AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

In the previous post, I stated a fact. The imbecilic Cicerone Impostor stated(as usual, he gave no evidence)that 50% of the people of the world are ALREADY STARVING. Because he is a senile, he does not realize that 50% of the world's population would equal

0 Replies

over Three Billion people. The UN places the number of people who are starving at a billion. Studies show that the largest number of people who are starving are in Africa. THIS IS NOT BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH FOOD IS AVAILABLE BUT BECAUSE TIP POT DICTATORS STEAL THE FOOD WHICH ARRIVES FROM OTHER COUNTRIES AND GANGS IN AFRICA, MOST OF WHICH IS LAWLESS, PREVENT DISTRIBUTION.

0 Replies

James Morrison wrote:

Ican wroteQuote:
:"Obama is stealing money and property from those people and organizations that lawfully earned them, and giving that money and property to those who have not lawfully earned them."

Obama has set precedent as Re this nation now being a nation of men and not laws in his short tenure as chief executive. The Chrysler "Bankruptcy"/ UAW Bailout broke the Federal Bankruptcy laws that have stood for many years. Bond Holders, who are considered secured creditors and come first when payments are doled out only received 30 cents on the dollar. This as opposed to the UAW who are merely "junior creditors" who received 50 cents on the dollar.

Those retirees who gave Chrysler $10,000 by buying a bond for retirement income got $3,000 back. The UAW, who's only claim to $10,000 was just that, an agreement they had with the company, and did not give any money to it ,got $5,000. By Law the bond holder retirees should have received all their money back before any other funds received a dime. We see this again and again in the administration. From Proposed mortgage cram downs to Obama's efforts to dictate credit terms Re credit card companys under the guise of empathy for dead beats.

Wait a minute! Isn't this how we got here in the first place? From the Fed's easy money supply, and politicizing of lending practices via the CRA right through the debacle that was (and still is) the Chris and Barney show (where they joyfully "rolled the dice" with Taxpayer money) brought to you by the generous lobbying from the two FM's.
**************************************

Debra L A W did not answer. Was not able to answer?

0 Replies

Joe from Chicago wrote:

Re: JTT (Post 3651376)
JTT wrote:

okie wrote:
Yes, laws discriminate. What a surprise. If I want to fish in another state, it costs me more than if I am a resident, one of thousands of examples.

If you think about what you've written...
*********************************************************
jOE FROM CHICAGO WROTE:
Stop! Stop right there! I think we've identified the flaw in your reasoning.
*************************************************

Joe is confused. He is having trouble getting even the 20 dollar cases from 26th and California and has deteriorated to the point where he follows Emil Jones to pick up his half smoked cigars. Poor Joe!!!

0 Replies

I am passionately pro life, but know that there is very real medical need for abortion at times and I would not want all abortion for any reason outlawed. If the policy was to follow the intent of Roe v Wade rather than how the courts have corrupted it, I would see that as reasonable.

But the argument that a child could possibly be hungry at some point in his/her life so let's kill it is perhaps the most heartless argument I can imagine for justifying abortion.

1 Reply

Debra L A W probably failed law school. She appears to be ignorant about key evidence. Anyone who does not know the sources for key evidence is a failure in law school.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But the argument that a child could possibly be hungry at some point in his/her life so let's kill it is perhaps the most heartless argument I can imagine for justifying abortion.

*****************************************************************

If one were able to go to the Nzai Concentration Camps in World War II or to Joseph Stalin's Gulags, one might ask the inmates a question- Would you like to kill yourself because you are hungry?

How many affirmative answers would one get?

0 Replies

Ican wrote:

Yes, let every pair who wants to go the civil union route, do that.

Let every male and female pair who wants to go the civil union route and the marriage route, do that.

Let every male and female pair who wants to go only the marriage route, do that.

Let every pair who wants to go neither the civil union route or the marriage route, do that.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I am passionately pro life, but know that there is very real medical need for abortion at times and I would not want all abortion for any reason outlawed.

good. we have to take circumstances into account on most things.

But the argument that a child could possibly be hungry at some point in his/her life so let's kill it is perhaps the most heartless argument I can imagine for justifying abortion.

again we have circumstances. as adults, we have the advantage of empirical knowledge as to what and what is not probable. if we're honest with ourselves, we all know that the probability of a dignified life of quality can be foreseen, if only at a glimpse, by the circumstances a full term fetus would be born into.

