Looks like you want to keep arguing on a subject that's old and done with
Posted By: me on 2008-08-26
In Reply to: WARNNG...ANOTHER ABORTION POST....DON'T READ IF IT BOTHERS YOU. - sam
We don't need to keep going over issues on abortion. We all know what abortion is. I started reading your post and didn't know if you were trying to give us a medical course on "what to expect when your expecting" or if you were preaching to us from a religious standpoint. This issue was discussed and debated and argued over extensively below. It looks like you were'nt satisfied and want to argue some more - and from what it sounds like from others this has just bored all of us to sleep. I thought the political board was for political discussions, not pregnancy lessons or religious beliefs about when a fetus actually becomes a human being.
Move on...too many other topics to discuss. BTW, no need to shout at us with your headline.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Arguing with a know-it-all...nm
!
I believe she's arguing for something .....
xx
No use arguing. You have your
opinion and I have mine. Sorry but I heard it directly from McCain's own mouth that he would stay in Iraq 100 years if that's what it took? If that's what it took for what? The region has never been "stable" and it isn't going to be stable now. The people don't want us there. If they want freedom let them fight for it themselves. Read much about the American Revolution lately? This war was and is about oil. Wasn't Bush cronies with Sadam? As well as Cheney? Maybe even McCain?
No use arguing
we've been over this about 100 times and I'm not even going to waste my time.
I'm done arguing with you.
If you cannot see the massive difference between the RELIGION of Islam and the FAITH of Christianity, well then we don't even have a basis for discussion.
I pointed out that they are anti-gay to point out the fact that instead of FORGIVENESS, which the ONE TRUE GOD gives, they offer death. Where Jesus came to sacrifice Himself for atonement for us (who didn't deserve it), Muslims must work their entire lives to try to appease Allah by works alone. Where Jesus commanded us to love our enemies, Allah commands Muslims to kill theirs. Where our God tells us "thou shalt not lie" Allah tells Muslims it's okay to lie in order to further their religion.
That's just the beginning. I could go all night.
Oh one more thing. The founder of Islam's bones can still be found to this day. The founder of Christianity's bones cannot be found. Why? He was resurrected. No other religion even claims the resurrection of their god or founder. Why? Because their god, gods or founder cannot conquer death. If their god cannot conquer death, then how can he/she/them/it offer anything after this life to them?
It is not hypocritical to proclaim truth. Truth is not relative, as most postmodernist want to claim. The statement "truth is relative" in itself destroys the statement, for if truth is relative, then that means that statement cannot actually be true all the time, which means truth is not always relative. So the cop-out saying "what's true for you isn't true for me" is also a fallacy.
I don't understand you or those in line with you. If I only agreed with half the Bible, or changed it to be more politically correct, you all would point out that I am not a devoted Christian. But if I follow the Bible completely (at least try to) then I am close-minded, hypocritical, etc. It's d@mned if I do, d@mned if I don't. God commands Christian's to fight for what is TRUTH and to hold His Word above even the law of the land. We are told to go and tell, not to keep our faith to ourselves. We do as we are commanded and get bashed for it. But that's okay, because we were already told that would happen.
The only reason the USA has been such a great nation is because God was behind it. It USED to be a Christian nation. But I believe God is getting pretty fed up with the nation as a whole and will soon remove His protection from it, if He hasn't already. Our nation has become so arrogant as to believe that God is not involved or needed here, so I believe, being the gentleman He is, that He has stepped out, and that's why everywhere you look we are having problems and we are quickly going down the tubes.
That's all I can say on the subject. You obviously already have your mind made up about what Christianity is, so there is no use trying to discuss it any further.
No point in arguing with you though. So your
I suppose your comments will not bother me if I do not try to argue/respond, so I no longer will. Easy solution. It's not that I don't think you have some relatively reasonable views on providing health care to kids, you just aren't willing to have your taxes raised to provide that care, and that is your personal feeling. I could come up with some great solutions too, but the fact is that you and I are not a part of Congress, and any hypothetical solutions we come up with are going to do nothing to cover the families that could benefit from the S-SCHIP right now, which is when these families need help - right now. I will gladly support any bill that is designed to ease medical costs for any family. I will gladly have my taxes raised if it means children and families making middle-income wages suffer less.
So you can respond to this if you want, but I will no longer respond to any of your posts.
Sam is officially arguing with herself.
nm
I wasn't arguing!
All I was saying to Stardust was that Obama has said the same thing Mccain has. She is the one who said that we needed to "check our facts" before saying something about Obama because Mccain had said that he was going to be president. I was just pointing out and providing proof that Obama has said the same thing on multiple occasions, meaning I was pointing out that there IS NO ARGUMENT on this issue because BOTH CANDIDATES have said "WHEN I AM PRESIDENT" or something along those lines.
