LIberal's Insane Defenses of Abortion

Again, by way of facebook wall discussions with secular liberals, I have tried to reason with the situational ethics of leftist thinking based in socialist ideology, Darwininian ethics, and a Sangerian view of life and procreation. How sad is this rhetoric? Notice how leftists respond to an argument with another argument as reflected in my last post:

Thursday, March 25, 2010
Disconnected Arguments over Health Care ....
It seems that liberals still have difficulty engaging with our arguments. When we establish a criticism of the state of the union, instead of arguing the point made, their tactics are to play tit-for-tat in a sort of over-intellectualized one-upmanship. They answer a point with a contrarian anecdote that instead of speaking to the original point, is presented as a means of playing political Euchre - trumping the argument with a contrary point. This method is almost like answering a question with a question.

Participants:
Leftist 1 - Original Leftist Poster
Leftist 2 - Second Leftist Poster
Independent 1 - Independent Poster
Conservative 1 - Politbanter

Today's topic began with a discussion where LEFTIST 1 decided that all non-leftists should not vote.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

LEFTIST 1
Seriously. I never thought I'd tell people not to exercise their right to vote. If you don't know what you're voting for or against, don't vote. If you voted for Prosser, you clearly don't know. Peel it back a layer, Repubs, maybe 2 layers if you're some sort of big industrialist. You're voting against yourselves.

Independent 1
The right to vote extends to everyone. Educated, uneducated, informed, misinformed. As it should.

LEFTIST 1
I agree that everyone has the right to vote. But they also have the right to inform themselves and vote in their own interests

Politbanter
What if they are informed and are exercising their rights contrary to your views? Is that intolerable?

Independent 1
Everyone that disagrees with a liberal is obviously uneducated and misinformed, just as anyone that disagrees with a conservative is a-moral and un-Americana. Perspectives a SOB eh?

LEFTIST 1
@politbanter... they're either single-issue voters or fooling themselves into thinking they're informed.
@Independent...you're right. Separation of church and state means that amoral (minus people f**king with each other) should constitutionally not be an issue. And if we care enough to fight them, liberals must be pro-US, not un-American :) that last post @independent was my opinion and shouldn't be assumed to be the opinion of all left of center)


Politbanter
The only single issue voters I've ever met have been black folks voting for Obama due to race. What about lefties voting only on single issues like collective bargaining rights. Hmm...seems like the luxury of having a standard isn't so convenient when we have to apply it to our own ideologies.

Independent 1
@politbanter...have to disagree with you there. There are LOTS of single issue voters. Abortion (for or against) is pretty single issue for a large part of the country. There are a lot of people in the south that would be solid democrats if it weren't for that Abortion rights.

Politbanter
@Independent 1...I agree. A pro-life blue dog democrat is more likely to get my vote than a pro abortion wishy washy republican.

LEFTIST 2
I tell you what, I'll vote for a pro-life blue dog democrat OR a straight-up pro-life republican male when he pushes a 8 pound baby out of his urethra, and for a female of that ilk when she is raising her half-sibling or the child of her rapist AND they have solid policies regarding education, the defense department, and the social safety net AND they have some sort of advanced degree that they didn't get online or from Oral Roberts Univeristy. Then later that day I'll go hunt for pork in the treetops.

Independent 1
This is something pro-choice people never get: They think you're killing babies! Seriously, they really think that. How hardcore would you get on someone you thought was killing a baby? I personally have no opinion on the matter. I've come to the conclusion I have no idea when life begins, so I just stay out of it.

Politbanter
@Indepdendent 1...You may not know when life begins, but you can know that fetuses being aborted are alive and feel pain.

LEFTIST 1
According to discovery magazine, fetuses begin to feel pain between 18 and 29 weeks. Abortions by choice are through the first trimester, which ends at 13 weeks. Abortions done later are to protect the life of the woman, who is definitely alive. So abortions by choice do not cause pain and whether the fetus is alive is not an issue the gov't should be deciding.

http://news.discovery.com/human/fetus-pain-abortion-law.html

I have no prob with limiting abortions by choice to 18-20 weeks. I do have a problem with letting a woman die because she has a medical prob that is killing her in pregnancy and she can't legally abort the fetus or forcing someone to give birth to a stillborn.


Politbanter
@LEFTIST 2...go get statistics on how many women have died as a result of that and then line it up against the genocide of 54 million + slaughtered babies. Life endangering abortions are EXTREMELY rare statistically as are abortions due to rape and incest.

@LEFTIST 1...so you are only focusing on the pain, not the ending of a life. hmm. I guess we should all just sedate our grandparents and chop them up into bits...after all they are an unfair burden on society and are too costly to maintain as wards of the state!

Independent 1
Like I said, I stay out of it.

LEFTIST 2
@politbanter...Your conscience tells you to vote one way and mine another. I have seen too many cigarette burns and belt welts and god knows what inflicted injuries on actual live children (and those are just the injuries visible to the eye) to tell any woman what to do with her life. And any man, who will never know what it does to the female body to carry and give birth to a baby, should keep his d**k in his pants and his opinion to himself. Let's just call it the inherent sexism of biology.

Politbanter
@LEFTIST 2...A father has the same inherent rights to a child as a mother. Maybe woman should keep her legs closed! All women who get pregnant are not sexual victims. In so saying, you primordialize female sexuality for favor of a Steinemized view of female sexuality as a violent act of male domination.

LEFTIST 2
@politbanter What I am arguing is that not all of us come from the comfort of a wealthy home and those of us that do, cannot understand the background and choices of people who do not. We have had the luxury of education and good parents. Cutting Title X funding would reduce the education and prevention you endorse so I hope you phone your congress person and tell them to lay off Planned Parenthood because 70% of what they do is pregnancy prevention and STD treatment.

LEFTIST 1
We need to all agree that some us think life begins as 2 lousy cells, and others believe that life begins later. Much later. And those of us who believe the former need to realize that their belief shouldn't get in the way of our bodies and rights.

Politbanter
@LEFTIST 1...It's not about belief. In botany, a seed is alive if it is fertilized. A fertilized chicken egg is alive. The cells are self replicating with completed, not haploid, genetic codes. Life defies the second law of thermodynamics where matter devolves into entropy. Living organisms become increasingly ordered, self sustaining, and self replicating. What you are confusing in the argument of "life" is the argument about the soul which is a metaphysical, not scientific discussion.
A fertilized egg can be grown in a petrie dish or implanted into a surrogate uterus because it is alive. Uncoded proteins do not organize themselves and are not "alive". A fertalized human egg has the scientific characteristics of a life. It becomes increasingly ordered, self sustaining, and self replicating. When you perform an abortion, you are ending that process and destroying that life. A fetus is not a parasitic tumor.
@LEFTIST 2...This just in (LEFTIST 2), planned parenthood clinics abort a baby EVERY 95 seconds. if you want to justify infanticide and still find a way to sleep at night, sweet dreams.

LEFTIST 1
Yup. Still sleeping well.

Politbanter
Action Taken, Friendectomy.

Disconnected Arguments over Health Care ....

It seems that liberals still have difficulty engaging with our arguments. When we establish a criticism of the state of the union, instead of arguing the point made, their tactics are to play tit-for-tat in a sort of over-intellectualized one-upmanship. They answer a point with a contrarian anecdote that instead of speaking to the original point, is presented as a means of playing political Euchre - trumping the argument with a contrary point. This method is almost like answering a question with a question.

Example:

Point: The color blue is the most beautiful color in the world.
Counterpoint: What about those people who are born without eyes?

- or -

Point: The color blue is the most beautiful color in the world.
Counterpoint: What gives you the right to impose your views on the rest of society, after all isn't that a subjective experience? You don't have the right to declare one color is better than another!

- or -

Point: The color blue is the most beautiful color in the world
Counterpoint: But in 1956, the Chinese declared the color Red to be the most beautiful color in the world - therefore your declaration about blue cannot be considered because more Chinese people think red is better than blue.


NOW look at the tone and rhetoric of the following facebook discussion on healthcare. Names are changed to liberal friend 1 and liberal friend 2.

CONSERVATIVE 1...(JOKING) USA = United Socialists of America

LIBERAL FRIEND 1
So you believe that parents should be able to keep their kids at home and work the farm? Or....did Government get involved and mandate education - and eventually pay for it ala public schools. I have trouble seeing the difference between Government mandating education and healthcare. Long live socialism I guess - call it what you will. I'd ... See Morelike those who have cancer to be able to have a safety net and not go broke or burn their entire life savings battling cancer. That's just me --- and a simple majority.

CONSERVATIVE 1
Majority only in the house. Not the ACTUAL feelings of the majority of the American people

CONSERVATIVE 2
Napoleon Bonaparte, rising out of the ashes of the French Revolution who said "I must suspend liberty, in the name of liberty, so that liberty itself might be preserved." The path to tyranny was the consolidation of the rights of social "equals" into a state embodiment that discarded every principle on which it was founded. They traded one tyranny (monarchy) for another (napoleon), and from it arose democratic socialism.

The comment on the floor that most resounded with me was that according to the constitution, our rights derive from Nature's God and that government exists to protect those rights by way of consent from the governed. NOT that the government creates fabricated rights and then metes them out. The issue is NOT about healthcare, but whether the Federal Government trumps the rights of states to set their own rules.

Republicans favor the rights of states with a limited role of the federal government. It is not the constitutional right or role of the Federal government to control the health of the nation. As was said last night, Americanism is about equal OPPORTUNITY to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. NOT the social guarantee of the RESULTS of that opportunity. This expansionism is arguably one of the greatest assaults on our Republic ever. ...

Republicans fought slavery in the congress. They fought against segregation. They fight against abortion. They fight for states rights. We are not the party of No. We are the party of liberty, individualism, and equal opportunity.

LIBERAL FRIEND 1
y'all OK with medicare? it covers the H1N1 vaccine. Sounds like another one of those assaults on our Republic. Anyway I understand the perspective of states rights. However, we have a Federal system of government and I expect it to work for the betterment of our country. This issue is NOT a state issue. This is widespread dysfunction - that is... , the person who can not get healthcare because they have AIDS or were born with a disability, from Alaska to New York. When someone files for Chapter 7 protection (a belief that everyone should have a second chance and not be subjected to jail for debt - a principal introduced because the founding fathers saw that it stifled innovation - arguably socialist) because they can not afford to pay their medical bills - the Federal gv't relieves the debt and we all pay. The Federal government has a role to play here and I support the legislation.

CONSERVATIVE 1
At least they got Government subsidized population control out of the bill. Via bayonet or abortion, it won't be long before the government is reducing the population.


