Polit-Banter

LIberal's Insane Defenses of Abortion

2011-04-10T10:59:00.000-07:00

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 ....

2010-03-25T14:12:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-10-22T18:49:00.001-07:00

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

2009-08-08T18:25:00.001-07:00

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:

2009-02-19T07:36:00.000-08:00

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.

Which of These Things is Not Like the Others?

2009-02-06T16:51:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I happened to notice when I went to a local Borders Book Store that at every turn the face of Barak Obama (Nee Barry Soetoro) was staring back at me with an arrogant grin that seemed to say "tough luck sucker". Every section I looked in, there was Barry and his grin. I thought to myself, "Oh well, yeah he's popular, he just won a historic election, blah, blah, blah".

But as I began to walk the store, I noticed a definite pattern that, well weirded me out.

My professional background began as a retailer having worked my way up from floor sales to an Executive VP of Marketing over 10 years time. During that time I learned all about how stores are merchandised, how items on shelves are not just arbitrarily placed there by floor staff. Rather, they are positioned on each shelf according to the merchandise plans sent to them in the form of something called a "plan-o-gram" or "display reset". These resets tell floor personnel precisely where and how to place every piece of merchandise on the floor down to the last stick of gum. These processes are audited by store managers, district managers, retail operations, and merchandise manaagers. Nothing in corporate retail is "off-the-cuff". Traffic patterns are meticulously planned, lines of sight, angles of view, signage, and product positions are all scrupulously planned. These principles are summed up very well in two books "Why We Buy" by Paco Underhill, and "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert Cialdini.

Their pedagogical mantras are always spinning through my head whenever I walk into, through, or out of a retail space. Borders is no exception. I sing the little song in my head that I learned from Sesame Street when I was a child..."Which of these things is not like the others..." Watch the video before reading onward....

Cookie Monster's song sung quite loudly yesterday when I happened upon this display of classic and respected children's literature.

Let's see which of these things just doesn't belong:

The Cat in the Hat
Green Eggs and Ham
Snow
Oh things you can Think
There's a Wocket in my Pocket
Where the Wild Things Are... looking good so far...

The foot book
One Fish, Two Fish...ok still going strong....

Light in the Attic
Where the Sidewalk Ends...
ABC
Hop on Pop
Are you My Mother...

and then....

Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope.

Hmm.... Here comes Cookie Monster's Song....

Notice how the book is embedded in the midst of some of the most popular children's books of all time? How the section is directly by the register? How the Obama book is directly in the center at the exact eye level height of the age of the child who would read that book? Notice how "Green Eggs and Ham" borders the book to the top and left? That forces the eye down and right. The repitition also draws the eye to that section. This is the same tactic used by carnival prize tactictians who use prize visualization to attract children to a game. Only, this isn't a game.
When people see new things,they visually sort them into schemas of predefined images. When we see a stop sign for example, we recognize it as familiar and the brain sorts it, first by color, then by shape, then by words, then by function. Or a similar combination. By embedding the new in the familiar, it forces the eye to accept the visual response, make a quick sort and then instantly the eye is pulled to "which of these things just doesn't belong here". These are methods of psychological manipulation. If someone did this to a book about George Bush, Liberals would be up in arms. Why for example are all of the Dr. Suess books suddenly pulled from the back of the store to the front, if not to carry the display of this ONE BOOK?

I found other examples throughout the store. For example on a prominent display by the new releases, the "Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams of My Father" carried the weight of the display, while Goldberg's "A Slobbering Love Affair" was literally merchandised 3/4" off the floor under an overhanging shelf.

I wonder how proponents of Fairness Doctrine plan to treat this hypocrisy.

The Magazine rack which prominently faces the mall entrance was filled with Barack and Michelle covers... ALL in the front two rows... while other worthy publications were buried deep in the news rack.

Now, I understand that people are trying to get as much info on this guy as possible but at what point does it become propaganda vs. free press?

So, I went back and opened the book about Barack Obama to read about the "Son of promise, Child of Hope". Now I always thought Isaiah 9:6 was about Jesus Christ, not a Kenyan Born Marxist Upstart who was vaulted, (perhaps vomited?) up out of a morally abject Chicago Political Machine... but hey maybe that's just me.

But what a book!

Talk about a slobbering love affair! You'd think the author wanted to bear his children they way she gushed and lied about him. The Author truly thinks that he is the social savior of humanity and takes great pains to declare him an American Citizen. She protrays him as a devout Christian who hears from God and is noble in his calling. The illustration shows him reflecting with a teared eye in church with an obscured background. Funny how she left out the screaming racist preacher that stood in front of him shouting "God Damn America", "Jesus was a Black Man", and more.

If only Author Nicku Grimes were alive to have told the childhood stories of a Young Adolf Hitler as he rose to power in a deep recession, if not depression, as the savior of the working man.

The book is nothing but Marxist Propagandy to bait children into believing a history about a man who has no history, only rhetoric, shady connections, poor judgement, zero legislation.

She also left out in the book how Barack wants to end restrictions on late term abortions, and how if Uncle Harry gets you pregnant at 13, don't worry... you don't have to tell Mom and Dad and put Uncle Harry in prison, you can just sneak off to a community clinic and have an abortion after school because Barack Obama, the social saviour said it was "Okay" because forcing your doctor to tell mommy and daddy about it would place an undue constitutional burden on him. But wait, you are too poor for an abortion? Don't worry, unemployed Uncle Harry who pays no taxes can take his economic stimulus welfare check and pay for it all himself! Problem Solved! See, young girl, Obama really IS the savior of humanity after all! He made all your problems go away!

This is not hyperbole. These are Obama's actual positions, nearly verbatim.

Son of Promise? Child of Hope?

The only hope that I have is that Obama can't live up to his promises.

He is the most dangerous thing to our Constitution, Declaration, and American Way of Life that has ever gained power in the history of our country.

Today I met a man who installed my cable phone, and I asked him "Who did you vote for?" He said "Barack Obama". I heard a downturn in his voice, so I asked him, "Did you make the right decision? Are you happy with your choice?" He turned his face to me and said squarely "No. I was duped."

At first I thought that the Obama Book was not like the others. But then I reconsidered. It was like Green Eggs and Ham. The Liberal Agenda is just like that. You keep shoving it down people's throats and pretty soon, they'll drink the Kool Aid.

Wake up, America.

A Child of Hope is one that is allowed to live and be afforded the Constitutional Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Why is he the Son of Promise? Because he's black and a leftist.
But why is he a "black man" when he is half white? Why does he choose to identify with his deadbeat muslim dad who abandoned him? After all, he PICKED HIS OWN NAME!

MLK dreamed of the day when a man was not judged by the color of his skin, but the content of his character.

I say, write the book after his presidency ends. Not before. It is one thing to "Promise" and another thing completely to DELIVER.

So far, all we have are failed and scandalous appointments, a public relations circus, and a failure to engage in the stimulus package creation.

Barack has become a champion of doing nothing. And for that, I will concede that he is indeed a son of promise.

Nothing BUT promises.

Promises and children's propaganda.

A Challenge to Liberals and Atheists: Can You Prove These Things?

2008-11-13T22:11:00.000-08:00

Since the election process begain, I have been marvelling over the liberal and atheistic attacks on my positions supporting pre-born life and heterosexual marriage.

Over the course of many lengthy debates, I found one common thread with all of them. They were very quick to vitrioloze and marginalize my positions as foolish, hateful, and other inflammatory characterizations. They would barrage me with relentless attacks on my position causing me to constantly defend myself. Which, I believe I have done fairly well. (read the "Discussion" posts on this site)

That being said, I feel it is time to reverse the polarity. In all the attacking on why they believe I am wrong, they have yet to prove why they are right. I can defend abortion abolition as the right to Life. But for those who base their view that abortion is an acceptable and tolerable means of birth control, the root of that view is that they feel that at the early stages of life, a pre-born human is not a Life, but just tissue or cells. They say life does NOT begin at conception. I can prove that life DOES begin at conception, but I have yet to hear them prove empirically that Life does not. With over 43 Million dead resultant from this view and others like it, I feel it is time to SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

So here is the challenge. All the liberal social ideologies are based on a rejection of the antitheses of the answers to these questions.

Required Reading: (Declaration of Independance, Genesis 1, 2, 3)?

1. Can you prove that life does NOT begin at conception?
2. Can you prove that homosexuality is genetically transferred?
3. Can you prove that God does not exist?
4. Can you prove that there is no soul?
5. Can you prove that a 9 week old infant is not a person?
6. Can you prove that the Bible is NOT God's Word?
7. Can you prove that Nature has no God?
8. Can you prove that there are no Laws of Nature?
9. Can you prove that life was not Created?
10. Can you prove that there is no such thing as Abosolute Truth.