If I didn't like arguing with you...(sm)
I wouldn't have responded...ROFL. I enjoy engaging you, and several others on here (most with opposite views from mine -- go figure) as the conversation is always stimulating and thought provoking. Yeah, we need to have this discussion on the faith board....LOL.
There is no arguing with that kind of logic.
Alex Jones is not a physicist or a structuralist, I presume. The people who built the WTC explained how the extreme heat from the jet fuel caused the buildings to topple. There is no use arguing this with you. You have chosen to believe it and there you have it.
I'm really not interested in arguing the point...sm
Of who is worst because you are right they all were wrong. I just don't understand why when someone does something wrong people expect you to not say anything about it because *others* have committed similar crimes in the past and got away with it. And??
I understand being upset about Studd and even Clinton if you feel that strongly about it, but don't expect business as usual when a scandal like this hits the fan. People are going to talk about it. 23 years ago when Studd was having his affair I was in grade school so excuse me for first not knowing what you were talking about (until I researched it) and second not seeing the relevance of it in the case of Foley. I'm sure there was outrage for what Studd did too. Now upon learning about Studd and his (I can't say that here), I even said I do not know how or why the people continued to vote him in and yeah he should have had the decency to step down. Sorry you think I'm being partisan - NO far from it. I am always disgusted with people who prey on children, birth to the day before they turn 18, sexually.
Oh and don't expect me or anyone else to think Foley is some stand up type of guy because he stepped down AFTER GETTING CAUGHT, mind you. Had he not been caught he would still be IM'ing children.
Yeah Clinton was wrong for lying under oath. He should have told the truth and apologized *to his wife*. It's not like it is illegal to have an extramarital affair.
Like you said, they are all morally wrong, but I tend to be more disgusted with child predators. It doesn't matter if you agree with me (there are plenty of people who do). We'll just have to agree to disagree.
One point you didn't bring up was Foley's job responsibility. That makes it a little more eerie. Are people not supposed to be disappointed that this is who we have in charge of protecting our children?
I'm not arguing this anymore, it's pointless
but your last argument hit me. If abortion was made illegal and I got pregnant and carrying that baby was going to kill me - then someone would have the power to choose whether I live or die - the people who chose to make abortion illegal.
And before anyone argues that abortion would be allowed in those cases, who would get to decide? The courts? By the time the case went through the sluggish system, it could be too late.
This debate has no winner, everyone has their own views. However, from a legal standpoint it either has to be legal or illegal. A pregnant woman is not given the luxury of time for the court to decide whether it is okay in her particular case to be allowed to have an abortion.
God bless.
No sense arguing with "Spam" ---
This is like arguing with a fence post....lol.
I said that Cuba started with a socialist revolution, all the people thought it was going to be wonderful, enter Che Guevara, Marxist (oh there is that word again), and it went quickly from socialism to communism, and the only ones doing well in Cuba are the ones close to Castro. Even Guevara didn't stay, he moved on to Bolivia to start another revolution (still looking for that perfect Marxist society that never happens)...and he died there. If you really cared about this and what might happen to your country more than you care about getting one over on me, you would get informed. But...obviously that is not your modus operandi. So attack away. Knock yourself out. Pat yourself on the back. Mea culpa. lol.
A lot of this arguing back and forth seems futile
when it is the undecided people who will probably count. If you are republican you vote McCain, democrat Obama. I could never understand why we always end up to only 2 candidates. How is that any kind of progress. Shouldn't there be 2 or 3 nominees from each party. Could that be worse than what we have now?
Guess you got tired of arguing with your
self!
Please STOP! The arguing back and forth about what you would do (sm)
is so disrespectful. Please just drop that subject. You have no idea what you would really do in his situation. I am voting for McCain, but I can still have respect for others.
Wow, you sound pretty miserable. I am not arguing about anything...
simply stating my opinion. It seems like many here on this board have some bug up their behinds, are bitter and angry (most tend to be O supporters, go figure) and can't have adult conversation without resorting to name calling.
I stand by both my posts...meanwhile, you're arguing with someone else
....argued with oldtimer's post, and she's for Obama.
Too funny, you just attack anyone that you think is putting Obama or Biden down.