LIBERAL FRIEND 1
that's a little silly I think. To say that it's the majority of the House but not the majority of Americans is saying that we in fact do not have a representative form of government. A perfect bill it is not. However, the debate has gone on for over a year. In the course of that year, the Republicans had every opportunity to have a mature ... debate. The Republican party had an opportunity to put the pundits in place, instead they let guys like Rush and Beck put fear and loathing into the system with Death Panel nonsense. It was 'kill the bill' from the get go - even though it was mutually agreed that reform was needed. If Republicans are for states rights, then why didn't they do the talk shows and put their opinions out there. Instead I heard a lot of apologizing to Rush. So, in the future when it comes to say, immigration reform - try stearing pundits, news outlets and most importantly elected representatives towards substantive talking points and not "DEATH BEDS" and "SOCIALISM". You get a bunch of scared town hall nut freaks screaming about pulling the plug on grandma, when it would be far better to talk, discuss and negotiate.
Finally a good editorial: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/index.html?iref=allsearch

LIBERAL FRIEND 2
You drive a car - you MUST have insurance, whether you want to or not. You MUST wear seat belts. You MUST pay for Social Security, which has made life tolerable for millions of older Americans. And, up until now - if you lost your job and had a prior existing condition, YOU COULD NOT GET HEALTH INSURANCE!! This has happened to millions of people, bankrupting hjard working citizens.

CONSERVATIVE 2
It is right and sane to fear and loathe the policies of secular progressives who seek to undermine liberty and the foundations of our republic through revisionism, the fabrication of "rights", and the creation of a social welfare state. We are a nation, yes a plural nation, of a central ideal. Tea Partiers fight for that ideal, for that ...
Jeffersonian purity that made our nation the greatest in the history of the world. We are the freest people that have ever lived. Benevolence should not be mandated by a federal government. I hear all the time about the minority groups not getting their fair share, reparations, equal opportunity, etc. And that's what this is really about. But stop for a minute and think about Jews. A minority in the world and in the U.S., historically persecuted, enslaved, and generally spit on by the world. Now look at the successes of Jewish familes and their contributions to global society. As a "persecuted people" or as a group who has faced generations of bigotry, they have core values of community, excellence, faith, education, and working intelligently that have allowed for them to prosper wherever they diasporated. African Americans would do well to follow the Jewish American example of how NOT looking to the state as their benefactor, but rather to their own values and industry to conquer their conditions. All I hear is first black president this and that... who cares. OUR generation grew up BELIEVING MLK when he said "by the content of their character". I look at Obama, his cronies, his connections, his legal wrangling, his positions on abortion, federal power grabs, and social reengineering...and i say it is RIGHT to fear and loathe what could possibly the greatest charlatan to ever hold high office and yet claims to be a proponent of the Republic and a defender of the Constitution.

LIBERAL FRIEND 1
And therein lies the deep divide in ideals, which I understand, respect and also believe is necessary. These two opposite ideals create a struggle and thus a balance, and an average over time, that has yielded what we have today - in imperfect union, but one that always strives to be more perfect.

LIBERAL FRIEND 3
I've always wondered why it is Republicans claim to love America so much but clearly despise Americans. I wonder where all these Teapartiers were when Bush turned the largest surplus in American history into the largest deficit. I wonder if everyone who suddenly mistakes "regulation" with "socialism" has ever gone to public school, driven on a ... highway, needed the aid of a police officer, spent time in a public park or rented a book from a public library. I wonder if any of these Republicans are on Medicare or Medicaid. I wonder if they are accepting Social Security. I wonder if Teaparty veterans get their healthcare from the government-run VA. I wonder if they are bothered that the USDA makes sure the food they eat is generally free from deadly bacteria. i wonder if they understand that the party of Lincoln was also the party of Buchanan's "Southern Strategy." I wonder if they realize their party has been hijacked by a hypocritical, racist fringe. I wonder if they realize that Randian economic philosophy has been thoroughly debunked by the current financial crisis. I wonder if they even heard their hero, the anti-regulation Rand disciple Alan Greenspan state before congress that he found a "...flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works," and that ""I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms." I wonder if they realize the difference between Communism, Socialism and Fascism, even though they throw all 3 terms around interchangeably. I wonder why they rail against taxes when they just received a tax cut by Obama, so long as they earn less than $250K/yr.

I wonder if they'll admit they were wrong when this bill turns out to lower healthcare costs, save lives and save the country nearly $200 billion in the next decade as the independent CBO estimates.

i doubt it.

And just for the heck of it, here are 18 provisions that take effect immediately, and some that will take effect in the future. Please let me know why any of these are anti-American, Socialistic or bad in any way:

1. An End To Pre-Existing Conditions: Health Insurers cannot deny children health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. A ban on the discrimination in adults will take effect in 2014.

2. Small Business Tax Credits: Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 50% of employee premiums....
See More


3. Seniors Get 'Donut Hole' Rebate: Seniors will get a rebate to fill the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare drug coverage, which severely limits prescription medication coverage expenditures over $2,700. As of next year, 50 percent of the donut hole will be filled.

4. More Young Adults Covered On Parents' Plans: The cut-off age for young adults to continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance rises to the age 27.

5. No Lifetime Caps: Lifetime caps on the amount of insurance an individual can have will be banned. Annual caps will be limited, and banned in 2014.

6. Adults With Pre-Existing Conditions Covered: A temporary high-risk pool will be set up to cover adults with pre-existing conditions. Health care exchanges (market-based) will eliminate the program in 2014.

7. New Insurance Plans Must Include Preventative Care: New plans must cover checkups and other preventative care without co-pays. All plans will be affected by 2018

8. The End Of 'Recissions': Insurance companies can no longer cut someone when he or she gets sick.

9. Transparency In Insurance Companies: Insurers must now reveal how much money is spent on overhead.

10. Customer Appeals Process: Any new plan must now implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims.

11. Indoor Tanning Services Tax: This tax will impose a ten percent tax on indoor tanning services. This tax, which replaced the proposed tax on cosmetic surgery, would be effective for services on or after July 1, 2010. Sorry for the fake-bakers.

12. Enhanced Fraud Abuse Checks: New screening procedures will be implemented to help eliminate health insurance fraud and waste. Probably the biggest cost-saver in the bill.

13. Medicare Expansion To Rural Areas: Medicare payment protections will be extended to small rural hospitals and other health care facilities that have a small number of Medicare patients.

14. Deductions For Blue Cross Blue Shield: Non-profit Blue Cross organizations will be required to maintain a medical loss ratio -- money spent on procedures over money incoming -- of 85 percent or higher to take advantage of IRS tax benefits.

15. Nutrient Content Disclosure: Chain restaurants will be required to provide a "nutrient content disclosure statement" alongside their items. Expect to see calories listed both on in-store and drive-through menus of fast-food restaurants sometime soon.

16. Better Coverage For Early Retirees: The bill establishes a temporary program for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55‐64 in order to help reduce the often-expensive cost of that coverage.

17. Better Consumer Information On The Web: The Secretary of Health and Human Services will set up a new Web site to make it easy for Americans in any state to seek out affordable health insurance options The site will also include helpful information for small businesses

18. Encouraging Investment in New Therapies: A two‐year temporary credit (up to a maximum of $1 billion) is in the bill to encourage investment in new therapies for the prevention and treatement of diseases.

So, again, this bill overhauls a broken system that was set up to serve the profit of very few at the expense of very many. This provides better coverage, better access, cuts costs, cuts waste, cuts taxes on small businesses and increases transparency of a corrupted system. This is far from extreme in any way, it is nowhere near the single-payer systems in Europe and Canada that the right-wing seems to be so afraid of. It increases fairness of coverage and the authoritarian system we've been living with.

How in the world is that a bad thing?

LIBERAL FRIEND 1
you have no defense/response to a sound position argued by LIBERAL FRIEND 3. You can go on and on about secular progressives and "Nature's G-d" but won' name any of the 18 provisions from the healthcare bill that are anti-American, Socialistic or bad in any way. Your silence is golden.

CONSERVATIVE 2
if I must take the bait, then I must.
The sentiment that Republicans despise Americans does not dignify a repsonse. Especially when it could be argued that proponents of abortion equally despise Americans by supporting infanticide. Many Republicans, myself included, became independents after the Bush administration protracted the Iraq ... offensive. It was the obligation of Bush Sr. to go in and finish the job when Saddam violated the no fly zones and refused weapons inspectors. Clinton should have handled Saddam and Osama during his administration, but did not. If you listen to tea partiers we are not happy with either party who are managing things irresponsibly. They are about fiscal responsibility and about persuading representatives in government to reflect the will of the people not their agendas. - on either side of the aisle. Let's not forget that the current housing crisis was spurned by Barney Frank and others who refused to properly regulate lending. Solid republicans know the difference between regulation and a social welfare state. As an independent I am not in favor of the public education system as it was created and exists today. Medicaid is an optional - not mandated - insurance solution for the poor. Republicans do NOT all believe that every civil social program is a bad idea. But even social security is going bankrupt. There is no fiscal discipline left anymore... and THIS is the argument of the Tea Party movement. NOT that healthcare reform is wrong or bad INSOFAR as it does not erode personal liberty and that it can be PAID for by real money without causing inflation. Republicans agree that the federal government has overarching authority to regulate industry through legislation. We learned the value of this during the industrial revolution. But WE are a free republic. NOT an egalitarian proletariat-owned collective. Inasmuch as you claim that the Republican's are hijacked by racists, I beg to differ. The overwhelming majority of republicans are not racist, contrast this with black america who now is. Enter the Black Liberation Theology of Rev. Wright. The democratic party who claims to speak for civil rights for all people still fail to abolish infanticide. Obama and the Pelosiites should have LET the banks fail, LET the car industry FAIL, and let AIG fail.

Consider how many taxpayers right now would be paying into social security if they weren't aborted. Upwards of 53 million.

Also, regarding taxation, are you that naive to assume that all forms of increased taxation are only found in the income tax? And IF what you say is true about the 250k increase, who exactly ARE these wage earners?

1) 250k wage earners are predominantly small business owners who are now, not only personally taxed more for reaping from the success of their businesses, but will ALSO be facing increased costs and penalties to insure their workers. These cost increases can lead to several trends: 1) additional foreign outsourcing, 2) increase in the cost-of-goods, 3) inflation, 4) a depletion of small private enterprise, 5) a reduction in small workforce hiring, 6) a dependence on cheap migrant labor.

250k wage earners are NOT middle class from where most income tax derives. Nor lower class where tax handouts are given. So IF the top 1-5% of all wage earners are facing increased income taxes, then you have made MY argument that there is NOT ENOUGH MONEY for this program. The current agenda is not the correct way to recover from a WARTIME budget deficit. In fact, many of the insurance companies set their EXCESSIVE billing rates based on the MEDICARE allowables passed by CONGRESS....
See More


That said... I will tell you that I support:
1) an end to prexisting conditions as deniability
2) small business tax credits
3) an increase in the dependent age
4) Annual cap removal or limitation
5) special high-risk insurance
6) preventative care plans
7) end of recission
8) transparency
9) a regulated appeals process
10) fraud abuse controls
11) Medicare and VA benefit expansion - especially VA
12) nutrient content disclosure
13) better coverage for early retirees
14) consumer interaction
15) encouraging investment...

BUT what these things should be collectively is a series of REFORMS and REGULATIONS applied to an existing private insurance market. NOT as provisions of a FEDERALLY mandated program which carries civil and criminal penalties for non-contribution. The federal government has the authority to regulate commerce but NOT to exceed its authority in overpowering the rights of the STATES. We reject the notion that it is the right of the federal government to mete health care to the ENTIRE population by way of complex taxation. Or do you forget how the American Revolution began?