Why are these things important? Because Liberals cannot answer these fundamental questions. A good friend of mine, an intelligent liberal had this to say:

"I'll (only) answer answerable questions. I'm not going to answer that list you gave. People have been wrestling with those questions for thousands of years.

Some people are done wrestling because they know the answers.

1. Life does begin at conception
2. Homosexuality is not genetically transfered
3. God does exist
4. There is a soul
5. A gestational 9 week old pre-born human is a person
6. The Bible is God's Word
7. Nature has a God.
8. Nature does have laws.
9. Life was created by God.
10. There is Absolute Truth

To the liberal:

1. Life begins somewhere in the process of embryonic development, but nowhere certain, either way they condone killing the fetus.
2. Although they know there is no gay gene, they treat homosexuality as an innate trait.
3. They view that there are many gods, no god, an unknowable god, a force, etc... but no God than can be known.
4. They have no answer for the question of the soul
5. A 9 week old infant has toes, hands, heartbeat, and brainwaves but this is not a person. A person is only someone who is born viable. People on life support or dialysis, or chemo, are still people however even though they are not viable because healthcare is a right.
6. There is no God, and whatever word there is is only men making up stories.
7. Nature had no God. We are nature's Gods or we worship mother earth. And we alone are its stewards
8. Nature does not have laws that must be followed (homosexuality)
9. Life arose from primordial soup from chance mutations
10. Truth is subjective to the individual, and there are many paths to God, if (s)he exists.

So what do they all have in agreement if they cannot answer these questions that underly their so vehemently held views?

Social Darwinism, Secular Humanism, and Moral Relativity.

Who are the poster children for these views?

Social Darwinism:
Adolf Hitler
Master Race, Eugenics, Genocide, ethnic cleansing, survival of the fittest, fascism

Secular Humanism:
Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin
Mass Butchery of people who oppose the secular state. Atheism, Communism

Moral Relativity:
Rasputin, De Klerk, Haiti...the list is endless

Discussions with a Liberal Friend: Abortion, Gay Marriage, Faith, Civil Liberties, War

2008-11-13T21:09:00.000-08:00

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 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 - even though you deleted the thread, it still came to email. 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 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.

"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 to Bayside 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, I would consider them having special rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act as I would for people with other behavioral genetically linked issues.

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.

btw I am having fun getting to know you more through our talks.
how is your family doing?

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.

One interesting feature is that prior to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 by Vespasian, women were not allowed to pray with the men in the Temple. The Temple had an outer court of women. Jesus is the one who undid this through the church allowing men and women, Jew and Gentile to worship together.

Is White Pride Racist?: Transcript of an anonymous e-mail forward.

2008-11-12T13:59:00.000-08:00

POLITBANTER:
WHAT PROCEEDS BELOW ARE NOT WORDS AUTHORED BY POLITBANTER AND POLITBANTER ACCEPTS NO RESPONIBILITY FOR THE COMMENTS OF THEIR AUTHOR

-------------------------------------------------------

Anonymous Email Author:

This is great. I have been wondering about why Whites are Racists, and no other race is.

Proud to be White...Michael Richards makes his point...Michael Richards better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld Does make a good point. This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act. He makes some very interesting points...Someone finally said it... How many are actually paying attention to this?

There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc. And then there are just Ameri-cans. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me 'White Boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman' ... And that's OK.

But when I call you, Nigger, Towel head, Sand- nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink ... You call me a racist. You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you... So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi. You have the NAACP. You have BET... If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists. If We had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists. If we had White History Month, we'd be Racists.

If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR, lives we'd be Racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.

Wonder who pays for that??

A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American Pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships ...You know we'd be racists.

There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US . Yet if there were 'White colleges' That would be a Racist college. In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.

If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists. You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and You're not afraid to announce it.

But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists. You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white Police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist. I am proud... But you call me a racist. Why is it that only whites can be racists??

There is nothing improper about this e-mail. Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on. I sadly don't think many will. That's why we have lost most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won't stand up for ourselves!

BE PROUD TO BE WHITE!

It's not a crime yet, but getting real close!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting Points: Consider if the following existed:

National Association for the Advancement of White People
United White College Fund
Miss White America
White Chamber of Commerce
European-Americans, Euro-American
White Entertainment Television
A Magazine called "Ivory".
A civil conservative militia called the White Pumas (vs Black Panthers)
White Universities/Colleges
White Scholarships
Center for New White Leadership
The White United Fund
Whites in Government
White Engineer of the Year Award
White Culinarians Alliance
White Women in Sisterhood for Action
Association of White Psychologists
Associated White Charities
Association of Whites in Criminal Justice
White-American Summit
Euro-American Planning Commission
The White Cultural Center
Congressional White Caucus
Malcolm X Institute for White Studies.
Union of White Episcopalians

WhiteSingles.com (vs blacksingles.com)
WhiteRomance.com (vs. afroromance.com)
Euro-American Web Connection (vs the Afro American Web Connection)

Black Organization directories:
http://www.blackrefer.com/organization1.html
http://www.aawc.com/aao.html
http://www.littleafrica.com/resources/organizations.htm

Discussion with a Liberal Friend on Abortion: Vol 1

2008-11-10T01:04:00.000-08:00

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 already.

In all seriousness, have you ever watched an abortion?

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 lets have omlets.

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.

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 existance of our country is based on the Declaration.

Liberal Friend 110'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 I always be the one on my 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

Jay, 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.

Basic Calculus.

Sound Reason Against Abortion

2008-11-09T21:02:00.000-08:00

Parallels between Abortion & Slavery
Cited from:
http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles/10rguments.htm

Slavery in centuries past and abortions in this century were defended and promoted by the same arguments. Consider the case in the USA: In 1857, in the Dred Scott case, the US Supreme Court decided, by a 7 to 2 majority, that according to the US Constitution, black people were not legal persons. They were the property of the owner. He could buy, or sell, or even kill them. Abolitionists had objected. The ruling was outrageous, they said. It was immoral and discriminated against an entire class of living persons solely on the basis of skin colour. But those who supported slavery argued that if those who had a moral objection to slavery, didn't have to own slaves. No one was forcing them to own slaves. But they also said: "Don't force your morality on the slave owner. He has the right to choose to own slaves if he wishes."

In a very similar decision just over one hundred years later, in 1973, in the Roe vs Wade Decision, the US Supreme Court decided that according to the US Constitution, by the same 7 to 2 majority, that unborn people were not legal persons. They had no civil rights, no human rights and were therefore, legally the property of the owner (the mother). She had the absolute legal right to keep or destroy her unborn baby. Pro-life people objected. The ruling was outrageous, they said. It was immoral and discriminated against an entire class of living people solely on the basis of age (too young) and place of residence (the womb). But those who support abortion argue that those who have a moral objection to abortion, don't have to have abortions. The pro-abortionists say: "No one is fordcing you to have an abortion. But don't force your morality on the mother. She has a right to choose to kill her developing baby if she wishes."

Abraham Lincoln in the 19th century said: "No one has the right to do what is wrong." 6

This country has just ended discrimination based on race. Are we now going to start discrimination on the basis of age? Saying:"I'm older than you, I'm bigger than you, I have a voice - therefore I can kill you."

Indisputable Medical Evidence - the Unborn baby is a Human Being

Time Magazine and Rand McNally's Altlas of the Body states, "In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilised single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual." 7

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the "Human Life Bill", summarised the issue this way: "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."8

Everything that determines the individuality and originality of a person is established at conception. The first single cell contains the entire genetic blueprint in all its complexity.

* The heart starts beating between 18 and 25 days.
* Electrical brainwaves have been recorded at 43 days on an EEG. If the absence of a brainwave indicates death, why will pro-abortionists not accept that the presence of a brainwave is a confirmation of life?
* The brain and all body systems are present by 8 weeks and functioning a month later.
* At 8 weeks, the baby will wake and sleep, make a fist, suck his thumb, and get hiccups.
* At the end of 9 weeks, the baby has his own unique finger prints.
* At 11-12 weeks, the baby is sensative to heat, touch, light and noise. All body systems are working. He weighs about 28g and is 6-7.5 cm long.

He is fully developed before his mother's pregnancy is even noticeable. This is the age of baby, that the government is saying can be killed for any reason whatsoever, without a waiting period for the mother to consider her decision.

From conception, the new person conceived is as deserving of the full protection of the law as any other person.

The Bible Declares the Sanctity of Human Life

Genesis 9:6 states that we are made in God's image and therefore our lives are precious and whoever takes the life of another human being, forfeits the right to his own life.

We are made by God; "For you created my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother's womb....Your eyes say my unformed body." Psalm 139:13-16 (cf: Is 44:24; Acts 17:24-25; Psalm 100:3; Job 10:8-12)

Because all life was created by God and belongs to Him, no one has the right to murder another human being. "You shall not murder." Exodus 20:13. The Lord hates hands that shed innocent blood according to Proverbs 6:16-17. The Bible also teaches that we need to defend the weak and the helpless. "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves...defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9 (cf Ps 82:3-4).