Get a grip!
politics are so heated in my family sometimes we actually find ourselves arguing about who gets to l
x
Again my point is made - you just like arguing and bashing people that don't agree with you
Your bringing up a dead subject while shouting it at us. You started an abortion post on 8/25 and bashed everyone who didn't agree with you, and you were bashing people on 8/22 about the same subject. Everytime someone brought up their viewpoint you be arguing or bashing them. The point I (and others) are making is you keep bringing this up again and again and again and again and when people don't agree with you you bash them, then when they come back to say something you bash them even more. Then when we finally get a break and have new topics, you start another post about the abortion thing again. The abortion issue is getting tiring for all. We know what abortions are, how horrible they are, and we know how babies are made and the stages of their lives (we are MT's and all took the course) but you feel the need to keep it up and up and up and it's getting real old. Besides that it looks like you are posting under other names and then answering yourself.
I want to read people's opinions and questions of issues we are facing. Abortion is not one of them for most of us. Let it go and move on. What I am trying to say is that while I'd like to hear your viewpoints on other issues enough with the abortion and try and not be so argumentative all the time.
Yes, we all have the right to post things, but it looks like you are posting just for the sake of arguing and we're all getting tired of it.
So go ahead bash me some more.
LOL...off the subject
Don't know if that's true about Bill or not, but the graphic showing the top 3 newsmakers with Mr. Floatie--join the movement gave me my much needed gut laugh for today.... 
What can I say...I like potty humor...please don't flame me 
On every subject
one can see good and bad. All people will never agree on anything.and there is good and bad in all people. I most certainly do not think blacks need to be compensated for their ancestors but count on it, that will happen no matter who is in the White House. I don't think slavery was right either but you know what? I wasn't around 150 years go to own any slaves so I'm not accepting any guilt trip. The repatrition (or whatever the word is), if that gets seriously considered in CONGRESS, you can bet my Senator and Representative will get an ear full from their old "friend" the gourd! LOL
I certainly don't mean to start a race war but blacks have the same opportunities in this country as whites. Have a look at one of the presidential candidates.
Do you even know what the subject is here?..(sm)
Yeah, I think I'm through with this board. The incoherent ramblings from pubs on here is getting boring.
He already has been subject to a different
standard. He had to run a campaign with little or no mistakes, which he did. He has always been held to a higher standard. If he had run a campaign like Clinton's or McCain's, he would have been a laughing stock. Being held to a higher standard will probably make him the best president we've seen in our lifetimes.
Just a little touchy about this subject.
Get so darn mad about the whole Iraq mess we are in, and wish it would go away. Bin Laden is a thorn in Bush's side because of the friendship between their families that it would be obscene for him to kill his friend. So transparent. Makes me ill to think of what he has done to this country, when there is a REAL threat with Iran. Now what? Our troops in Iraq fighting a war that can't be won, but Iran is now free to do whatever they want. Sorry about the harsh words earlier, just sick of the whole matter, and where we as a nation are headed. And it is good to see that his lying is finally coming out, what dispicable things he has said and done, and what a can of worms! Thank goodness it is coming out.
The subject in this thread is a cat.
How did we get to this? And is it really necessary to call names? I mean, we are civilized people after all. It's rather hard to understand why you attack someone even when they are AGREEING with you. I try to be respectful here, but it's very hard to communicate when the subject is changed constantly in a thread. Perhaps an I hate Bush and all conservative thread would be best started and all posts to that effect might go there. Nothing is being furthered here except what seems to be a very bad grudge. In a public forum. Really not cool.
On the subject of Plame...
what about Richard Armitage? Certainly no conservative, certainly no Bush lover, definitely against Iraq war...he said HIMSELF that he talked to the Washington Post about Plame being in the CIA before Libby said anything to Novak. He felt comfortable doing so because "it was common knowledge around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for trhe CIA." Wilson himself brought all this on with the op ed piece he wrote in the times trying to smear the administration. That is what made Novak say...hmmmm....why would the administration send a Bush hater to Niger? Welllll because the CIA suggested him...and whoooo in the CIA suggested him? Valerie Plame. But no one, including the illustrious Patrick Fitzgerald, paid a lick of attention to that.
Agendas, agendas, agendas. Wilson and Plame out to get the administration, Patrick Fitzgerald to get a name for himself...no matter what the cost. And poor old Scooter took the fall, along with the first amendment.
Oh well....all for the cause right? Get Bush no matter what. Sigh.
Well, on the subject of sex education...
I doubt Bristol thought what she engaged in could not cause pregnancy. I feel sure she knows what makes babies.
Now I am sure that out here in real america there are many thousands of families who have had a pregnancy like this in their families or know of one in close acquaintances. I don't think this argument is going to hold any water with them and I think they would be insulted by this.
Your Candidate knows that, that is why he just wishes that all his supporters who think they are helping him would just stop.