LIBERAL FRIEND 1
Hey Alex P Keaton. Nixon was for a similar form of Health Care reform.

Mr. Nixon's health care plan would have covered all employed people by giving combined state and federal subsidies to employers. It would have covered the poor and the unemployed by much larger subsidies. It would have encouraged health maintenance organizations. It would have banned exclusions for pre-existing conditions and not allowed limits on spending for each insured.

See more here:...
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-giving-nixon-his-due-on-health-care-reform/19414702

CONSERVATIVE 2
Who are you confusing with a lock-step Republican? I am a fiscal / social conservative and a pragmatist who tends toward libertarianism. I vote based on prinicples, not party. When a given party is unaligned with my principles I do not support it.

AND I AM THE NEW REPUBLICAN!

LIBERAL FRIEND(S) - no response.

The Next Recession: The Coming Collapse of Consumer Credit.

According to the Federal Reserve[1],

"Consumer credit decreased at an annual rate of 5-3/4 percent in August 2009. Revolving credit decreased at an annual rate of 13 percent, and non-revolving credit decreased at an annual rate of 1-1/2 percent"

Total Consumer Revolving Credit Debt in this country at the end of 2008 was $988.2 Billion dollars up from $823.8 Billion in 2004, representing an increase of $164.4 Billion Dollars.

While second quarter non-revolving debt in 2008 was $959.4B, second quarter 2009 only posted $904.4 billion.

For consumer debt advocates who are rightfully fearful about the state of consumer borrowing, it might appear that these numbers represent an overall reduction trend in consumer debt and a trend to more personal fiscal responsibility. This is not the case however. The decrease in these numbers has more to do with the freezing of issuances of new lines of credit, not the return of a public to it's WWII era sensibilities.


According to creditcards.com [2], just the top 15 U.S. General purpose credit card issuing banks as of June 30, 2009 represented a market of $726.88 Billion in private outstanding credit card debt. In 2008, the top ten of these credit card issuers posted $5.9 Billion in combined profits (this includes a CITI's $530 Million loss)

Nilson Report in April 2009 documented that "78 percent of American households -- about 91.1 million -- had one or more credit cards at the end of 2008. A year earlier, there were 90.4 million households with cards."



Consumers are being conditioned to borrow, not earn.


Even before bright young minds who have only recently left high school, many of whom having never worked a day in their lives, are thrust out of the nest into a quasi-reality called "college" there they can be instructed in any discipline their heart desires. They will learn literature, language, computer sciences, advance mathematics, politics, philosophy. But they will never receive the course in balancing a checkbook, managing personal finance, or learning how to manage personal credit and debt. Yet, every decision they make from this time forward will affect the credit rating they barely know exists. College students, especially those who now have a positive credit history thanks to student loan resources, get easily approved for unsecured credit cards on the gamble that mom or dad, or their future careers will pay off the interests, penalties etc.

Sallie Mae found in its study "How undergraduate students use credit cards"[3] the following 2008 statistics:




1. 92% charged direct education expenses, 30% tuition
2. 84% charged food, 70% clothing, 69% cosmetics.
3. Sixty percent admitted buying items they know they
could not afford
4. 82% of these same students could not pay the balances
every month and carried finance charges
5. 84% admitted they needed more information on credit
management





The tragedy of all of this is that American consumers are taught, from the beginning of their fiscal independence that using a consumer credit line is tantamount to income when a purchase desire is fiscally out of reach. We have begun to live in a culture of so much personal fiscal irresponsibility that we have fed an enormous monster called the American Retail market.

Have you ever stopped to consider what happens to every product that exists that is NOT bought. If supply was equal to demand, there would only be enough stock on shelves for that exact supply. Take one product for example... laundry detergent. Every store has a huge laundry detergent aisle. Everyone needs detergent, right?
Each aisle has several brands, several permutations of that brand (powder, bleach, etc) and then a stock of inventory behind it. There is always more stock that exists which is kept in anticipation of steady demand.

Think more broadly against every item you see on every shelf that does not meet the demands of a basic necessity of life. Chia pets, out-styled clothing, and even... (yes I will say it) the SNUGGIE! These are fully stocked items that represent over production for a credit market that is conditioned to buyers who purchase, not for needs but for the lust for STUFF.

American manufacturers simply could not keep up with American's lust for stuff. With the modern surge in dual income families (which boosts overall household income), a subsequent flurry of credit issuances because of favorable debt-to-income ratios. And with this influx of unreal capital manufacturers did what they had to do to meet this false demand... move factories to China.

Home prices increased, mortgages doubled, gas prices skyrocketed... and all the while real capital both fiscal and intellectual has been floating away overseas. The 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing was perhaps one of the most fantastic public displays ever staged. And it was all enabled by an Chinese economy made rich by the voracious American consumer.



Our jobs have been lost over the seas. The jobs that were left here were abandoned by households who became slaves to their mortgages, to their gas mileage, to their cell phones.

The American problem is not Capitalism. It is avarice.

THE REVERSE PONZIE SCHEME

Now, when unemployment is at a national rate of 9.5%, and in many states upwards of 11% and even 15% (Michigan), people are turning more and more to false income sources. They want to liquidate assets or borrow against their home equity, but most of the lenders went bust leaving few available programs. People are now turning more and more to their personal credit lines. People are buying groceries at 12%-21% interest. They are paying car payments, which already carry interest, with credit cards - only to exchange the rates for a higher one - all to save the credit rating. They are taking cash advances at interest.


We think Bernie Madoff was evil, but he was only doing what most consumers do: borrow from one lender to pay another lender off with interest. In the simplest of forms, the American Consumer runs his/her own internal Ponzie Scheme, Only there is a complete reversal of fortune: investors are lenders, and the recipients of the temporary capital are not the true beneficiaries of the profits of interest being exchanged.

Real capital is dwindling. Real Domestic Production does not meet Real Domestic Demand.












Americans owe nearly $2.5 TRILLION Dollars.

Why are medical costs skyrocketing? Not because of the "rising cost of health care" or even medical malpractice suits. It is because the American Consumer could borrow. This causes artificial inflation. When we buy, we are not only paying for the cost of an item inflated by a rampant credit market, but we are paying for it AT HIGH INTEREST, even though the value of that item, were we to try and sell it tomorrow, would probably be worth less than half of what is paid.

For example, in the shoe business, a shoe that can be manufactured for $12, wholesales for $25, and retails for $55. Say Shopper Sally wants to buy a new pair of shoes for her job but can't afford them. She pays for them with credit because she doesn't have the cash and will pay it off over time at 18% interest. She wears the shoes for a while until she finds a new style months later. She sells them on eBay for $5, but she has to pay 4% to eBay plus mailing, so she nets $2. Embedded in the cost of the retail price were layers and layers of markups to account for taxes, duties, shipping and lading. Not to mention the sales tax at purchase.

Who wins in a fiscal sense?


The manufacturer overseas wins when the wholesaler buys.
The wholesaler wins when the retailer buys
The retailer wins when the consumer buys
The bank wins when the consumer uses a credit card
The government wins by way of taxes and duties
The consumer receives a depreciating product, taxed, and at interest.


So who uses credit in this chain? Everyone.



Is it really so hard to understand that our current economic condition has to do with consumer debt?

The Government has grown.

Banks have grown.

Retail has grown.

Manufacturing has grown.



Business lines of credit are not an essentially bad means of capitalization, especially when manufacturers have to be paid in advance of a market's receipt of goods. But the American people who are on the consumption, not the production end, (in terms of the use of credit) have been living in denial using other people's money to shore up both their own opportunistic greed.

Today's mom thought that leaving the home for the workplace was a means of liberation, a measure of equality, an intellectual and societal freedom. And that it was. However, with the increased AGI, taxes went up, goods and services became inflated, mortgages rose, credit became more available. But now, if there are problems in the home or at school, or even the marriage both spouses almost HAVE to work in this economy and families are breaking down.

The advent of the increase in available lines of unsecured credit is directly correlative to the increase in the American Divorce Rate. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Nearly 50% of first marriages end in Divorce and almost 70% of second marriages do as well.[4] Many cite financial trouble as the root of the collapse of their families. Even adulteries that occur in working families are more likely when dual wage earners no longer have time for their relationship for the sake of their financial obligations.

Social and Fiscal liberals would like to say that capitalism is evil and that it fosters repression of minorities. And if you oppose health care reform, or other tax-funded social amnesties one is racist. There is a great ignorance in this country that the problem is race. the problem is that the inflated economy has left behind those who are poorer, under-educated, and do not qualify for credit. Many of these are certainly minorities, but many more are not. There are millions and millions of Americans of all colors who are not credit-worthy, who don't have a good debt-to-income ratio, and who could really use a small line of credit.







CAPITALISM IS NOT DEAD

Capitalism is not dead. Nor should it be allowed die. Adam Smith was right. The Free Market is a wonderful thing. Capitalism is about invention, ingenuity, individual intellectual capital, private equity ownership, trade, and simply, capitalizing on opportunities presented by growth in a market through technological, scientific, and social advances. The ability to own knowledge. To be able to start a Microsoft in a garage, or a Wal-Mart in a five-and-dime.

Capitalism is not evil. It allows Michael Moore and Sean Hannity to profit from their rhetoric. It fosters break through cancer treatments. It means I can set a digital time on my washing machine instead of going down to the river with my "Cold Mountain" soap made from Lye and Ash.


Capitalism says that when Alexander Graham Bell (probably) when to the patent office on horseback to protect his invention of the telegraph, the foundation of his work in a free society lets a lone inventor today electronically file a patent online through a high-speed broadband internet in his home.


So how will this all end? It can't end while people cling to credit. Even if everyone paid off all their cards with true income and tore them up. We would all still be living in an economy that has been inflated by the previous use of credit.


This is why a consumer credit crash may not only be inevitable, but even necessary for the stabilization of the economy. Unfortunately, this does herald the weakening of the dollar in favor of the advent of the rise of a new globally standardized currency.

Yes, it is a trap.

It is time not only for a return to domestic fiscal conservatism, but a time to return to INDIVIDUAL fiscal conservatism.



IDEOLOGICAL SURVIVAL GUIDE:

Pay for what you need, not what you want.

Use what you have until it wears out.

Use barter or trade to obtain wanted items of equal value.

Buy off season and on sale.

Only use credit in emergencies (auto, medical, survival)

Sell everything that you do not absolutely need and use it to pay down credit debt. (think "Clean Sweep")

Resist the urge to buy the Snuggie and the Sham-Wow.


Instead of buying that Snuggie or Sham-Wow for the holidays on your credit card, why not hold a yard sale and give that money away to a charity who can help pay the power bills of the working poor who don't qualify for a credit card.


MY FINAL ANSWER

I propose that for those people with no tax liability by reason of lack of income, that they can elect to have their tax refunds not paid directly to them but applied directly to a special "Amnesty Account". In exchange for 2-3 years of refunds, and depending on the amount and type of consumer debt (meaning not fraudulent) that the government would provide Complete Credit Amnesty to those who are trapped by the system. The same would be true for defaulted student loans. Instead of bailing out banks, car companies, etc... pay for people to be re-educated, give them amnesty for their credit, along with mandatory consumer debt counseling.