Conservative Response to Last Post: "Interesting Liberal Blog Post"

2008-11-04T10:20:00.001-08:00

POLITBANTER:

In the previous blog post, my liberal friend suggested playfully that liberals will secede from the union (an act of Treason) and form their own liberal nation. The premise is that all of the best reasources and institutions are liberal.

First, I have to point out some glaring missteps:

1. "You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states."
ALL of the slave states were controlled by SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS!

93% of southern democratic US Representatives opposed the Civil Rights Act.
95% of southern Democratci US Senators opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Both Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln were REPUBLICAN!
http://politbanter.blogspot.com/2008/10/martin-luther-king-on-southern-white.html

2. "we get stem cell research" conservatives only oppose stem cell research from fetal tissue.
embryonic stem cells have now been created using adult cells.... so we get that too.

3. Best beaches?
We get get NC and SC coastline, Virginia Beach, the Florida Keys, the panhandle,
north Florida, the north coast of CA, lots of Hawaii... GUAM, American Samoa, &
Puerto Rico! You can have long beach and the Jersey Shore!

4. Dollywood?
Nobody wants that anyway. It's redneck, but its bipartisan redneck. We get Six
Flags, Carrowinds, and every theme park that hosts Christian Music Festivals. I
suggest joint custody.

5. Intel and Microsoft?
Isn't that catering to monopolies and big business... supposedly a REPUBLICAN
ideal?

6. Worldcom?
More conservatives subscribe to Verizon. Look who buys the service, not who runs
it to see who really drives the corporation. The American Family Association has
halted McDonalds, Ford, etc with enormous boycotts using the solidarity of
consumer power. Is that a Democratic ideal? hmmm...

7. Liberals get Harvard, Conservatives get Ole' Miss.
How about Conservatives get Notre Dame, Princeton, Duke Northwestern while
Liberals get Berkley, Columbia, and Howard.

8. 85% of venture capital and entrepreneurs...
This is a laughable stretch.. the best comedy in the piece

9. Conservatives get Alabama.
they can have their own country apart from all of us.

10. re: two thirds of the tax revenue, with red states paying fair share?
Now you sound like a Jefferson Davis Secessionist!

11. Divorce rate?
That statistic is completly wrong. Divorce is far higher among families who do
not pray together. "God hates Divorce." Malachi 2:16 We'll keep the Biblical
role of marriage, commitment and family.

12. A bunch of single moms.
There are less democrat single moms because they slaughter their babies. You
then get the body heap of 43 MILLION infant carcasses to deal with.

13. You can have Nuevo (SOUTHERN ONLY!) California... along with...
Compton, Watts, Crips, Bloods, MI3, the LA Prison System, the illegal alien drug
dealers, the prostitutes, the sex clubs, uneducated Hollywood nutjobs,
celebrities, Paris Hilton, Sean Penn, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Gay Marriage,
Botox, Fake boobs, junkies in the streets, and more!

14. With the Blue states in hand your workforce will drop 50% as the hard working REPUBLICAN people who support this infrastructure, run these businesses, and work in the banks who finance them, pull out to red states. You'll have to import your labor from Mexico and your primary language will be Espanol.

15. Obesity in minority populations is your problem then along with 85% of the adult onset diabetes in the country...one of the costliest diseases there is. Republicans are developing housing that 100% resists hurricanes, tornados, mold and termites. Liberal New Orleans got the Hurricane. Not Destin. You keep the democratic sychophantic false preachers: Rev Wright, Jesse Jackson, Farrakhan, al-Mansour, Al Sharpton, and the false preachers in CA marrying gay couples. We can split the baptists.

16. We get all the parks preserved by Teddy Roosevelt... http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/conNatlForests.htm
Crater Lake, Wind Cave, Mesa Verde, we also get all the Land that TR added to
Yosemite. We also get all the Buffalo. We get in all, 150 national forests, 51
federal bird reservations, 4 national game preserves, 5 national parks....You
get Central Park.

17. We ask you to prove that Jonah was NOT swallowed by a whale, and at the same
time, prove that Obama is NOT intrinsically connected to al-mansour, Khalidi,
Ayers, Frank Marshal Davis, Odinga, etc...

18. Innocent Life is Sacred.
under 2 million people have died in our nations wars combined. Over 43 MILLION
infants have been slaughtered since Roe v. Wade...www.obamamustsee.com Liberals
can have their godless murdering, abortions, and gang violence while we secure
our borders from you butcherous nutjobs.

Most committed Christians do not support the death penalty or the use of deadly
force. Jesus instructs his followers not to take up arms. MLK advocated non-
violent resistance. Matthew 26:50-52
50And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and
laid hands on Jesus and took him.
51And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and
drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his
ear.
52Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Voluntary service is an acceptable means of sacrifice of life.
John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends

18. Gun laws were established to allow citizens to keep their government in check and to hunt for food. Something you will have to do with no REPUBLICAN farm equipment manufacturers supplying you with machinery.

19. Evolution is a Theory as declared by wise Deists in the the Declaration of Independance.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands 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.--"

If liberals foolishly declare there is no Creator, then they have no rights.

So...
WE get the constitution and the DECLARATION of INDEPENDANCE. You will have to go back and fight Britian WITH NO GUNS, for your independance once more.

You will also have to yield back Truman and FDR for their role in WWII.

SADDAM is irrelevant. Israel's security depends on our position there. as well as a containment of a VIOLENT RELIGIOUS THEOCRACY, IRAN.

WMD's WERE FOUND and satellite photography shows convoys of Russion Tankers and Trucks removing them just prior to our invasion. We recinded our statements on WMD's due to under the table threats from Russia of retaliation. So the gvt went to the press claiming "blunder". Dig around on this.

Morals are derived from Absolute Truth. God is Absolute by definition.
Liberals prescribe to moral relativism, which is subjective morality. Morality is not subejctive. Morality is morality.

So go ahead and protect your UNBORN eagle eggs and whales while you kill your own fetuses.

Have fun motivating a productive working class on legal pot.

...insanity eh?

Oh yeah... and we get the printing press, the cotton gin, supersonic flight and every other subsequent technology based on conservative innovation.

Interesting Liberal Blog Post

2008-11-04T07:13:00.000-08:00

READ THE CONSERVATIVE RESPONSE TO THIS HOOEY

Dear Red States:

If you manage to steal this election too we've decided we're leaving.
We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue
States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes California,
Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois
and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the
nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New
California.

To sum up briefly:

You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.

We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

We get the Statue of Liberty.

You get Dollywood.

We get Intel and Microsoft.

You get WorldCom.

We get Harvard.

You get Ole' Miss.

We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs.

You get Alabama.

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states
pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian
Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families.

You get a bunch of single moms.

READ THE CONSERVATIVE RESPONSE TO THIS HOOEY

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war,
and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If
you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids
they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and
they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets
coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq , and hope that the WMDs
turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's
Quagmire.

READ THE CONSERVATIVE RESPONSE TO THIS HOOEY

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the
country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92%
of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines, 90% of
all cheese, 90% of the high tech industry, 95% of the corn and
soybeans (thanks Iowa!), most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living
redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools
plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

READ THE CONSERVATIVE RESPONSE TO THIS HOOEY

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88%
of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92% of
all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the
hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all
televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the
University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

READ THE CONSERVATIVE RESPONSE TO THIS HOOEY

Additionally, 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was
actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're
discussing the war, the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that
evolution is only a theory, 53% believe that Saddam was involved in
9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher
morals then we lefties.

READ THE CONSERVATIVE RESPONSE TO THIS HOOEY

Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed
they grow in Mexico

Peace out,

Blue States

READ THE CONSERVATIVE RESPONSE TO THIS HOOEY

Obama supports unrestricted abortion at all terms of development.

2008-10-31T10:03:00.000-07:00

http://www.obamamustsee.com/
Follow this link to the most compelling arguement ever made against Barack Obama.

African American Leaders who are against Obama.

2008-10-31T09:43:00.000-07:00

Will Barak Obama usher in the Mahdi? It's all in his name Barack (Buraq)

2008-10-31T00:49:00.001-07:00

Barack Hussein Obama was born Barry Soetoro.

He has used these other names:
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham.

Meaning of Buraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraq
The Buraq (Arabic: البُراق al-buraaq, meaning lightning; Turkish: Burak), is a mythical creature from Islamic tradition. It was said to have been a creature from the heavens, which in the 7th century, carried the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Miraj (Night Journey), which is the title of one of the chapters of the Qur'an.

Meaning of Hussein:
Hussein is an Arabic name that means "good-looking." It can be traced back to the Arabic hasuna, meaning "to be good," or "to be beautiful." One of the first forms of the name was Hasan, who in Islamic tradition was the grandson of the Prophet Muhammed.[1] Hussein, or Husayn, was originally used as a familiar form of the name,[2] much like calling Robert "Bobby."