Your subject is JM's temper....sam's is
media bias, which is rampant, 100 to 1, if not more on the side of democrats. It's a fact. Period. No amount of spinning off subject can change that.
NP. This is most definitely a touchy subject
You got the right idea. Wish I had that kind of self control to just say no.
Yes, let's change the subject, shall we? NOT
nm
Not going to broach the subject with you nm
x
the subject is deregulation
of insurance companies which would result in collapse of the industry. Can you image the results of that? Do you think it might affect your teeny tiny job in any way?
the subject is mccain's
suitability for president not your sick interest in Bill Clintons sex life. Contemplate it as much as you want to; the issue today is McCain vs Obama.
We are getting off the subject here...your point was...
why should anyone be afraid of him because he is just one man and he would have to get past Congress. My point was...they will have the majority. THere is no getting past then...clear sailing. Whatever agenda he wants...goes through. THAT was my point.
what does dancing have to do with the subject?
nm
Try reading up on a subject
See post under sam's blather.
This is just a very emotional subject
It definitely isn't for the weak at heart. ;)
Don't take anything on here personally.
The least you could do is stick to the subject...(sm)
As far as how I could vote for Obama after 911. Well, probably because he won't go running all over the middle east starting illegal wars in the name of fighting his "the axis of evil." My guess is once he straightens out Bush's mess, which is a job all by itself, he'll do what this country needs him to do -- restore credibility.
Change the subject? LOL
I thought we were talking about ILLEGAL. Isn't that what you've been ranting about....Obama not being a "legal" citizen? So how is asking about ILLEGAL parents natural born citizens changing the subject? I don't notice any explanation as to where in the Constitution it says ILLEGAL parents can give birth to legal citizenship to their children. I do believe that the Constitution just might be referring to kids born to LEGAL immigrants being automatic citizens.
Not changing the subject.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/13/poll-obama-facing-high-expectations/
Poll: Obama facing high expectations. Refer to the "overall approval rating" paragraph toward end of article.
http://www.gallup.com/video/111904/Most-Expect-Obama-Make-Effort-Republicans.aspx
Most Expect Obama to Make Effort With Republicans
obviously no one wants to talk to you on this subject.
There's no law against it
Yet again changing the subject...(sm)
My original post merely pointed out that Olberman had a good question (which has yet to be recognized on this board). Just as a refresher, the question was, why is Coulter trying to get on NBC to promote her book (in which she talks badly about NBC) when she has such a low opinion of the network. This is not a battle of the networks, just a simple observation that anyone with half a brain can see.
I guess it's easier to change the subject than to actually answer a question or post an opinion on the subject matter. 
Yet again changing the subject...(sm)
My original post merely pointed out that Olberman had a good question (which has yet to be recognized on this board). Just as a refresher, the question was, why is Coulter trying to get on NBC to promote her book (in which she talks badly about NBC) when she has such a low opinion of the network. This is not a battle of the networks, just a simple observation that anyone with half a brain can see.
I guess it's easier to change the subject than to actually answer a question or post an opinion on the subject matter.
Change the subject? You are the one
can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If no one believes this, who are all those people interviewed that voted for O and cannot tell you why? They all had a fairy tale image of him. That, my dear, is much more documentably effective than your stereotyped opinions.
What's wrong...don't like this subject? LOL...nm
x
Read the posts below about the subject
President Bush has thrown more money at poverty than Clinton, and I do not dispute the fact that Clinton went a long way in reducing poverty. Workfare is one of the best programs to come along in a long time, and one thing Clinton did right, however, it needs to be to be expanded.
Poverty is not solely a lack of financial means for many people (not everyone), but poverty in this country seems to stem from moral poverty in many cases.
Wasn't trying to change the subject
I personally, don't think that Coulter is a bottom-feeder. She directs her barbed remarks towards adults who should be able to take it and not innocent children. However, I believe Al Franken and Michael Moore, and most of the folks at Daily KOS and The DU are just as vicious. You all love Molly Ivins here, and she's just as rough around the edges as Coulter too. However, I defend their rights to free speech just as much as I do Coulter, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly etc. The left's problems with the latter three (and more) is the fact they tend to pull the highest ratings. It makes them litigatory and ready to censor. The left wants to stack the deck in their favor.
The subject in this post is bashing...nm
My take on the subject, the short version.
Every country has some form of socialized medicine. Ours is comprised of the poor, the elderly, and those giving service to our country (military and political of which number in the millions) both past and present that encompasses their family members as well through different benefit packages depending on where they fall within the system. I believe the major argument is about extending those benefits in a social manner outside of what is already in place.
|