God had it right in the Book of Leviticus when he proclaimed the "Year of Jubilee" Free the bondmen. Free them to produce in this economy.






[1] http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g19/Current/
[2] http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/credit-card-industry-facts-personal-debt-statistics-1276.php
[3] http://www.salliemae.com/NR/rdonlyres/0BD600F1-9377-46EA-AB1F-6061FC763246/10744/SLMCreditCardUsageStudy41309FINAL2.pdf
[4] http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/marr-div.html

Discusssions with a Liberal: Abortion, Faith, Homosexuality, Civil Liberty

Below is a transcript of an unedited conversation stream with a progressive liberal on abortion, gay marriage, etc... may it serve useful in your debates as you work to deconstruct leftist arguments.

Based on this article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081109/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Politbanter:
The slippery slope to the murder of more innocent babies begins.

Liberal Friend 2:
This just in....posted on some random fear and hate mongering website.......the slippery slope of inflammatory rhetoric and ambiguous, divisive bumper sticker republicanism continues unchecked

Politbanter:
Read this first:
http://politbanter.blogspot.com/2008/10/abortion-choice-or-escape.html

The fact that Obama and many others want to harvest fetal tissues for "research" is not a Republican issue. It is an issue where unborn people who have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are being butchered to the tune of 43 Million.

If the current trend continues, over 5Million people will lose their lives to abortion. That's metro Atlanta's population.

Obama opposed the Infants Born Alive act and will actively work to repeal its passage. I will oppose any president from any party who supports any type of legislation that kills babies.
Embryonic Stem cells have been created from adult tissues
.

In all seriousness, have you ever watched an abortion?
http://www.obamamustsee.com

Liberal Friend 1
Go stem cell research!

Seriously. This is a positive step for this country (not to mention science).

Politbanter:
Not embryonic.

Liberal Friend 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell

Sorry man, but that's not a child.

Politbanter:
human life begins at conception and you know it.
A person's a person, no matter how small.--- Horton

And an eagle egg is not an eagle. So let's have omelets.
Liberal Friend 1
So, killing sperm is murder, too?

Politbanter:
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides for the protection of two species of eagles by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of either eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg without a permit.
.Take. means to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison,wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb. Felony convictions for the violation of this act carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment (or five years under the LaceyAct; .Bald Eagle,. 2002).

Get this:
A human being may be fined a quarter of a million dollars and put in prison for five years for collecting eagle eggs, but that same person is permitted by fed- eral law to murder an unborn human infant! Eagle eggs, i.e., pre-born eagles, are of greater value to society than pre-born humans!

Liberal Friend 1
Horrible analogy.
This protection is akin to protecting a rare tree or artifact.
You and I both know this isn't the same thing.
"human life begins at conception and you know it."
Um, no.
At conception, it's two cells. Not a life.

Politbanter:
It's a fine analogy, just one you don't like.
The rights of a pre-born eagle are more protected than a human.
And human life is a more precious thing than an animal. Surely you love your child more than your dog.

A vegetable seed is alive.

Sperm is alive. It swims. An Ovarian Egg is alive as it dies if it is not fertalized. Live Sperm and Live Egg combine to form live tissue that grows, moves, and organizes itself further without interaction.

Unilike a tiny grain of sand, which is not alive, it does not become more ordered as it rests, nor grows, nor moves. The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that everything has a tendency toward entropy, degradation, decay, and disorder. Life, however is the opposite as it becomes increasingly ordered. The fact that you value stem cell research is a testimony to the fact that you acknowledge that embryonic stem cells are living tissue with organizational capacities. Hence, alive... further... a LIFE!

And, in actuality. That life has a soul. And it is not any woman's to decide whether that soul lives or dies. No matter what the state allows for.

The state allowed for slavery and segregation. Both Wrong. Both upheld by Southern Democrats

Liberal Friend 1
If that analogy is a good one, then a robin egg should be equally illegal to take. Right?
Or a chicken egg. Right?
Explain that.
So, you think it's murder to kill sperm? It's alive, right?
Also, the states are starting to legislate discrimination again in the form of a ban on gay marriage. Since you don't like the state legislating such things, I can only assume you're against such bans. Right?

Politbanter:
I believe that all life should be protected. And I disagree with making an eagle have more pre-born rights than a human. I would support protecting all species in their native habitats.
Introduced species should be managed relative to ecosystems.
ie cane toads, mullet, carp, starlings.

But all human life is embued with a soul, Created by the Laws of Nature and Natures God.
(read our Declaration again) and thereby deserving of rights to Life.
Sperm is not a person. A person is the combination of live sperm and egg. A person is the completion of the genetic code. When it is complete, it has the full information to sustain itself, feed, grow, organize, etc. It has a soul at that point.

It's debateable whether killing sperm is scriptural. Gen 38:9-10

I do support a ban on gay marriage. Preserving heterosexual union as the foundation of marriage provides the means for the birth of children, and the optimal environment for them to receive the benefits of Life, Liberty..

Liberal Friend 1
Again, your eagle analogy is just not working. Sorry. It was a nice effort.
As for gay marriage. I'm perfectly ok with church's refusing to perform weddings for gay couples. That's their choice. But to legislate that? Why? Not everyone in this country is christian. And not even everyone who's christian has the same interpretation as you do.

It's not unlike slavery, woman's rights and segregation. They used the bible as justification for those, too.
The one thing you refuse to even consider, is that not everyone in this country shares your religious beliefs.

Just because you belief life begins at conception does not mean others believe that.

Just because you believe a marriage is between a woman and a man does not mean that two men or two woman should not be allowed to marry. It's their choice. What is the possible justification for preventing them that liberty that you and I enjoy?

Politbanter
It only doesn't work because you don't agree. Not because it's not true. (eagles) The fact is that liberals have assigned more value to eagle eggs than to their own unborn.

Don't assume I just use the Bible to support my views on homosexual union. read an earlier debate with a friend.

Heterosexual Marriage is not only based on Judeo Christian Truth, but on biology, sociology, anthropology, and even sound economics.
http://politbanter.blogspot.com/2008/10/discussions-with-liberal-on-definition.html

10's of Millions of Men and women of sound reason and moral integrity agree with me about life beginning at conception.

And whether you believe something or not, does not make it more or less true. I can not believe there is a God, but that does not make it true that ne does not exist. Simply, life does begin at conception whether you believe it or not.

Homosexual people cannot conceive. Sexual behavior is not a genetic trait. And sexual orientation is not passed on genetically.

If a trait, then it is deleterious because that trait cannot be passed on genetically through heterosexual reproduction. Sexualty is a behavior. Homosexuality is a minority sexual behavior. What occurs between two consenting adults is between them, but as far as society goes and the raising of children. It is contrary to the Natural Order.

Again, our Declaration of Independance states very clearly:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the LAWS OF NATURE and of NATURE'S GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men ARE CREATED equal, that they are endowed by THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The role of OUR government is to protect the LIFE of all created people under the LAWS OF NATURE and of NATURE'S GOD.

If you don't like it, go live in China.

Liberal Friend 1
Ha. I can only assume you're joking right now.
Because our constitution and bill of rights guarantee that everyone has the right to religious freedom and that there shall be a separation of church and state (which, I might remind you, was as much to protect the religions as it was to protect the state).

If you don't like those documents (which are the actual founding documents of our democracy) then maybe it is you who should go live in China.

But again, I can only assume you didn't in fact mean what you just wrote.

Polibanter
of course i mean it. and millions of other americans mean it too.
seperation of church and state is not in the constitution. read it. It only says that congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion and allows free excercise. The right to free excercise means that I can practice my faith in civics if I so choose as a citizen. But the government is limited in restricting my ability to worship freely.

The Declaration is the establishment of our nation, whereas the constitution is the establishment of its governance.

The existence of our country is based on the Declaration.

Liberal Friend 1
10's of Millions of Men and women of sound reason and moral integrity agree with me about life not beginning at conception.

And no, "liberals" do not put more value on eagle eggs than children. The analogy is still flawed. It's a false link to try and paint people who disagree with you as heartless and evil. I don't buy it because the logic is flawed.

So, you don't disagree with Gay marriage because of your religious beliefs? And why can't a gay couple raise happy children?

BTW, the more gay couples there are, the more adoptive parents there are, which would contribute to falling abortion rates.

Which, since I looked it up, saw that abortion rates have been falling for the last 10 years. It's the little victories, right? homosexuality is actually an observed behavior across all species and has been recorded for thousands of years. And last time I checked, there's not exactly a population shortage, so who cares if a gay couple wants to get married?

Politbanter
read the link i gave you.
http://politbanter.blogspot.com/2008/10/discussions-with-liberal-on-definition.html

1. there are many reasons i and the majority of sound minded americans disagree with same sex marriage
2. there are already more couples waiting for children than there are children to adopt BECAUSE of abortion. Increased demand doesn't help the supply side. That is foolish.
3. They have been falling only slightly because of GWB who should have done more. Obama will reverse this and it will more than make up for the saved lives. No parental consent will mean that child rapists, statutory and predatory can force young girls into abortions without fear of recrimination.
4. it is not an observed behaviour over all species. you just don't get it.

Liberal Friend 1
What you just described what is commonly known as "seperation of church and state"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Seems like I'm free to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) that I wish.
That's America. Christians, Muslim, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, and whatever else are all free to their beliefs.

That's just the way our country is made up.
As for homosexuality, it is widely observed in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
(I know wiki is a dubious source, but they do cite their sources, which is useful if you care to look at the facts). In fact, I've seen homosexual cats. My brother had a pair of male cats years back. They went at it all the time. Pretty disturbing, but also enlightening.

I agree that my adoption thing was wrong. I was just trying to lighten the mood. Getting a little stuffy in here.
BTW. Abortion rates started falling before GWB got in office. I'm just about done with this debate.
It was interesting.
I'm very disturbed by your lack of tolerance for people who don't adhere to the bible (as evidenced more by your "move to china" statement than your abortion beliefs). Honestly, that's about as un-American as you can get.

To get back tot he original point. I support stem-cell research. I don't believe life begins at conception, so according to my beliefs, it is not anything close to murder. I know you disagree. But to suggest that people who disagree with you are evil and liken them to Hitler is just not something I can stand for.

Politbanter
I am very tolerant of people that don't adhere to the Bible, actually. Regardless of WHERE i derive my moral views does not change the scientific fact that abortion ends life.
My point with move to China (tongue-in-cheek) was that our nation was founded by Deists, not Atheists. Our principles of government ARE based on the existence of God and his morals.

Did you watch the abortion video? www.obamamustsee.com

probably not.

These are not little blastocysts. These are hearts, eyes, toes, legs, fingers, brains... and yes. it is butchery. and no, I am not tolerant of butchery. watch it.

look, if you have been through this personally then I am very sorry if it struck a nerve. I have friends who are gay, who have had abortions, who do all sorts of stuff.

of proof, instead of always shifting it to me. Prove these things to me in defence of your position. Why must conservatives always be the ones on their heels in defense of Truth? Can not someone who disagrees with me assume the burden of proof as well? I certainly have.
Can you prove that life does NOT begin at conception?
Can you prove that homosexuality is genetically transferred?
Can you prove that God does not exist?
Can you prove that there is no soul?
Can you prove that a 9 week old infant is not a person?
Can you prove that the Bible is NOT God's Word?
Can you prove that Nature has no God?
Can you prove that there are no Laws of Nature?
Can you prove that life was not Created?
Can you prove that there is no such thing as Abosolute Truth.