1 Reply

Don't tread on me wrote:

again we have circumstances. as adults, we have the advantage of empirical knowledge as to what and what is not probable. if we're honest with ourselves, we all know that the probability of a dignified life of quality can be foreseen, if only at a glimpse, by the circumstances a full term fetus would be born into.

************************************************************
Don't Tread on me's analysis is completely inaccurate--

There will millions of children born during the depression in conditions that make even the poorest homes today look quite good.

The large majority of those depression babies worked hard, prospered, and defending our country in World War II.

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

Foxie, Would you bring to full term a two-headed fetus?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Foxie, would you bring to full term an infant Genoves (aka Brandon)?

2 Replies

@Advocate,

I don't presume the authority to decide who lives and who dies, Advocate. I would have brought you to full term.

So far as the unwanted children of the world, the kindest thing to do is to kill them? Why is not the kindest thing to do to teach adults personal responsibility and to accept the consequences for their choices and behavior? Why is it unreasonable to teach adults how babies are started and to expect them to exercise restraint if they don't wish to start one, but to accept that they are responsible for another human being if they do? I was conceived during the depression when my mother had no idea how she would feed another baby and certainly did not want another at that time. I am infinitely grateful that she worked it out.

My own two kids were conceived despite the use of contraceptives--neither was planned and both were intensely inconvenient and detrimental to our financial well being as my wages were needed and that was a time when pregnant women were frequently not allowed to work. But we worked it out and I can't imagine my life without them now.

There has to be a more humane and just system than killing millions of people because they are inconvenient or unwanted.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

There has to be a more humane and just system than killing millions of people because they are inconvenient or unwanted.

First, a fetus which can't live on its own isn't a person.

Second, why does there have to be a better system? Asserting that there does doesn't make it true.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

And that is the eternal debate. At what point does a person become a person? The moment s/he is clear of the womb? A minute before? A day before? A week before? How far do you go back when WHAM, a person is not a person? Some can reasonably say that a person is a person when life begins at conception. Some when the pregnancy has occurred. Others when there are brainwaves or a heartbeat. Some when the fetus is viable. This is an eternal debate that won't be resolved in our lifetime. But I am a person as are you. And an abortion would have killed us at any stage along the way.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And that is the eternal debate. At what point does a person become a person? The moment s/he is clear of the womb? A minute before? A day before? A week before? How far do you go back when WHAM, a person is not a person? Some can reasonably say that a person is a person when life begins at conception. Some when the pregnancy has occurred. Others when there are brainwaves or a heartbeat. Some when the fetus is viable. This is an eternal debate that won't be resolved in our lifetime. But I am a person as are you. And an abortion would have killed us at any stage along the way.

You wouldn't have cared if it did, because you never would have existed. As a fetus, you weren't a person; you had no personality or persona. You existed, but only as an extension of your host; not as a separate entity.

I believe personality is determined by factors which do not exist until a person can survive without being attached to another person's body. Until then they are basically an appendage of the original organism and shouldn't be considered a separate one. This is why I support abortion up until the point of viability.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

And it can be reasonably argued that you were viable at conception because you are here.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And it can be reasonably argued that you were viable at conception because you are here.

Only if you don't know what the word 'viable' means. Or much about winning arguments. What you wrote does not contradict what I wrote.

Quote:

viable - 6 dictionary results
Viable
vi⋅a⋅ble
/ˈvaɪəbəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vahy-uh-buhl] Show IPA
"adjective
1. capable of living.
2. Physiology.
a. physically fitted to live.
b. (of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Okay Cyclop. I accept that you don't exist and are a figment of somebody's imagination. Or perhaps you are the product of an alien abduction or created fully formed as a viable fetus in some laboratory. If that works for you, why should I care?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay Cyclop. I accept that you don't exist and are a figment of somebody's imagination. If that works for you, why should I care?

What is the matter with you today?

You didn't exist as a person until you existed on your own, without someone else's body providing constant support for your own. Or at the very least until you were capable of doing so. Both you and I have been born; ergo, we became people. Once again, your post neither contradicts mine nor directly addresses what we were talking about.

Why is it necessary for you to forward such dumb arguments as this last post, when you are shown to be incorrect? Are you really incapable of understanding what I wrote? Or is it just that you are lacking a cogent response which supports your position?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know