As a surname, Hussein derives from the given name,[3] possibly as a shorted form of a patronymic surname such as bin Hussein or al-Hussein, meaning "son of Hussein
http://wiki.name.com/en/Hussein

Muslim: from the Arabic personal name ̣Husayn, a diminutive of ̣Hasān ‘good’, ‘handsome’ (see Hasan). Husain (c. 626–680) and his elder brother Hasan were sons of the khalif ‛Alī ibn Abī ̣Tālib (see Ali) and, through their mother Fatima, grandsons of the Prophet Muhammad. The death of Husain in a massacre at Karbela signaled the beginning of a long period of internecine strife in the Muslim world. Shiite Muslims regard Hasan and his brother Husain as the true successors of Muhammad, and observe the day of his death as a day of mourning. The name is popular among Sunni Muslims as well as Shiites.
http://genealogy.familyeducation.com/surname-origin/husain?detoured=1

Meaning of Obama:
The name Obama is said to be a Luo name (male) from Western Kenya. The name may be derived from "obam," meaning "bending" or "leaning." Obama is also surname in Japan and Equatorial Guinea.[1] http://wiki.name.com/en/Obama

Obama is a name from the Luo ethnic group of southwestern Kenya, where Barack Obama Sr. was born. It was originally the given name of Barack Obama's great-grandfather. It is based on the Luo (technically, Dholuo, the name of the language of the Luo) word bam, which means "crooked, slightly bending" . The prefix O- means "he", and many Luo male names begin with it. Since most traditional Luo names were given by the baby's mother referring to something about the child's birth, the best guess is that when Obama's great-grandfather was born one of his arms or legs looked slightly bent. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_the_name_Obama

So in all... if we believe that names are prophetic....

He is a crooked or leaning (leftist?) handsome man who carries with him the Islamic Prophet.

Barak (Buraq): Is the one unique creature who carried and ushered Muhammed
Hussein (Husayn): Handsome descendant of Muhammad
Obama: Crooked, Bent, Leaning (Leftist?)

Remember that this man CHOSE his OWN name. It was NOT chosen FOR him!

The 12th Imam: Who Is The 12th Imam?
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/12th-imam.htm

Within the Shiite, (which is predominate in Iran), it is prophesied that there is a coming 12th Imam who is the great spiritual savior. This Imam is named Abu al-Qasim Muhammad or also called Muhammad al Mahdi. He is said to have been born the son of the 11th Imam, Hasan Al-Askari and his wife, the granddaughter of an Emperor. There are conflicting statements of her name being either Fatima or Nargis Khatoon.

Most accounts of the story say that al Mahdi went into hiding as a child around the age of 5 years (about 13th Century). It said he has been ‘in hiding’ in caves ever since but will supernaturally return just before the Day of Judgment. According to the Hadith the criteria for the Hidden Imam are:

He will be a descendant of Muhammad and the son of Fatima
Will have a broad forehead and pointed nose
Will return just before the end of the world
His appearance will be preceded by a number of prophetic events during 3 years of horrendous world chaos, tyranny and oppression
Will escape from Madina to Mekkah, thousands will pledge allegiance to him
Will rule over the Arabs and the world for 7 years
Will eradicate all tyranny and oppression bringing harmony and total peace
Will lead a prayer in Mekkah which Jesus will be at his side and follow in
Remarkably, the 12th Imam theory plays heavily into the world’s current concerns with Iran. The Shiite Muslim President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, is deeply committed to the Islamic Messiah, al Mahdi. There have been many through the years claiming to be the Hidden Imam but Ahmadinejad believes he is yet to come. He claims that he is to personally prepare the world for the coming Mahdi. In order to save the world, it must be in a state of chaos and subjugation. Ahmadinejad claims he was “directed by Allah to pave the way for the glorious appearance of the Mahdi”. This apocalyptic directive includes some very scary proclamations.

http://justifythis.blogspot.com/2006/05/pervert-prophet_12.html

Islam's Not for me"

Discussion with Liberal Friend on Obama's Opposition to the "Infants Born Alive Act"

2008-10-29T14:05:00.001-07:00

Discussion is based on this video

POLITBANTER
Interestingly, Bill Bennett informs us that Jeremiah Wright was on the board of the hospital where the nurse who helped get this bill rolling worked and was later fired from because of her disgust with seeing a downs syndrome baby left to die as a result of a failed abortion.

LIBERAL FRIEND 1
I'd be interested to know what it is Obama said against that bill on the Senate floor. Do please find a transcript.

I'd also be interested to know why you post stuff about voting records. It only takes a small amount of research to know that almost every time someone starts a "he voted for or against X" conversation, they're only looking at very broad facts without taking any look (or purposefully avoiding) the nuance behind various decisions.

No law reads, "Babies shouldn't be left to die in dirty rooms." That's not how laws are written. A law that sounds good on its face can have many flaws hidden inside legalese and general poor writing, and it's pretty rare these days that bills don't carry extra provisions and ramifications that go beyond the summarized intent of the law. In fact, I tend to think that people write shitty laws just to use votes against them later on during campaigns.

So tell me, is Obama really a bloodthirsty baby murderer, or was it nuanced?

You know, what really worries me, is not that you disagree with Obama on a many points, but rather what you (or less-pious people that share your anti-Obama views) will do if he wins.

All this fear-monger crap that you're buying into is highly troubling. The end result of beliving Obama is a murderer, terrorist, socialist Anti-Christ monster is a dehumanization of him. This is why, at McCain and Palin rallies, you've had people actually yelling "KILL HIM." As if being the first black president wouldn't put him in enough danger from the supremecist crowds, McCain operatives are making it and allowing it to become SO MUCH WORSE.

I certainly don't think that YOU, would ever do something violent, but does it worry you at all that the fervor that others are getting riled into could lead to very bloody ends? And if that concerns you, does that concern spur you into looking deeper than the YouTube videos and partisan blogs?

POLITBANTER
Ironic. have you looked at the Odinga issue? How BHO supported his radical cousin in the Kenyan presidential race and when Odinga lost, his supporters killed nearly 1000 people in the riots.

I am not an advocate of violence by any means. Especially killing babies.

It is not fear mongering to bring to light ACTUAL connections, policies, viewpoints, matters of record, inconsistencies, radicalism, racism and more that surround this radical leftist.

The FACTS are that the people he surrounds himself with ARE radicals, ARE hate-filled, ARE racist, ARE leftist, ARE terrorists, ARE connected to the PLO and Saudi Islamo-Fascists and more... please dont whitewash what this man is.

I would 100% rather see Hillary Clinton in office than BHO.

Barack DOES associate with terrorists at a deep personal and financial level, and has "spread the wealth" around to many such radical groups through his foundations.

BHO is a black-centric neo-marxist. And that is not an insult or a character slam, it is an accurate epistomological assessment of his positions based on his associations, rhetoric, policies, and "faith".

I will go on record as a former and future pastor that I do NOT believe that BHO is the anti-christ. While he is against christ in his positions and life philosophy, as well as agenda, he is not the "son of perdition" or the beast foretold in Revelation.

He is very much a man. With very wrong ideals. I do not believe that he is posessed of Satan and should be killed like some sick idiots. I believe he should be ideologically defeated through the course of an effective democracy.

People are riled because this man is trying to hijack the very core of our nation and the party. "KILL OBAMA" is a reprehensible, irresponsible, and ignorant way of thinking. I view it as criminal (communication of threats).

Documenting Obama's record on infanticide:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59702

the transcript:
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
Pages 84-

Obama states that for infants who are "still temporarily born alive", and already children, that they should not be ... Read Moredeemed as children under the law because it would limit abortions. So he favors stripping their rights and letting them die. on page 86 he deems the living child outside the mothers womb as still a "pre-viable" fetus. He also questions "if this is a child..." To him, being born alive despite an abortion is not the same thing as being viable. I wonder if he went to Hawaii to kill his grandmother???

He said on p 86 that it was a "burden on the doctor (that says you have) to keep alive even a pre-viable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as is necessary to keep that child alive".

Senator O'Mally adeptly pointed out in refutation that "the Constitution does not say that a child born must be viable in order to live and be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says that it must be born. And a child who survives birth is a U.S. Citizen.

Deeming viability as alive is twisted. What about children who are born with severe disabilities who need oxygen, heart monitors, or who cannot feed themselves. Are they not citizens deserving of equal protection under the law? Or what of people in comas, or with alzheimers that can't feed themselves, or MS, or Parkinsons, or Lou Gherigs????

... Read MoreObama would say no, because his position is that someone who is born, but is not viable is not worthy of equal protection and the right to medical assistance because they are not a person under the Constitution. THIS IS his reasoning. And people wonder why they question his character!!!!!!