See, the views many non-christians hold are always vigorously debated, but there rarely never any sign of honest inquiry to the converse.

I'll wait.

By the way, those who used the Bible to support slavery and segregation were Democrats.
It was the god-fearing party of Lincoln that freed the slaves. And MLK JR. was a Republican.
Slavery is not permitted in the bible, neither is segregation, or the civic subjugation of women.
Just as you misread our constitution, they misread God's Word.

Liberal Friend 1
Because these things are equally as impossible to prove as disprove.
There's a reason why religion is called "faith"
I can hardly believe you're seriously asking me to prove god does not exist.
Forgetting for a moment that it's basically impossible to prove either way, here's my stab at it, for shits and giggles
.
If god is all powerful, can he make a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it?
(i'm sure you've heard that one before).

Anyways, feel free to ask me answerable questions. I'll do my best to answer them.

But again, if you present wholly inaccurate facts as you've done, don't be upset when I call you on it. I have google and I'm not afraid to use it.

POLITBANTER
it is very possible. Descartes and Kirkegaard did it.
reposted from the other thread:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm#tab1
from the CDC Itself. Look at 1999
57.6% were under 8 weeks
20.2% were between 9-10 weeks.
(fingers, toes, brainwaves, heart, movement, pain)
and yes... I AM RIGHT
88.1% of all abortions in 1999 were 13 weeks and under.
as i SAID.
That number fluctuates annualy roughly .9% points.
Again... Read More, I restate " you are mistaken. 88% are 13 weeks and under" The only reason it tapers is because of the ban on late term abortions that Obama wants to repeal.
and also here scroll down for recent stats.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

LIberal Friend 1
I'm very aware of how this country was founded. And to expand on your explanation, it was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. So they were very aware of that danger and wrote protection against that in the constitution. They did not want to force their religious beliefs on other people, nor let anyone else do so.

I did watch the video. And I appreciate how disturbing those images are. However, I do not believe that life starts at conception and I think abortions in the first trimester should be legal, if discouraged. I also believe we should work harder on sex education to limit unwanted pregnancies and to let people know the emotional and physical damage an abortion can have on someone.

That's my belief. And no, I'm not evil.

Politbanter
odd.. i would think that you would not support 1st trimester abortions but only RU486.
interesting question about the rock.. sounds buddhist...

my first stab at this looney crack at it is this...

God can make a rock so big no one can lift it...

But, lifting implies that he has to move it with physical strength. Whereas his strength is in his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence and his ability to transcend time as being, by definition, infinite.

Since the act of lifting requires the passage of time for someone finite, it does not necessitate the passing of time or exertion of force (action against gravity) for the infinite to act on the finite. (by the way, this is why miracles happen)

If the infiinite chooses to "lift" the heaviest rock capable of being created (comprised of all possible matter) then it can be by will and not by strength because he does not have to move the rock itself. He can move the cosmos around it. And your perspective to its relative position may be that of motion.

Or If, by definition God created the rock, then he also assigned it to a fixed place. That fixed place is not relevant to God as he is at first, immaterial. The immaterial can act upon the material by spirit or will and move it just by intent.

So no, there is no rock so heavy that God cannot move it.
"I do not believe that life starts at conception"
I appreciate your belief, but what is it BASED on? WHY do you not believe that. You must have a reason why you believe that life does NOT?
i am going to get some sleep... see if you can chip away at my list some in the next few days...

Liberal Friend 1
I believe there is a point when an embryo becomes a living being. I do not think that happens immediately. I do not pretend to have knowledge of when this happens.

As for the god puzzle, the more general version is "can god create something he cannot change." If he cannot create it, he's not omnipotent because he couldn't do it and if he can, he's not omnipotent 'cause he couldn't change it.

That's the problem with the concept of omnipotence, it's an inherent logic paradox. Thus, it requires faith to believe that such a thing exists.

I don't argue against that faith. But you demanded that I prove god does not exist and i gave it my best shot.
Here are more (both for and against) if you're so inclined to look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_belief_in_God

Again, I'll answer answerable questions.
I'm not going to answer that list you gave. People have been wrestling with those questions for thousands of years and a debate on facebook is not gonna end that.
But, in absence of actual questions, I think this argument has run its course.
I do not hope to make you side with me or believe what I believe. I just want people to be willing to consider the opposing argument and think about a compromise.
We're stuck in a loop with issues like this. And nothing will change till both sides give a little.
Unfortunately, you seem only interested in "converting" me. But I can assure you jay, all you're doing is losing sleep.
I didn't come at my beliefs lightly, as I'm sure you did not come at yours lightly. So, just be more respectful of other people's beliefs, even if you whole heartily disagree.

Politbanter
I'm not really interested in converting you at all. People do not convert people. God draws people by his Spirit.
I am just trying to question the underlying premises of your arguements and opinions since their foundation really relies on the answers to those questions.

See, if you can't determine when an embryo becomes a living being, how can you determine when it does not.

If you cannot prove that God does not exist, how can you say that Nature's God is not at work in creating the soul. And that soul or life is being killed in an abortion.

If you cannot determine the causes of homosexuality, then how can you say that it is deserving of special consideration as a civil right.

If you cannot prove that Nature has no God, then how can declare that there is no natural law which should be acknowledeged relative to both life and sexuality.

That's all I am getting at.

I am not coming to you to be argumentative, but to provoke your ideas so that I can understand you.

"As for the god puzzle, the more general version is "can god create something he cannot change." If he cannot create it, he's not omnipotent because he couldn't do it and if he can, he's not omnipotent 'cause he couldn't change it."

My point about omnipotence is that the premise is based on physical power. And God is a Spirit. Omnipotence is not decipherable through the physical since omnipotence also means that action by God is not limited to time, space, or matter.

The only thing that God can create that he cannot change is his own word and truth that has its source in Him. God is inseperable from his word. That is to say when God speaks it is always true because it proceeds from Him. This is why when God creates, he does it with his Word. He creates the material from the immaterial so no physical matter that is created is immutable by God since it is constrained to time and space as matter.

Think about it like a video game. My power to program the ability parameters of a game character to act also have to do with my ability to manipulate the concept of inifinity in algorithms. Now, if I can create behaviors through manipulating the concept of infinity why then cannot God, being infinite create the finite without limit to his omnipotence.

My ability to create is limited to my knowledge. But God, being also omniscient, is unlimited as to knowledge and thereby can perfectly Create anything of infinite measure that is material.

Something to think about perhaps when you form arguments from passions vs. reason.
Answering a question with another rhetorical question is not an answer.


POLITBANTER
(To liberal friend... continued from a message where liberal friend accused Politbanter for being hateful for opposing Gay Marriage and Abortion "Rights"
My point was that it is consistent to express a faith and then maintain views that directly oppose that Faith. If that faith is based in God, who is Absolutely Moral, then one should Absolutely follow the teachings of that God.)
Look man, I don't hate anyone. Especially people who disagree with me. My only point is that if one calls themselves a Buddhist then they should follow the teachings of Buddha, or of the Jews, Moses and the Prophets, of the Christians the latter and Jesus, and of the Muslims, Mohammed.

All I am saying is that individuals today reinterpret or selectively pick and choose what subjectively fits in with their worldview from their scriptures. As a Christian, I do accept that the Hebrew Bible is God's Word and inerrant and I encorage you to as well, because it is. If God is Absolute, then His Word can be trusted Absolutely.

As a Jew you must know the Shema? Don't forget to Love the Lord your God with all your mind.

As for McCain...the largest reason I voted for he and Palin had less to do with the economy but of their pledge to attempt overturn Roe V. Wade and save millions and millions of American Babies. To me there is a difference between slaughtering 43+Million babies and for volunteers who lay down their own lives by choice, to defend our nation. They have a right to sacrifice their own lives in the common defense.

Personally, I am a conscientous objector, a pacifist, and I am not in favor of any war. I am not in favor though of lending the prestige of the office of the President of the US to direct negotiations with Iran. That should be left to Ambassadors and other Statesmen or in the UN. I do not personally believe in the use of deadly force. The Jewish Law permits war in defense of a Nation, but Christianity teaches a higher road.

I do not mind stockpiling nuclear weapons as a deterrent to violence, but I am against their use. I am in favor of guns for use in hunting, but I only personally agree with hunting for food or for wildlife management purposes not for sport trophies.

No true Christian has ever killed in the name of Jesus Christ.

Christ Forbids believers killing people. So I agree with you that going to war is not a good thing. The hard part is that War came to use through radical Islam with anger stemming back to the Crusades... wars fought by Catholics. Not Christians. There is/was a profound difference.
Apostolic Christianity (my faith) has never been involved in any war, persecution, or murder - ever.

We believe in following peace with all men. Testing all things and keeping that which is good.

Liberal Friend
No, the war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with anger stemming back to the Crusades. The war in Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with a power play on the part of the Bush administration, the modern incarnation of the Republican party, and the Project for the New American Century. The very sad thing about the situation is that these are the most unholy sons-of-bitches in our country's political history, and they've used single- or near-single-issue voters like yourself to acquire power.

I said it before and I'll say it again: 6 YEARS of the Repubs controlling the entire federal government, and they never even TRIED to limit reproductive freedom. Why? Because if they did and actually succeeded, they would lose the wedge issue and people like you would stop voting for their warmongering bullshit. I can't believe you're not mad about being used and manipulated this way. I don't think Jesus ever said anything that condones "the lesser of two evils" (if you really think Obama is a terrorist *roll eyes*).

By electing a black president, the dems lose a huge wedge issue of their own, you know - lasting racism in America. But gosh darn if they didn't embrace the idea anyway. The dems have plenty of flaws to keep me from officially being one, but it's nice to see the "usual politics" step aside for a while to actually put a decent human being in the White House. Clinton did many good things during his time in office, but he still had a lot of sleeze going on that tarnished his reign. I think we've finally gotten a president that's good all the way around, and I couldn't be more pleased.

But besides the manipulation over the wedge issue, you still need to realize that whether or not you're a real Christian, or anyone else is a real in yours or their books, that's NOT how we legislate. We don't have to declare Jesus as our national savior to become a Christian theocracy, and I'm not sure if you understand that. You said you don't want to live in a theocracy, but when I present a clear reason why your faith shouldn't determine our abortion policy, you vomit a bunch of "my" scripture all over me!

I read everything you posted, by the way - I didn't see ANYTHING there that talked about abortion in the first place, but what's in the scripture itself is far from the end-all of Judaism. The facts are that Jews put the life of the mother first, and that means they can't bar all abortions, and in that same vein they certainly wouldn't consider abortion to be murder.

