, that was just a personal opinion side note, not really an argument like the first part.

I missed this gem on the first read and had to edit it in.

If you can't back up your opinion, then why the fuck would you share it? Wouldn't that just be considered making shit up? That concept of going with your gut, that Bush was so often criticized for? Stop spewing bullshit, dude.

Oh, by the way, is it true Obama's capping corporate salaries at $500k if they receive bailout money? Now, I am not going to call this socialist red communist bullshit nonsence, because its not quite. IF Obama simply made that the limit for all CEOs or whatever, that would be an outrage beyond almost anything I have ever seen. BUT he is only doing to people who accept his money. Fair enough: It's a tradeoff, it's like if I borrowed money from you, and you said, "Don't make more than 50k a year." I'd say, "That's really random," and I could accept or reject it. That would be capitalism at its beautiful job. The problem here is that money is going from the government to businesses in the first place, I'm radically and completely opposed to bailouts/corporate welfare/&c. Let it die is my motto, worst case scenario is we emerge 1 decade from now from the Second Depression (notice that before WWII we called WWI the Great War) and are stronger than ever, much like after GDI. So that's that. The problem is, aren't these guys making like $1 Billion a year?? That's like a 1/2000 of their salary now, they new $500k. That'd be like you making $5 a year!! Now, again, I am saying that in a private transaction, any mutually agreed on deals are okay, but its weird dealing with the gov't, but that's okay. I just doubt any CEO is so desperate for bailout money that they would drop their salary to 0.05% of its original value over it.

If it is true, it's in response to the corperations who recieved $billion bailouts, and then gave half of it away as bonuses or paid for their higher-ups to go to spas, and paid for their birthday parties. In that case, fuck em. They don't deserve to have any more than $500k. If they don't want to do that job for $500k, I'd be happy to take it off their hands, it's certainly more than I'm expecting to make next year. That's capitalism at work, sir.

But you are correct. They have a choice to take the money and all the attached strings, or not. There have been companies that have decided against a bailout because of this. It would just be a fucking shame if some greedy bastard let his company tank just for a higher salary.

Edited by Midnight Aurora, 10 February 2009 - 11:44 PM.

If any living thing thats made of cells can feel pain, doesn't that include bacteria, viruses, bugs, etc? Even animals? Its probably generally acceptable to kill a few bacteria (besides that the strongest bacteria remain and multiply) or viruses, in order to promote human health. The same could be said for a young zygote or embryo, not comparing it to bacteria, but saying that sometimes it may be a neccesary sacrifice for the well-being of a woman, or even the well being of a child. Its completely theoretical over whether an embryo feels pain when killed, but we will never know for sure. The same arguement could be used for criminals when their executed, or animals when their killed for food. I believe before you've said you eat meat and support the killing of animals, and pretty much all it is is for human enjoyment, and to a certain extent health. I'm not saying I am a vegitarian, just that your contradicting yourself by feeling so much empathy for embryos, but not so much for living animals, etc. Even if it is an issue of saving human life being of greater importance, which I dont necessarily agree with either, theres plenty other of ways to prevent human suffering and pain, helping those with illnesses and cancer, those starving in poor countries, and preventing murder of fellow humans (whether its by guns, knives, bombs, etc.). Once we take care of all these problems maybe we can look into ways of reducing suffering of unborn embryos.

And I dont think its an issue of space as much as resources. Theres plenty of room for more people in Greenland, Siberia, and the Sahara, but none of these places can support agriculture at the moment or have other resources such as fresh water necessary for survival. it may be easy to believe we have unlimited resources living in a country thats well off, but the issues would seem a lot more real in a third-world country.

By the way, if you insist on calling me by a real name, its Connor, not Cameron. But since you dont actually know me, you should probably stick with Camcorder22.