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
Obama states that it is a "burden on the doctor (that says you have) to keep alive even a pre-viable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as is necessary to keep that child alive". He also questions whether children born alive as a result of a failed abortion... Read More are children.

In Obama's reasoning, these people are not children and should not be afforded Equal Protection under the Constitution.

Look out if you are:
Born Alive but not "viable"

But also if you are:
Very Premature
Severely Disabled
In a Coma
Severely Injured
Have a pacemaker which keeps your heart beating
On Dialysis so you don't die
Taking drugs so as not to die from a deadly disease
Unable to feed yourself
blind, deaf, and mute
have severe deformities that limit your self-sustenance...

Following Obama's suit, these people are born alive and are not "viable" or people under the law.

Discussions with a Liberal on the Definition of Marriage

2008-10-29T13:59:00.000-07:00

Conversation is centered around Proposition 8:
http://www.afa.net/prop8video/index.html

Watch this post every few days as it is updated often

LIBERAL FRIEND 1
The very notion that California even has Prop 8 (no gay marriage) on the ballot is bad enough, but it makes me ill that it stands a chance of passing. When will America learn to stop picking one sect of individuals and take their rights away?

I don't care if you think homosexuality is a sin, or just plain icky, that's perfectly within your rights. But to declare "civil unions" as the solution to the gay marriage problem is Separate But Equal all over again. If white people run the show and say that black people get separate-but-equal schools, that's no good, and I think most of us understand that.

The very declaration that "Civil Unions offer the same protections under the law, but..." is exactly why it's not OK. By using a separate term, you instantly exclude homosexuals and make them into an underclass. If you think they're going to hell, fine, go ahead and pray for their souls or whatever you want to do, but do NOT deprive them of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

POLITBANTER
I wrote a yet unpublished book on this:

The underlying question that this ethic is based on is whether or not sexual behavior constitutes a constitutionally protected characteristic such as race, creed, gender, nation of origin, disability, etc. Prior to the 1970's the American Academy of Psychiatry listed homosexuality as a pathological condition.

I support laws which prohibit workplace and civil discrimination of homosexuals even though I do not support homosexuality. However, homsexual practitioners do not have a right to challenge the institution of marriage which is based not only in religion, tradition, culture, etc but in scientific biology. Marriage is the structure for reproduction, family, and healthy social and emotional development of the young child. Marriage is a designed characteristic which establishes the family...something that only COMES from heterosexual union. Homosexuality, if a trait, is genetically deleterious.

LIBERAL FRIEND 1
Drinking is deleterious, and it actually is well proven to destroy families. Loving, sober, gay parents can actually raise very well-adjusted children. Also, as I get the feeling you're in the anti-choice crowd, wouldn't you prefer a loving - if non-traditional - set of parents to raise a child than an orphanage? Kids need the love of parents, not caretakers.

Marriage is not necessary for reproduction - my daughter is living proof of that, but I was legally allowed to make her. The legality and presence - if not the overwhelming frequency - of divorce proves that marriage is not a requirement for a family. Plenty of children grow up from divorce and go on to be good people.

In fact, a lot of couples today choose to NOT get married because they don't see a literal *NEED* for it in the evolved functioning of our society.

Furthermore, we certainly allow people to get married even if they never intend on having children.

In fact, we also allow couples to get married even if they know that one or both of them are physically incapable of reproduction, and would be forced to adopt if they want to have a child.

The real institution of marriage is a very old custom heavily tied to religion. Any religion that refuses to permit gay marriage within their community is more than welcome to do so - that's between them and their diety. It is not, however, an area that our government is supposed to be legislating.

If you'd like a list of archaic customs that we could find barbaric today, I'd be happy to produce some. I'm not saying marriage is bad, but it it can mean many things to many people, and it isn't up to any one of us to force our views of that custom on someone else. After all, even "traditional" marriage varies greatly around the world through many cultures, but we don't legally bar them here.

POLITBANTER
Drinking is not deleterious. Alcoholics can still have children. Homosexuality is deleterious, because the trait cannot be passed on since homosexual union produces no progeny. From an evolutionary perspective, it is deleterious. It is a social behavior that is statistically abnormal and medically risky.

Interestingly, I watched wife swap one night and it showed an intolerant hetero couple that were terrible parents and a loving lesbian couple who were marvelous parents. Someone with great parenting skills and is homosexual is not different in my mind than a great accountant who is an alcoholic. All children are entitled to be raised by both gender parents in a loving home. But the issue of a loving home should not be muddied with biological fact. People originate from heterosexual union. And by design they should remain in that framework as befitting the psyche.

I would not prefer for an orphan to be raised in an environment where they are given biologically incorrect behavioral model. I understand that marriage is not necessary for reproduction (duh) but heterosexual union is. And marriage is designed to uphold and provide societal support for what is biologically true. In any case, healthy functional heterosexual marriages are the most ideal environment for a child. Marriage is designed to protect the union of a man and a woman and to preserve the integrity of a family for the purpose of creating children and forming the basis of a society. Divorce (and I counsel many people in divorce/re-marriage situations) is a painful thing for children and has nothing to do really with the definition and purpose of marriage. In our country, we believe that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Truths that are self-evident. It is this Creator that has given us heterosexual marriage. It is self-evident.

I am not in the anti-choice crowd. I support the life of children from the moment of conception. I support their right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My wife and I have counseled several young women faced with the hard issue of an unwanted preganancy. But abortion is not the choice. Pregnancy is the "consquence" of the choice. The choice was unprotected sex, usually outside of marriage. Statistically white unmarried women from 19-34 receive the majority of abortions.

read my position article on it:
http://politbanter.blogspot.com/2008/10/abortion-choice-or-escape.html

LIBERAL FRIEND 2
"Marriage is the structure for reproduction, family, and healthy social and emotional development of the young child. Marriage is a designed characteristic which establishes the family...something that only COMES from heterosexual union."

I disagree, because I think you are working on an outdated definition of marriage. As soon as the government got involved and started issuing marriage licenses, marriage became a civil agreement. And because marriage has been deemed to be a fundamental right (see Zablocki v. Redhail), it becomes a liberty issue at law, and any limitations on marriage must be evaluated under strict scrutiny.

LIBERAL FRIEND 1

There's a lot of potential sidetracking here...

You may very well be right that a loving, involved, male/female combo makes for the absolute perfect child-rearing situation, but you'd be very wrong to think that's a common thing these days, and gay marriage has nothing to do with it. I turned out ok from my hetero parents, but they weren't perfect and I certainly had minor issues here and there because of it. I bet there's kids that turned out a lot more well-adjusted and successful than me from homosexual environments.

But that's a sidetrack, and so is the choice/anti-choice, and I'd rather get back to the topic.

The reason the above doesn't matter is because, as we already agreed, nothing about the legal definition of marriage requires reproduction. In fact, homosexual couples are very much welcome to adopt, with full legal protections from discrimination.

Therefore, it boils down to what I originally wrote: Separate But Equal. You can't raise an argument about child-rearing environments for gay vs. straight couples because they'll still be raising children after their "civil unions."

The problem is the terminology and the way it portrays them as a subclass. What are we supposed to be "protecting marraige" from?

POLITBANTER:
To Liberal Friend 2: How can you disagree that marriage derives from the premise of heterosexual union? When did that fact become outdated?

To Liberal Friend 1: I too grew up in a broken home with a father married 4 times and a stepfather 6. I agree that it is not the case that most families are remaining nuclear, but that is also a testament to the degradation of the values of our society as to loyalty, committment, family, sacrifice, and selflessness. Divorce rates are considerably lower for families which are God-Centered. It is statistically true that "families who pray together, stay together". Most of my undergraduate work was in Marriage and Family Counseling with an emphasis in the social and emotional development of the young child. Marriage as legally defined heretofore was only challenged by the LGBT community.

But again, marriage is not a definition of the abscence of divorce any more than prosperity is defined as the lack of poverty. A concept is not defined by its antithesis, it is defined by its tenets. We are supposed to be protecting marriage from revisionism which will redefine it as a social construct based on biology, reproduction, the basis of progeny, the protection of the rights of a child to identify with both genders, and for children to be raised in a home where the definition of their sexuality does not derive from popular culture, pornography, or promiscuity but from the correct anatomical and physiological expression of sexuality between a man and a woman.

Liberal Friend 1

Actually, you've missed a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
There have been times in the United States when marriage between races was prohibited.

I'm not quite sure, though, how the slip of values like loyalty, committment, family, sacrifice, and selflessness applies to the argument against gay marriage. Isn't the homosexual community's resolve in the fight for their civil rights a bit of an indication that they'd be just as committed to their marriages as the rest of us are?