Unfortunately, in your zeal, you seem to equate this minor logical thread as, " WANTS TO MURDER BABIES!" I've never personally met anyone who thinks abortion is neato, but many of us consider it to be an unfortunate and rare necessity. BECAUSE there are so many schools of thought on the topic (mostly religion-fueled, but sometimes not), it's not the government's place to interfere. It's up to YOU to not participate or condone any abortions, and you're absolutely within your rights to try to talk anyone you know out of ever having one.

As for Roe v. Wade, I hope you realize that the core issue at that ruling's legalization of abortion is PRIVACY. That's one of many civil liberties that the neo-cons have been whittling away at, and I am horrified at the direction this country has been going in recent years. Women have the right to make their own reproductive choices without any unwelcome laws, doctors, churches, or activists butting in. At no point does that make abortion awesome, fun, or a reasonable method of birth control. Good people make tough decisions that sometimes lead to abortions, and Roe v. Wade says that you aren't allowed to force your religious views into that decision. Every pro-choice person I know still thinks abortions should be as rare as possible, but we believe in giving people the freedom to determine what the right thing to do is.

There are very likely a lot of totally unnecessary abortions performed every day in this country, if we define "unnecessary" as being situations where health, rape, incest, or tremendous hardships aren't a factor. "Oh no, I cheated on my husband and made a booboo" types of situations, where one could certainly argue that the parents should take responsibility.

BUT, even if you try to legislate exceptions, that's not good enough. Politicians aren't qualified to discern these types of complex situations, and they shouldn't even try. If you think anyone that has an abortion goes straight to hell, then so be it...last I checked, part of your faith was that humans have free will - a CHOICE of what to do with their eternal souls. The American government, however, doesn't (or shouldn't) involve itself in the brokering of souls between God and the devil (if you happen to believe in such an entity).

Of course, the notion of damnation is yet another area where your faith doesn't get to pick what everyone else does. Jews don't believe in Hell or the Devil, you know
In regards to my "realness" as a Jew...well, you can call me a fake Jew if you want, but that's only going to get a "bite my ass" response from me.

I don't believe the Earth is ~5000 years old. I trust scientists and their reasoned-proof there. I do believe that homosapiens are only a realtive-handful of thousands of years old, but it's those same humans that wrote all the various scriptural texts of the world, not gods. There's a lot of good to be had from the Torah, but at no point do I see ANY REASON to believe that all of humanity sprang from Adam and Eve. Thousands of years ago, science was essentially non-existant, and people did their best to satisfy the natural human curiosity asking, "where did we come from?"

And my saying that doesn't make me an athiest, it makes me a realist. Be definition, God created science, too, and that means that he knew we'd get smarter and more enlightened over time. We were his children, right? Children don't know shit when they first come into being, whether that's literal babies, or the first of an entire species. God may well have guided the first humans and even their less-erect predecessors, but if he's omniscient, he also knew that we'd figure out that there was a long history of Earth before we came around. I reckon dinosaurs and evolution were all part of his grander plan, as was our eventual discovery that the early scriptures aren't entirely literal fact. Doesn't mean we can't learn lessons from the stories, though.

Do you keep kosher? What you call the "old testament" kinda commands you to. I don't keep kosher myself, but again it goes back to reasoning. Those laws were set in place by community leaders for a directed purpose, and we live in different times now where I know that I won't get sick of the pork loin is properly cooked (though I'm not a fan of pork anyway).

And the same goes for homosexuality. As I said before elsewhere, we don't NEED more people on this planet. The condemnation of homosexuality was put in place for a variety of reasons ranging from population levels, to some of the health concerns you listed, to a no-doubt "ick" factor. But that was thousands of years ago, and those concerns are a thing of the past. We as a people need to learn that gay or straight doesn't matter - what matters is love. I hope you watched the Keith Olbermann video I posted a link to. I'd really like to know how you respond to it.

Maybe you don't "hate" anyone by your definiton, but when you continually try to interject your personal faith into everyone else's lives, that lack of "tolerance" comes off very much as hate. Perhaps you don't like that perception any more than I like your perception of me as not-a-real-Jew, but the difference I see is that such a perception of you stems from things you actually try to do to others. Actively taking away freedoms from people in this country will always get you marked as one who hates, sorry.

POLITBANTER
I was not talking about Iraq.. I was talking about 9/11. Bin Laden often referred to us as western "crusaders". It was Clinton, however who got us into the security holes that Bush inherited. USS Cole etc. We were offered Bin Laden!

I agree with you on Iraq for the most part. I am not a fan of the way that was carried out. To me, if I were not a Christian, and a president after the 1st Gulf War, we should have gone right back and finished the job when Saddam refused UN weapons inspectors and after he was shooting rockets at Allied forces patrolling the no-fly zone. Bush Sr. dopped the ball. We totally abandoned the Kurds when they needed us most.

Actually republicans did promote the ban on partial birth abortions.
And much more should have been done.

"I don't think Jesus ever said anything that condones "the lesser of two evils".
-Again, I am against all war and killing of innocent life. But there does remain a distinct difference between killing an innocent life and someone who voluntarily sacrifices his own life for the greater good.
To that end I chose McCain. I preferred Huckabee. Less than 2 million have died in defense of our nation since 1775, but since 1973 over 48 Million have been slaughtered! www.obamamustsee.com.

But practically speaking, not theologically speaking, if we risk 4,000 volunteer lives to end the regime of a butcher who killed over 500,000 people is that not a good thing? WMD's aside.
As a tactician, Bush sucked. He should have read more of his Napoleon before going in there.

"I present a clear reason why your faith shouldn't determine our abortion policy, you vomit a bunch of "my" scripture all over me!"
I am trying to show you the inconsistencies of claiming to adhere to a faith, as you do your Judaism, and then practicing the opposite. If you consider scripture to be vomit, then you are not a Jew. Do you not, as a Jew hold yourself accountable to God? Irrespective, there are many many reasons why butchering 48 million babies is wrong. Outside of scripture. Otherwise, do you consider Shakespeare to be Vomit? Plato? Socrates? Descartes? Why is an appeal to higher reasoning so appalling to you?

"The facts are that Jews put the life of the mother first, and that means they can't bar all abortions, and in that same vein they certainly wouldn't consider abortion to be murder."
Do you actually know how many of the 48 Million abortions were performed relative to preventing the death of the mother? A VERY small fraction. For example, even the number of abortions due to conception attributable to rape (statury and otherwise) is in the HUNDREDS every year. The main reason for abortion is birth control.

Look man, ATLANTA has 5 Million in it metro. 9 Atlantas are dead in our lifetime. Why does this not bother you? Can you not accept that this is wrong? EVEN if you allow for the life of the mother, incest, and rape, you are talking about 2-3k abortions annually nationally vs 1.3 Million annually.

See, I disagree with you about women's reproductive choice. Half of that fetal tissue is mine. Father's should have the same legal rights to choose. I agree with women's CONTRACEPTIVE choice. Abstinence, barrier methods, rhythm (good luck), and pills that do not prevent implantation of fertilized infants, also tubals and vasectomies.

Abortion is wrong no matter what way you look at it. It is ending a life. Period. Whether you agree that God is involved with that life or not, it causes a living organism to die. My point in bringing the scripture in is not to force a theocracy.. that is ludicrus.

My point is to appeal to your CONSCIENCE as a Jew, not as a Christian, toward God and what HE has to say about the matter relative to your positions. I am not proposing a state religion, and quit saying that I am.

Our declaration maintains that all men are CREATED equal by Nature's God and that they have the right to Life. This is the establishment of our Nation. It does not define Nature's God or establish a religion, but it does establish that life has the RIGHT to LIVE.

"If you think anyone that has an abortion goes straight to hell, then so be it...last I checked, part of your faith was that humans have free will - a CHOICE of what to do with their eternal souls."

I am not one who has the power to decide who goes to heaven or hell. And people do have a CHOICE to excercise their free will. But, consider also that in our common scripture (Old Testament) God does talk about limitations to freedoms in areas of Murder, theft, etc wherein the choice to excercise that right diminishes or takes rights away from another.

CHOOSING to kill a baby as birth control (roughly 80-90% of abortions) does not make it not murder as it is taking the LIFE of another. I can't choose to kill you. I can't choose to steal your car can I?

By your logic, I should be able to because I can CHOOSE to do whatever I want with my eternal soul. And yes, no one can steal my choice from me, but the state does not have to sanction or allow me to not face consequences or accountability for that choice. If I murder, I must go to prison because I would be a danger to Life and Liberty of my fellow man. This holds true of abortion and it is the cornerstone of my zeal. Abortionists and these women are taking the rights away from innocent beautiful babies.

Of course, the notion of damnation is yet another area where your faith doesn't get to pick what everyone else does. Jews don't believe in Hell or the Devil, you know
Actually Jewish Scripture does with hell... it was called Sheol or Gehenna. And it does deal with Satan.
Genesis 3:14

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

1 Chronicles 21:1
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Job 1:7
And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

In regards to my "realness" as a Jew...well, you can call me a fake Jew if you want, but that's only going to get a "bite my ass" response from me.
If I did, then as a Jew would you not have to bite mine back?
I'd turn the other cheek. (HAHAHAHAHA) c'mon you can laugh now.
We can get into Theistic Evolution some other time. It's a great topic.

"Do you keep kosher? What you call the "old testament" kinda commands you to. I don't keep kosher myself, but again it goes back to reasoning."
Regarding Kosher, its a great question. I actually went t0 ******** Middle School and in my grade there were more Jews than Christians and I was more profoundly impacted probably by them then my anglican upbringing. So I am very friendly to the Jewish faith.

Personally, I view orthodoxy as the most scriptural. But relative to diet, kosher wasn't only given to the Israelites for dietary reasons. There were clothing restrictions, marriage restrictions, and many other non-mingling restrictions, circumcision etc. These had to do with God seperating his people from others who did not follow him and had no covenant with Him.
It was as much a means of creating distinction between the people and the ways of God from the gentiles as anything else. The health issues, I believe were simply some of the benefit of these laws not the reason for them entirely.
The reason Christians do not keep kosher as a whole is that when Christ came, he made salvation available to Jew, Samaritan, and Gentile alike and in so doing his work was, by faith Christians become grafted into the vine of the Abrahamic covenant and Mosaic covenants, that having been fulfilled by Christ.
The break from kosher comes in Acts 10, where the Jewish Apostle of Jesus Christ, Peter, is instructed by God that this seperation has been lifted as salvation is not only for the jew, but now for all of humanity. As Christ is the Atonement, vs. the Yom Kippur. He thereby releases the church from this restriction as the covenant has changed relative to Christ. Later however Christians are encouraged to abstain from blood or things strangled. So evidently they did feel some health purpose associated with this method of slaughter.

But again, that was advice given from church leaders to other church leaders in epistles. Not as prophecy, or Rhema, Living Word. It was more practical advice than a direct command from God like we see in Leviticus.

Maybe you don't "hate" anyone by your definiton, but when you continually try to interject your personal faith into everyone else's lives, that lack of "tolerance" comes off very much as hate.
I really don't do this at all!

I inject my political opinions. People imposed the faith discussions. Our founders were influenced by their faith, as should you be. The only topics we are really discussing are two behaviors.

1) that of homosexuality, and
2) killing pre-born infants.

So let me make this clear. I do not hate homosexual people. My gay friends and colleagues would take issue with that. I believe homosexuality is a behaviour and a preference that should not be given special civil rights.

You said, "what matters is love". No it does not.
If love is what mattered, then people would not slaughter babies.

I love my dog. But that doesn't give me a special civil right to enter into a Civil Union with it. You can't create a system of laws around love. Laws are to deal with the depravity of man, not the excellence of man. What law is there against goodness?

"Perhaps you don't like that perception any more than I like your perception of me as not-a-real-Jew, but the difference I see is that such a perception of you stems from things you actually try to do to others. Actively taking away freedoms from people in this country will always get you marked as one who hates, sorry."
I am not taking away any freedoms by saying babies have rights to live.

I am not taking away any freedoms for consenting adults who want to be homosexual. I am simply not in favor of granting them NEW rights as a protected class of citizen because of their sexual behavior which is not genetically rooted. If it was a genetic trait, one could consider them having special rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act as I would for people with other behavioral genetically linked issues. But since most people would agree that homosexuality is NOT a disability, but a behavior we can agree that they, in fact deserve no special consideration constitutionally.

This is not hate. This is disagreement with destructive behavior and a look toward personal accountability to our fellow man.

Because pregnancy is the consequence. not the CHOICE. The choice is unprotected sex.

How is protecting 43 million babies from brutal dismemberment hateful?

Where is the right of that baby to Choose?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

"whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it"

I want abortion abolished on these grounds.

I am very compassionate toward people who have had abortions. My wife volunteer counseled at a crisis pregancy center. I have worked with a lot of young women in this decision valley and I know it's not easy.
It's because I love that I AM passionate. I have never condemned ANYONE who has had an abortion or who is Gay to hell. And I never will.

What I DO know is that neither of these views harmonize with Jewish or Christian Scripture. And to be in harmony, by CHOICE, to take part in the magnificent blessings that God has for those who chose to Love him and serve him, he seeks that people repent of these choices to abort babies and practice homosexuality.

Walking with God is an opportunity and an honor. Not a conscription, a burden, or a weight.

Because God is Love.

I hope this cleared up some things.

Also, relative to "tolerance": to tolerate is not the same thing as agree with or condone. While I put up with, or tolerate, other views. My disagreeing with them is not intolerant.

Why would I engage in discourse with people I do not tolerate?

Why would I have friends whose lifestyles I disagree with?

Are you intolerant of me because you presently disagree with me?

I would think not, since you have the presence of mind and good nature to debate intelligently and passionately. It's those who do not who become fools on either side.

I believe in engaging dialogue with people of opposing views as a means of sound inquiry and the process of reason. That, in my view is quite tolerant.

Intolerant people do not dialogue, care for, empathize with, others and they openly hate.

I just see that intolerance word thrown around so much, it's not applicable.

The only thing I am intolerant of, is willful ignorance.

Not to spam you but I did find some Jewish Scripture on the concept of hell. There is a difference between modern Rabbinical Scholarship and the Word of God. YHWH does reveal the concept of hell and satan to jews in His word.
The Word "Sheol"
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7585&t=KJV

Look these up...in the Tanakh perhaps.
Deuteronomy 32:22
2 Samuel 22:6
Job 26:6
Psalm 9:17
Psalm 16:10
Psalm 116:3
Proverbs 9:18
Proverbs 15:11
Isaiah 14:9
Isaiah 28:15

Also, the New Testament was written by Jewish converts to Christ. And they did bring with them a knowledge of hell and of the devil from their faith. Even the Pharisees who condemned Christ, accused him of casting out devils by Baalzebub, or Satan, or the Devil himself. So they did carry in their theology from the Law and the Prophets the knowledge of death, hell, and the devil as the adversary of the souls of men and of YHWH.

It is only in modern times, that Rabbis have reasoned away these things and have abandoned them because they truly do not want to be accountable to God's Word. We see this over and over again in the Torah and in 1 Kings, and 2 Kings.

This is a seperate discussion than the civil or political matters we are looking at really, but I thought to bring this out to show you that the Christian concept of hell, judgement, and Law is really rooted in Judaism. True Biblical Christianity is the application of Mercy, reconciliation to God for all mankind, and relase from the condemnation of the Mosaic Law.


To take any position you should try and stay intellectually consistent to be take serously.

Discussions on Atheism with a Liberal Friend:

LIBERAL FRIEND
...where was this outrage about "fearmongering" when the last adminstration started a war that killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of Iraqis? Maybe if Bradley Schiller (and the rest of us that stood by), had been more concerned with the fearmongering of the last eight years, we would have avoided many of these messes. I guess it was more likely that some terrorist boogy man would jump out from under our bed and cut off our head then, than losing our job now..wait.. I am not so sure.

So let's have a debate, but let's have an honest one about the ideas and solutions to our problems.

CONSERVATIVE FRIEND

That is exactly what I said and what I meant. My intention was not to bash Obama. Out of respect I ask that you don't take the side of the cynic and believe I was lying in what I said, which, based on your comment is what you imply - that I am not truthful in my intent even after my intent is clearly stated and you've clearly read it. That's a personal attack that I very much am offended by.

My original comment about the article focused on my point of looking at the statistics that are in the article. All of my comments afterwards have been trying to get you to focus on that too. That's my intent.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, however, let's have that discussion about what proper solutions to the problems are, as you (and I, in my first comment) have both stated is needed.

POLITBANTER

the real problem is that our liberalized education system has not properly prepared people to work in jobs that are needed in the new milennium. Jobs where people are producing goods and services that are needed for an actual market, not for the wants of an inflated credit market. Not having easy access to credit is a good thing as it will shake us out of the deception that people can afford what they are buying on credit. Most of the stimulus that ever, if ever, makes it to the masses will just go to paying down consumer debt (houses, cars, credit cards, etc) which shores up financial institutions, not the people.

We need things like: credit amnesty, student loan forgiveness, foreclosure insurance, expanded tax free medical savings accounts, additional tax credits or optional vouchers for families who use daycare so that 2 spouses can contribute to the economy, mass transit passes for urban workers with low incomes, re-education programs, the dems plan is a joke.

also the revaluation of property values relative to the mortgages, to where people can expect a reduced home value and overall note, rewriting these bad mortgages under federal insurance. This reduces property tax increases in markets where middle to lower income families and elderly were walloped by skyrocketing home values. Also the revaluation of the home could not be less than 25% more than the equity that people already have invested as cash equity in the home. THESE are the types of creative solutions that will revitalize a consumer market that will save the auto industry. When credit clears as well as debt to income ratios, it makes buyers of credit more credit-worthy, and it also forestalls bankrupcy in many cases. I'd like to see EITHER side of the aisle doing these things. But no, too simple and not enough pork.

LIBERAL FRIEND
(TO CONSERVATIVE FRIEND), I do owe you an apology for putting intent in your words. I do take you at your word and did not intend to call you a lyer, and that is what I implied. I was worked up about the intent of the article and applied that to you. The article starts out by using loaded words like fear mongering and attempts to show all the harm Obama is doing.

Whether you agree that this recession has the potential to be another great depression if left to its own devices (the argument most are making), there are many sound comparisons. I think the label is less important than the actual problem and the labels have little to no effect - it is the solutions (or lack there of), that have the greatest impact.

I was frustrated because, even before Obama was in office, many of the popular pundits were already saying how horrible a President he was. That being said, I just too quickly to lump you in with the author and again, I apologize.

(TO POLITBANTER)As far as our "liberalized" education system, let's work to fix it. One of the big problems is underfunding. Again, I am not sure of your intent, but the label "liberalized" I assume is meant as a slight. We invest much more money in the "liberalized" police force than we would have to if we provided inner city schools with text books, teachers, extra curricular activities, etc...

I am sure we can work together to fix some of the shortcomings, but again, the labels are not helpful. We can probably agree that much of the money spent is not nearly as effective as we would like, but that said, we don't spend enough on the biggest return against crime and improvement in our society.

I will only touch on a few things because I am lazy and don't want to write too much tonight, but you mention things like tax credits for medical savings accounts. These do not work. Here is the problem, they are simply tax shelters for those that can afford to save money.

CONSERVATIVE FRIEND
(TO LIBERAL FRIEND) thanks for the apology. I agree that the article is attack's Obama (and as Steve pointed out may not be accurate with regard to Obama's actual words). I also agree that left to its own devices, the economy could downward spiral into something similar to the Depression.

We, as a society, have the ability to choose how to react to a situation that we can see coming. The thing that got us out of the Great Depression, was, very unfortunately a huge war. But that had the effect of *immediate* government spending.

We have a situation now where we are in a recession that is, at this point, comparable to the early 1980s. If we leave it go it may easily get worse - and then, to my original point about people screaming that this is the worse thing since the 1930s - may become a reality.

I think we need a very big jolt of immediate spending balanced with tax cuts in areas that create immediate breathing room for cash and credit to flow.

POLITBANTER
(TO LIBERAL FRIEND) Actually, "liberalized education" was not a sleight, but a fact. The state universities are replete with liberal indoctrination in the name of free thought. They push the political and social agendas of the left while denouncing free thinkers on the right. Not a sleight, a fact. UW-Madison, my alma mater, is chief among them with vast inroads of the following (feminism, marxism, the myth of tolerance, revaluation of the family, evolutionism, LGBT agenda, systematic deconstruction of biblical constructions, and more) The problem is not funding at all. It is that the funding is going to the wrong people who are infusing social agenda with solid learning. I am speaking of the collegiate level. Crime starts not just with the schools but with the breakdown of the traditional family and with men abandoning women.

Labels are certainly helpful if they help to accurately classify the root of a matter. You don't order a Coca Cola by asking for a soft drink do you? Call it what it is.

Our prison systems are actually too liberalized. Cable tv, weight rooms, allowance of gang activities. These places need to be staffed to the hilt and these gang bangers need to be kept physcially weak, and intellectually/emotionally strengthened.

Also, those that are barely getting by need to be repositioned in this new economy, not left to flounder in an economic niche that is nothing but a vortex. Here in NC there are vast unemployed because of mills that shut down, whole generations are unmatched for the labor market. Re-education is the ticket out. Capitalism Dan, in a democracy is for those with enough ingenuity, fortitude and resourcefulness to find opportunity, prepare, and take it. I have been very involved in ministry with many struggling families and you'd be suprised how much is attributable more to willful ignorance than true lack of opportunity. Where are the Kennedy Democrats who "Ask Not"? These today are not they, but marxists pleading to a welfare state.

LIBERAL FRIEND
Your last post does not address any issue, nor provide any real facts. You can call a school liberal and denounce them as "indoctrinating" etc. You don't specifically address any issue.

I don't look at something that is conservative and denounce simply for that reason. I take each issue and attempt to argue it on its merits (at least I try).

What is the "LGBT agenda"? Why is it bad? What are the real problems associated with it? Are they trying to make all of us gay? Can I catch the gay?

What is the problem with feminism? What are the real problems that we are trying to solve? Are we just trying to get rid of feminism? Do they have death rays that come out of their eyes?

I was unaware that evolution was widely disputed. As many point out, it is merely a theory, but that is how science works. It comes up with theories to best describe what is going on around us. Currently it seems the best explanation given our observable evidence.