Also, why can't a gay couple have faith? Firstly, not all Christian churches condemn homosexuality to such a heavy degree. Some "liberal" congregations are accepting of all who believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Personally, I'm Jewish, and I'm damn proud that the Synagogue I just joined is lining up against Prop 8. In fact, had I seen "Yes on 8" signs during my tour, I'd have likely turned and left.

There's plenty of places for gay couples to go to worship, I think.

Maybe I haven't been to enough weddings, but I don't remember anything in the ceremonies I've seen that laid out the tenets you've listed above. Where did this original definition of marriage come from? All I remember is a committment to love, the spouse, and - ceremony depending - a diety.

In fact, I don't think marriage ever HAS been defined outside of whether or not certain members of clergy will or won't perform certain ceremonies (not counting laws like the one mentioned in my above link, and that was struck down 40 years ago). What is being sought now is to create that definition in order to exclude certain people.

POLITBANTER

I agree that marriage between the races should always be allowed. Our biology, anatomy, and physiology between the races is identical relative to gender, procreation, and family. Race and culture have no bearing on procreative ability.

the values of loyalty etc.. aren't speaking to marriage specifically in either sense (gay or straight) but to reasons for the degradation of marriage in either case. Again, not a supporting mechanism for the institution of marriage. But these are the interpersonal prevantives which ensure it.

Again, I believe that Civil Rights are acceptable where the expression of those rights does not infringe on the rights of others. Gay Marriage for example and the Gay Agenda seeks to limit the expression of the right to freedom of religion.

Re: Gay Faith... I have a liberal cousin who is a priest in California who is facing being defrocked for marrying non-celibate homosexual people. I am very in tune with this debate from all sides from a Biblical Perspective...

But notice that I am not arguing from a Biblical Perspective, or a Faith perspective. I am arguing from a scientific, biological, and sociological perspective because our natures themselves demand that review.

A homosexual person should have the same rights of employment, access to justice, property ownership, visitations, power of attorney healthcare, voting, bill of rights as any other person or corporation under the law. However. The limit to that freedom is reached when the homosexual agenda attempts to quell the first ammendment right of people to express their opposing views and express their religious views to the contrary. Sexual behavior is not an inalienable right of Characteristic....

But specifically regarding Christian or Jewish Faith as a homosexual person: A person can worship as they choose freely to so do in our country. However the Torah and the Christian Bible are distinctly clear their exposition of G-d's condemnation of the practice as unpleasing to Him, and sin.

Now, people have the right to sin... but churches and synagogues have the right to teach their creed which, for good reason, explains that homosexuality is contrary to natural law. This is not license to condemn or persecute or judge, at least in the Christian Faith. Jewish Law is much more black and white on the subject. The Christian perspective is that homosexuality, as defined in the Bible is a sin, and contrary to God's Natural Law and should be repented of.

There is no scriptural harmony between practicing homosexuality and the Christian or Jewish Faiths. It is a practice that is wholly condemned by the Bible. For one to claim to be a Christian (lit. "christ-like") is a paradox.

See if you can answer this question:
What is the cause or origin of homosexuality?

POLITBANTER
Also you mentioned this "but do NOT deprive them of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness."

My view on that is that the homosexual agenda does this exactly:

LIFE:
Understand that BEHAVIOR is not an IDENTITY. I "am" a christian, and I practice christianity. vs. Joe "is" a man who practices homosexuality. Man being related to his gender and sexual identity. His GENDER already has protection under the law. Refusing to allow Joe to be "married" does not kill him or take away his LIFE. Rather, Homosexual Union challenges LIFE as it does not create life and Homosexual Marriage reduces the rights of heterosexual people to maintain their legal right to do so.

LIBERTY:
Homosexual Marriage and the Gay Agenda limits rights of Religious people to freely excercise their religion by condemning behavior which is not intrinsic to identity. Besides, the Christian experience is one of being "Born Again", which is to take on a new naturet hat conforms to Christ.

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS:
This freedom is limited where it the "pursuit of happiness" becomes criminal, or inibitive of others rights to the same.
For example... I can't just go killing eagles because it makes me happy. People can't expose themselves in public because it violates other's rights to the same pursuit of happiness.
Homosexuality inhibits the pursuit of happiness for heterosexual people who are finding their natures challenged in classrooms, in the media, and are treated as hateful people simply because they disagree on how

Additionally, specifically male homosexuality has significant health risks which not only jeopardize life (HIV, AIDS, HEP-C, GI infections and more)

LIBERAL FRIEND

Oh, I didn't think you were against interracial marriage. In fact, I was quite sure you'd be for it. My point was just that this dance has been danced before, and I assure you there's a sect in this country that still thinks interracial marriage should be punishable by law.

The problem as I see it with the freedom of religion argument is that, in order for you to have your freedom of religion, you have to grant that same freedom to others. That means that you don't ever have to marry a dude, and you can raise your kids not to marry their same genders, and you can preach the same to anyone who will listen. You can even protest gay weddings if you feel that's what God would want you to do.

But if a gay couple is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, Athiest, Pagan, Satanic....it's not your right - in this country - to impose your faith's restrictions on them. A gay couple getting married in the privacy of their own lives doesn't affect your life, does it?

POLITBANTER
re racism... actually Jesus Christ was a huge radical in his time for providing salvation to Jew and Gentile alike, for dealing with Samarians (whom the jews treated as half-breeds), for the rights of women in society... the apostles too brought the gospel to the whole world, especially to black ethiopia through the eunuch of queen Candace.

regarding imposition. If a person who is gay wants to join a congregation that only believes portions of the bible then they certainly can. But for people who believe in the entirety of scripture, for someone who is homosexual to desire to align themselves with the Word of God, they will find that they cannot and remain homosexual. It is not the church that forces restrictions in a civil sense against them. However, if a homosexual person joins a Bible Believing church, the Bible is the "bylaws" of the organization and a person sincerely seeking to conform to Christ, should abandon homosexuality at all costs.

A true Christian will seek actively to conform himself to Christ.
For the Christian, it is no imposition to Obey God.
It is not imposition for a church to teach the tenets of God.

To be a buddhist one subscribes to the teaching of Buddha, or of Islam, Muhammed, or of Mormonism , Joseph Smith. To be a Christian, is to be conformed to the image of Christ and his gospel. This gospel does not include homosexuality, but condemns it flatly. It is simply not a Christian principle to express sexuality either prior to marriage (fornication), or outside of the bonds of marriage (adultery) or in unnatural sexuality (homosexuality, bestiality). At worst, homosexuality (in a BIBLICAL, not CIVIL context) is fornication as it is outside of the bounds of Biblically defined marriage.

Which raises a question of who has the right to define marriage in a Civil sense...

Liberal Friend

Where does homsexuality come from? I don't pretend to have any idea, because it's neither a new trait in humans, nor is it exclusive to humans.

From a sociological basis, homosexuality makes no sense. The general theories are that people have a drive to reproduce. There's a difference between theories and proven facts, though.

From a scientific basis, it would seem that the root what one wants to mate with is formed at a very deep, DNA level. That doesn't mean society can't affect those natural tendencies, but apart from homosexuality you can find a huge array of sexual tastes that erupt out of people without outside influence. Every human is a snowflake....a snowflake with urges ;)

If we try to dive into religion, then we go to the point of all being God's creatures, and he loves us all in spite of our flaws. That is, many religions view homosexuality as a flaw.

But there's a lot more grievous sins than your hole of preference, and God still loves us, right?

Scripturally speaking, I'm not sure if it's worth our time to go down that road. I'm pretty dang sure that you and I have very different views as to the literal "truth" of our respective holy works, versus the intent of those works to set up a structure and moral basis for society thousands of years ago. Do we want to go there?

"Joe "is" a man who practices homosexuality"

This is a fundamental disconnect between you and (at least most of) the homosexual community. I'm pretty sure for most of them, it isn't a "practice," it's a key part of their being. It wasn't a choice to become homosexual, but rather (in most cases) a discovery of who they are.

I've always thought the notion of choosing to be gay is mind-boggling. Who would willingly choose a life that leads to the level of persecution that we see in our society today?

Using your Christian/Christianity example, I would say Joe is a homosexual who practices intra-gender sex acts. Certainly, one could be fundamentally gay and choose not to act on it, but I have to imagine that would be a difficult life to lead.

"Homosexual Marriage and the Gay Agenda limits rights of Religious people to freely excercise their religion by condemning behavior which is not intrinsic to identity."

Especially considering that neither all Americans nor all homosexuals are Christian, I tend to think you're missing the idea of "Liberty." You're absolutely allowed - perhaps even encouraged by our Constitution - to protest, condemn, preach against, etc. anything you're morally opposed to, be it gay rights, reproductive freedom, or anything else.

Your Liberty ends at the point where you seek to deprive that Liberty of others. Laws prohibiting theft and murder and there to keep people from physical harm in the anarchistic society that would gradually form without those laws. The presence of gay people may be troubling to your sense of sin, but it isn't causing you harm, is it?