Biblical deconstruction? Who's bible, yours? I was brought up Jewish you and I don't agree on what is biblical, or at least what is biblical important. Why is your version more correct than the Jewish version, or the Buddhist version, or Hindu, or Muslim?

Again, we are addressing labels and not problems. (by the way, in many parts of the country, coke is generic for soda - non specific :-)

Anyway, you mention weight rooms and cable tv in prisons. There at least you have identified a problem. Now we can have a discussion about the purpose of our prisons and the best way to accomplish our goals. I think we should educate them. Teach them other skills. Teach them how to be successful outside the walls of the prison. We need to work together on how to do that.

POLITBANTER
First of all, I am only giving you soundbytes. I've already exercised these debates ad nauseum with others. Including the LGBT agenda. I have already answered much of these and have written several essays on the topic. There are many reasons why it and radical feminism are bad for society. Evolution is certainly widely disputed, where it is allowed to be disputed (reference: "Expelled") I for one, know thousands of people who adhere to Intelligent Design Theory which, as a Jew, I suppose you do as well. There are better explanations for certain on origins and the proliferation and extinction of species. As to

I certainly did point out that a liberalized collegiate system is more focused on outputting social liberals than economic producers which is an economic problem. Interesting that Mark is back on his heels answering you, and you seem to be intent on putting me there as well. In all honesty are you an economist or politician? Or simply a citizen with an inquiring mind
If your questions are not rhetorical bait, I will answer them for you.

As to Bible, I submit that the universities would dismantle both our creeds. I accept the entire Hebrew Bible as well as the Christian New Testament as both the Historical and Spiritual progression of Judaism. As such, I consider myself a Spiritual Jew and a child of Abraham. Christ was a Jew born under the Law and Isaiah declares him to be Messiah, therefore I accept his ministry and person and have witnessed his miracles. As to Islam, its creed denies all the Hebrew Prophets and the Christ and claims a unique uncorroborated revelationl. It's teachings are contrary to an Absolute Moral God. While they do embrace monotheism, it is a concoction of the teachings of a man- and this devoid of miraculous power that confirms the authenticity of the text. As to Hinduism, the confusion of polytheism has its roots in Babylonian mystery religion and its texts do not derive from a single God. Remember your Shema.

Tell you what Danny-Boy...Answer these for me and I will answer yours...

http://politbanter.blogspot.com/2008/11/challenge-to-liberals-and-atheists-can.html

LIBERAL FRIEND
I will respond; however, I have to get to work. I will get back to this discussion as soon as possible.

By the way, I was brought up Jewish, and therefore see many of the discussions through that prism. I am now an atheist. Contrary to popular belief, that does not mean I am working to destroy religion or get others not to believe. I believe that if religion and God help someone to live a fulfilling and happy life, then that is wonderful - it does not help me. I gladly discuss why I don't believe and the problems I have with the arguments.

By the way, this is a very short 500 word essay by Penn Jillette that is very eloquent and succinct (even if you disagree with him).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557 you can listen to him or just read it. I think it is worth it. Says some ideas much better than I ever could

POLITBANTER
Ah. Moral Relativism. At least now I know what ground we are on as we progress. I will read the link tonight :)

As I read your link... you need to go back and read your Descartes.

"The fool says in his heart there is no God."

LIBERAL FRIEND
The link I posted wasn't a quote war or name calling. It describes how you can be moral and still believe that there is no God. It does a good job of describing much of how I feel and is about me...not you. If you would like me to read any interesting Descartes quotes, then I would be glad to, I am always interested in hearing more points of view.

I could call you a fool too, but it gets us no where. Neither does the condescending tone in "Danny-Boy". I will treat you with respect and I expect the same. I am not attempting to convince you that there is no God, simply to voice that your beliefs are no more important than mine or any other religion's for that matter.

I will answer your questions; however, I find it interesting that you have already constructed a straw man and compared your straw man view of me to Adolf Hitler.

I will try to be as brief as I can.

Your Q1. "Can you prove that life does NOT begin at conception?"
A. No I can not any more than you can prove that it does. No, I don't believe it does, but I don't use that as my basis for being pro-choice. I have great respect for the pro life argument and think it is very valid. I think there are better ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and therefore abortions) than outlawing abortion.

Q2. "Can you prove that homosexuality is genetically transferred?" With as much certainty as many other traits that are accepted to be genetic in the medical world, but again, this is irrelevant. Whether it is a choice or not (it isn't any more than you chose to be straight), so what? Eating ice cream is a choice, I am not going to give you the same rights because you eat ice cream. Sounds silly right? What right do you have to tell someone else what to do in their bedroom?

Q3. "Can you prove that there is no soul?"
A. Again, no and I don't care. To be honest I don't really think we exist after we die, I like to think we do (maybe we do), but it isn't my concern. Even if we do exist in some form or another, doesn't mean it is out of the realm of understanding. Fire, electricity, and even the sun were mysterious and supernatural to humans at one time. We had Gods to explain them too - doesn't make it true. Let me get back to the point. It doesn't matter. I should be a good person whether an invisible all knowing friend is watching me or not.
To add to Q3, you ask for proof on all of these things...you can't prove them anymore than I can prove they don't exist.

Q4. "Can you prove that God does not exist?"
A. No I can't. I can only believe that he does not exist because I have seen no proof to the positive. While we are on the subject, as Penn so eloquently explained in his essay, you can't prove a negative. The absence of proof does not make something true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

To borrow from Penn "You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?"

Q6. "Can you prove that the Bible is NOT God's Word?"
A. No. You can't prove that it is. In fact, you can't prove that the Koran, Buddhist texts, or Hindu sacred texts are not his word. What I can do is show the contradictions in the old testament and the new. I can also show where stories of a "virgin birth" exist long before Christians and even Jews - in times of ancient Egypt. The bible was passed down by word and bits of writing (many left out of the bible that are now being discovered - and often in contradiction), for hundreds of years. I can also prove that there are vastly different versions of the same God's word. Which one is right? Which one is God's word? Just the one you believe? I prefer to continue learning. Trying to find answers to the things I don't know, and correcting the knowledge that I get wrong. Constantly trying to improve.

Q7. "Can you prove that Nature has no God?"
A. These are all different versions of the same question. No, I can't prove a negative, but you can't prove the positive either. I like your straw man answer on your site though - that liberals "worship mother earth. And we alone are its stewards". Kind of funny, and shows you don't get it. I don't worship anyone or anything. I respect other people. I treat them as I would like to be treated. I try to live life and enjoy what little time we ultimately have here. I try to learn. That is the whole point. I don't replace God with "mother earth" or anything but the search for truth. When my ideas are shown to be false, or someone has a better explanation of an observation, I adapt, and gain that knowledge. I don't fight and try to fit the facts into my current view. I adjust my current view to match the facts.

Q8. "Can you prove that life was not Created?"
A. Again, this is a negative, so I can't prove that it was not created; however, I can show how it could happen and many have been able to reproduce what many predicted would be the fundamentals in an environment similar to what seems likely to be the environment when this planet was created. That being said, beneficial genetic mutations have indeed been proven positive and observed. Micro evolution as well as species divergence show how the different environments allow certain beneficial traits to gain and in many cases mutate to something entirely different in only a few generations. This is very strong evidence for the grand theory of evolution. I don't see any evidence that life was "created" except the bible. That is like me quoting myself to prove I am right. There is also no evidence that the earth was NOT created by The Giant Spaghetti Monster, but I think the evolution evidence is a more plausible explanation.

Sorry, I skipped one again - eyes are going fuzzy.
Q9 - (actually 8) "Can you prove that there are no Laws of Nature?"

A. Again, same question I can't prove the negative. The natural "laws" that I believe in are Gravity, Thermodynamics, Motion, etc...the physical laws we have come up with to explain our observable events and allow us innovate and harness these rules and create things like telescopes, engines, computers, and all the other wonders we have created in this world.

Q10 "Can you prove that there is no such thing as Abosolute Truth."

A. This is getting tiring. No, I can't prove a negative. To be honest, I don't even know what I would be proving. I am not sure what "Absolute Truth" is.

WHEW. That was long. What I find interesting is that you continue to ask me to PROVE that something DOES NOT exist. That is not my goal. I ask that I be allowed to believe what I believe just as it has been afforded to you. That being said, if someone wants to discuss the subject, I can discuss why I - let me say it again - I don't believe. I don't chastise someone or try to make them agree with me.

Ok now that that is done, let me describe what disturbs me about what you have written here and on your web page. You are so intent on boxing everything up in neat little boxes and marking them good or bad without discussing real issues or problems. You box me up into "Social Darwinism, Secular Humanism, and Moral Relativity" then proceed to misrepresent each of these views by incorrectly comparing them to villains throughout history.

Above you have described why your religion is better and more legitimate than over 1 Billion people on this planet. You describe yourself as a "Spiritual Jew"; however, growing up Jewish and being close to people who were tortured in concentration camps, I can tell you that your comments are more than disturbing. Not because you fit in to a little label, but because of you comments. They may have just come out poorly or I may have perceived them incorrectly, but it is very unsettling to me.

By the way, you are grossly misinformed about Darwin's Origin of Species. His theory had nothing to do with "Social Darwinism". In fact, not only did it have nothing to do with it.

In fact, I would argue it is the exact opposite of Hitler. Darwinism is all about mixing of the genetic soup so to speak. Not some intentional weeding out of a perceived imperfection. It would actually be COUNTER evolution because you could be destroying the "next big thing" in people features or even cause the demise of our species.

POLITBANTER
Let me first say that I do have a very strong set of rational explanations for proofs that all of the above can be answered in the affirmative. Simply because I have not presented them in facebook does not mean that I cannot answer each of these challenges. And of course, as time permits me, I would be pleased to do so, if it may serve to help you "adapt". Perhaps you are a Dawkins Rationalist, albeit of course your own man, but I see strong threads of his reasoning in your positions. When I make summary statements such as "liberals worship mother earth", of course I don't mean that ALL liberals worship mother earth, but certainly many do worship their "Earth Mother". I have yet to see earth worship from a conservative.
add me to your friend list and lets continue this through internal facebook mail so that poor (CONSERVATIVE FRIEND'S) facebook page doesn't explode.
I'll copy and paste the threads so I can respond properly


Also, go to my profile and read the articles I posted about Michael Servetus. You will see that, even as a Spirit-Filled Christian, I am still very much a rationalist and accept the facts of science and Natural Law when they are.

And with "Danny-Boy" lighten up man. I'm being playful. If your belief system makes you that uptight then you're going to have to do a lot of work to convince me to live the abundant life of the Atheist. The intent was certainly to knock you off the high-horse for a bit to realize that the burden of proof rests with the absence of Data. There is plentiful Data for example, that God exists, and there is an absence of data to assert that he does not. Therefore, I shifted the burden of proof. I am glad to see that it provoked you to become engaged in the questions, which I feel could be a meaningful and constructive debate on both sides.

In that spirit, shall we continue?

Take a look at this article:
http://riverforum.blogspot.com/2009/02/expurgation-of-reason-manifesting.html

I did read the Penn article.