"Additionally, specifically male homosexuality has significant health risks which not only jeopardize life (HIV, AIDS, HEP-C, GI infections and more)"

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Last I read, Patient X in the AIDS epidemic (in North America), was a straight guy. AIDS cropped up at a bad time, I think, when more straight people were playing it safe than gay people - in no small part because of the prejudice that kept them having sex in secret. Had AIDS popped up in the early 70s, an entire generation of free-loving hippies would have been wiped out, completely irrelevent of orientation.

Also, it should be noted that not all gay guys have anal sex. There might be more pressure to try it in that community, but they can be and often are every bit as grossed out at the thought of porking the poophole as I am.

On the other hand, there's women who think anal sex is the best kind. Is that not also a sin, and if so, why are such women allowed to be married?

"Which raises a question of who has the right to define marriage in a Civil sense..."

Good question, but I think that part has already been answered, at least by our politicians. In the spirit of appearing moderate, nearly all the big names are saying that "Civil Unions" are OK, which is exactly the same as marriage but with a different name (again, Separate but Equal).

So the definition is there...there's all sorts of legal rights attached to both marriages and civil unions, and in theory those rights are all the same.

Personally, I would say that if a majority honestly can't handle the idea of gay folks getting "Married," then government should exit that game. Laws, tax codes, etc., should be re-written for EVERYONE with "Civil Union" in place of references to marriage.

... I get married by a Rabbi, and the state accepts my "Civil Union" for tax purposes. If no religion will accept me for whatever sinful behavior I engage in, then I go to a courthouse and have my union officiated by a government employee.

That way, each religion can choose to treat marriage as THEIR faith mandates, and no one has to feel slighted.

Would that be a reasonable compromise to you?

POLITBANTER

Q: "The presence of gay people may be troubling to your sense of sin, but it isn't causing you harm, is it?"

A: It's not troubling to me as there will always be sin in the world. Their non-criminal consentual sexual behavior does not cause me harm (other than health risks) but it does harm children and marriage when that minority behavior becomes taught as acceptable by the majority of society. Permissible, is not the same thing as beneficial.

A: "From a scientific basis, it would seem that the root what one wants to mate with is formed at a very deep, DNA level. ...you can find a huge array of sexual tastes that erupt out of people without outside influence."

Q: Since science has proven that there is no DNA or genetic link for homosexuality, it is deemed a behavior. And yes, it is a "taste" or preference. If it were a trait, it would not be passed on. This is why it was classically defined as pyschological pathology rooted in both arrested psycho-sexual development and other classical environmentally causative triggers.

As per homosexual self-identification.. Alcoholics who do not drink alcohol are not alcoholics. When they drink it satisfies a chemical issue in their brains and they become addicted. A homosexual person.

"Choosing to be Gay"
many people make decisions and act on behaviors, impulses that are not in their best interest, normal. Violence, drugs, rape, addiction, pedophilia, self-mutilation, tattoos, etc.. A rapist is defined so by his actions in raping. Sexuality is a behavior. Just as singing is a behavior. If I do not sing, I am not a singer. If I sing rock, I am a rock singer... I could be an opera singer because of preference. I hate rap, so... I would never be a rap singer.
Preference, choice, behavior. Identity predicated by choice, not nature. The choice is made due to psychosexual misidentification...again linked to environmentally induced pathology.

Q: On the other hand, there's women who think anal sex is the best kind. Is that not also a sin, and if so, why are such women allowed to be married?

A: Good point. Every organ in our body has a specific purpose. I think that using the body sexually in ways opposing biology and anatomy are abberant from correct sexual physiology. The lining of the anus is not physically designed for sexual activity and can tear easily, which is where the physical risks come in. Again, sexual behavior is not the precursive of marriage, but it is the protection of the interpersonal unit from which children fundamentally derive.

Q: "That way, each religion can choose to treat marriage as THEIR faith mandates, and no one has to feel slighted.
Would that be a reasonable compromise to you?"

A: very interesting idea. I'm going to think about this. Since there is seperation of the church and state, is the STATE obligated to maintain the religion's definition of marriage if it allows for religions to define marriage within a religious context. So... in effect the state sanctions Civil Unions not marriages?

I need to walk down this trail mentally for a day or so...as it is a very creative compromise.... I need to think about this.

Q: "...all being God's creatures, and he loves us all in spite of our flaws. That is, many religions view homosexuality as a flaw.", and "But there's a lot more grievous sins than your hole of preference, and God still loves us, right?"

A: Yes, God Loves us. But there is an extent to his mercy, despite his love as he is Holy. Judeo-Christian scripture treats homosexuality as more than a flaw, but a grave sin. All sin is grievous in the sight of God which is why Jews must sacrifice for sins, and why the Christian accepts Christ as the sacrifice for sin in man's proxy. In this way, one can be reconciled to God through repentance and denial of self.

By the way, here is the prominent scriptures in the Christian Bible regarding homosexuality:

Root Cause
Romans 1:21-26
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:21-26;&version=31;

The Consequence
1 Corinthians 6:9
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%206:9;&version=31;

Take a look at this site which documents successful reform of homosexual behavior and the freedom from it that God offers to homosexual people through his Love for them.

http://www.exodus-international.org/
call and talk to them, they are highly successful with recovery through counseling, bible study, prayer, and self-discipline.

Also, http://www.regenerationministries.org/

Also, as a jew, the highest commandment is this:
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Deut 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Keeping one's self in submission to God's will with 100% of heart, soul, and body would certainly require one to be cognisant of His statutes, will, and desire for man would it not?

Deuteronomy 23:17
17There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Was it Abraham or God that destroyed Sodom?
Abraham pled with God to save Lot or anyone else in the city who was upright in the sight of God. God spared those who loved him and who lived the Shema by conscience toward God, even before it was written.

The difference is that those people who desire to be pleasing to God and enjoy the blessings found in his favor are divided from those who live according to the lusts of the flesh. 1 Kings 14:24

Liberal Friend 2

I am not disagreeing that marriage derives from heterosexual union. However, like everything else, it has evolved.

POLITBANTER

I am not disagreeing that marriage derives from heterosexual union. However, like everything else, it has evolved."

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that universally, all things have a tendency toward entropy. or degradation. What you see here is not evolution, or the development of enhanced traits which is a tendency toward order and improvement by means of natural selection, but de-volution in that the trend toward homosexuality leads to a union that is not sexually productive.

Kind of like how mules, or ligers can't reproduce and make more mules and ligers. The only way to create more mules is to pair more horses with donkeys. With homosexuality, there are certain causes which contribute to homosexual behavior which can be effectively reversed with therapy.

Back to Jeff:
A: "From a scientific basis, it would seem that the root what one wants to mate with is formed at a very deep, DNA level. ...you can find a huge array of sexual tastes that erupt out of people without outside influence."

Q: Since science has proven that there is no DNA or genetic link for homosexuality, it is deemed a behavior. And yes, it is a "taste" or preference. If it were a trait, it would not be passed on. This is why it was classically defined as pyschological pathology rooted in both arrested psycho-sexual development and other classical environmentally causative triggers.

As per homosexual self-identification.. Alcoholics who do not drink alcohol are not alcoholics. When they drink it satisfies a chemical issue in their brains and they become addicted. A homosexual person.

"Choosing to be Gay"
many people make decisions and act on behaviors, impulses that are not in their best interest, normal. Violence, drugs, rape, addiction, pedophilia, self-mutilation, tattoos, etc.. A rapist is defined so by his actions in raping. Sexuality is a behavior. Just as singing is a behavior. If I do not sing, I am not a singer. If I sing rock, I am a rock singer... I could be an opera singer because of preference. I hate rap, so... I would never be a rap singer.
Preference, choice, behavior. Identity predicated by choice, not nature. The choice is made due to psychosexual misidentification...again linked to environmentally induced pathology.

Q: On the other hand, there's women who think anal sex is the best kind. Is that not also a sin, and if so, why are such women allowed to be married?

A: Good point. Every organ in our body has a specific purpose. I think that using the body sexually in ways opposing biology and anatomy are abberant from correct sexual physiology. The lining of the anus is not physically designed for sexual activity and can tear easily, which is where the physical risks come in. Again, sexual behavior is not the precursive of marriage, but it is the protection of the interpersonal unit from which children fundamentally derive.

Q: "That way, each religion can choose to treat marriage as THEIR faith mandates, and no one has to feel slighted.
Would that be a reasonable compromise to you?"

A: very interesting idea. I'm going to think about this. Since there is seperation of the church and state, is the STATE obligated to maintain the religion's definition of marriage if it allows for religions to define marriage within a religious context. So... in effect the state sanctions Civil Unions not marriages?

I need to walk down this trail mentally for a day or so...as it is a very creative compromise.... I need to think about this.

Q: "...all being God's creatures, and he loves us all in spite of our flaws. That is, many religions view homosexuality as a flaw.", and "But there's a lot more grievous sins than your hole of preference, and God still loves us, right?"

A: Yes, God Loves us. But there is an extent to his mercy, despite his love as he is Holy. Judeo-Christian scripture treats homosexuality as more than a flaw, but a grave sin. All sin is grievous in the sight of God which is why Jews must sacrifice for sins, and why the Christian accepts Christ as the sacrifice for sin in man's proxy. In this way, one can be reconciled to God through repentance and denial of self.

By the way, here is the prominent scriptures in the Christian Bible regarding homosexuality:

Root Cause
Romans 1:21-26
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:21-26;&version=31;

The Consequence
1 Corinthians 6:9
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%206:9;&version=31;

Take a look at this site which documents successful reform of homosexual behavior and the freedom from it that God offers to homosexual people through his Love for them.

http://www.exodus-international.org/
call and talk to them, they are highly successful with recovery through counseling, bible study, prayer, and self-discipline.

Also, http://www.regenerationministries.org/

Also, as a jew, the highest commandment is this:
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Deut 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Keeping one's self in submission to God's will with 100% of heart, soul, and body would certainly require one to be cognisant of His statutes, will, and desire for man would it not?

Deuteronomy 23:17
17There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Was it Abraham or God that destroyed Sodom?
Abraham pled with God to save Lot or anyone else in the city who was upright in the sight of God. God spared those who loved him and who lived the Shema by conscience toward God, even before it was written.

The difference is that those people who desire to be pleasing to God and enjoy the blessings found in his favor are divided from those who live according to the lusts of the flesh. 1 Kings 14:24

LIBERAL FRIEND 3
Personally, I don't care much about what peoples proclivities are, but Marriage is a faith based institution, and as such shouldn't be regulated one way or another by the state. State should recognize everyone as being in a civil union and leave it to the Church to hash out Marriage. Its simply not government business and sets a pretty horrible precedent.

LIBERAL FRIEND 1

"very interesting idea. I'm going to think about this. Since there is seperation of the church and state, is the STATE obligated to maintain the religion's definition of marriage if it allows for religions to define marriage within a religious context. So... in effect the state sanctions Civil Unions not marriages?"

Have you thought about it? No offense, but your scriptural quotes above only serve to reinforce my point. The state isn't obligated to maintain any religion's defintion of marriage...in fact, the US Constitution more-or-less mandates that the state DOESN'T maintain any one religion's specific definition of mariage. That's how we keep ourselves from being a theocracy.

I would disagree - on my own moral basis - with any religious sect that chooses not to marry homosexuals, but I respect their right to do so. I don't respect their attempts to legislate it.

POLITBANTER
I am still thinking about the state civil v. marriage issue... I am still researching and weighing your proposition objectively.

but the scriptures I gave are unrelated to that issue. What they show is that for one professing either Christianity or Judaism it is inconsistent to take on a position that promotes the act of homosexuality at any level. Homosexuality is incompatible with scripture at any level.

Again, I do not support discrimination against homosexual people for criminalizing sexual behavior between two consenting adults. But I do believe that sexuality, from a societal standpoint is a private matter and should not be forced on the rest of society or exposed in arenas where children are present.

TO LIBERAL FRIEND 3:
This is an interesting position that we are discussing. Whether or not Marriage is an institution that can even be declared by the State, or whether all unions are Civil Unions.

Legally, this is an interesting premise, obviously based on the principle of the Seperation of Church and State. But, equally interesting is that no article in our constitution mentions the seperation of church and state other than that which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof".

This does not insulate society in a civil sense FROM religion, but it limits the government's power to restrict religion.

That being said... the question still remains as to whether Marriage is/should be a Civil tenet or merely a religious one and too, whether a Civil Union is a viable legal alternative relative to marriage. For example, what if a heterosexual couple wants a Civil Union and not a Marriage?

And what would preclude one from initiating a Civil union with:
1. a child or children
2. multiple wives
3. multiple husbands
4. animals
5. someone in a coma (by power of attorney)
6. someone who doesn not have their faculties

Also... how should people thus be taxed? Currently married people get tax credits for the expenses associated with raising children that derive from that union as well as things like the Child Tax Credit and the Dependent Care Expense deduction.

The problem is that we are granting special rights to people with abberant sexual behavior. What about affording special rights to other abberant behaviors? Pedophiles for example or people who have a sexual preference for animals, or vegetables? This is the slippery slope.

Consider the hetero flasher. This is considered as criminal indecent exposure. Why? Is this not first amendment right to freedom of speech? Because it infringes on the rights of society. discuss....

LIBERAL FRIEND 1
The Constitution also says Congress shall make no law that abridges freedom of speech, but the Constitution is a living document that needs to be interpreted and worked with. There are most definitely laws that prevent certain types of very dangerous speech. The "separation of church and state" was born from your above quote, out of a desire to stay a secular country and allow any reasonable set of beliefs to thrive (provided they aren't a child-raping cult, for instance).

Also, I don't "promote" homosexuality, but I think they deserve to live with every bit the same rights and freedoms everyone else enjoys, without having a label drop them into an underclass category. My religion may, at its core, be as anti-gay as yours, but, like the Constitution, I don't view scripture as concrete...

Many laws (Kosher law makes a great example) were put into place within holy books because the Rabbis were the ones running the towns and villages anyway. They set out a wide range of laws intended to keep people safe, promote healthy societal growth, and encourage a system or morality.

Though I don't eat much pork, that's not because the Torah prohibits it, but rather I don't enjoy many cuts of pig-meat. Thousands of years ago, people ate improperly-cooked pork and got sick, so responsible leaders saw fit to ban it.

I would put forth that a ban on homosexuality falls into the "promote societal growth" category for one, and also that it just wasn't a human nature that was properly understood at the time. Humans tend to fear things that are different...see the original post in this thread ;)

Our world is plenty populous to not have to worry about a small percentage not taking an active role in procreation...and there's still adoption, as we've discussed before.

Oh no..., did you just take a gay-rights topic and make analogies to beastiality and the disabled or mentally handicapped?

Please take it back.

Also, I don't have a moral issue with polygamy, provided everyone knows who everyone is, there's no child-bride issues, and the various spouses can afford to keep up their homes without being a burden on the public. It's another example of an outdated law that has no useful purpose today. Seriously, how many people would knowingly enter into a polygamistic situation? Anyone that's into that, go right ahead, I don't give a crap.

POLITBANTER

re: "but the Constitution is a living document that needs to be interpreted and worked with"

- thus I support a constitional amendment defining heterosexual marriage

re: "I don't view scripture as concrete..."

- Yet, God is morally Absolute by definition.

re: "so responsible leaders saw fit to ban it".

- Leviticus was given to Moses by God himself was it not? Not from man to man. Plus it was not just about trichinosis, but also about seperation of jews from the world. Hence, also the abrahamic covenant of circumcision. Not medically necessary. But given by God to man to seperate him from the world and into a covenant with God.

re: "Oh no..., did you just take a gay-rights topic and make analogies to beastiality and the disabled or mentally handicapped?
Please take it back."

POLITBANTER

I can't take it back, because I am not looking at this in respect to morality, but legally in terms of definition of a Civil Union. To be legally joined to another for the purpose of sharing mutual property, rights, etc....

Although scripture does draw both bestiality and homosexuality as sin, I am not particularly dealing with that issue in this list... I am looking objectively and legally at what are the limits of Civil Union. What is its legal purpose, if any. What are its extents? I am not saying homosexuals are beastialists. I am saying that those who are, also in a statisical minority, would likely claim Civil Unions are their right since they are defined outside of a Biblical Context of marriage. Same with polygamists. or any other sexual preference where an individual would seek the gvt to endorse their commitment.

LIBERAL FRIEND 1
No, you absolutely should take it back - it's a bullshit, disgusting argument. There is NO similarity or correlation between what two consenting, adult humans do, and what a human does to an animal!

It doesn't matter what sins scripture defines - that's my entire point! WE ARE A SECULAR NATION. Do you WANT us to live in a theocracy? All laws set forth by the majority's God and - far worse - clergy?

Guess what, mister, that's what the problem with IRAN is, and the guy you're hoping wins the presidency wants to bomb the crap out of them for that exact reason.

I'm quite disgusted right now. YOUR definition of "aberrant" based on your faith is irrelevent. CITIZENS of this country (which animals are not!) have a wide range of rights - it isn't YOUR right to abridge them!

POLITBANTER
You are missing my arguement.. which is not really an arguement at this point, but a basis of inquiry...

I really think you missed my point.

Aberrant means "differing from the normal or accepted way, esp. in behavior" dictionary.com. I did not say ABHORANT, I said ABERRANT. Aberrant as to a statistically minority practice from the norm or general population. It is not a statement of value or characterization, but of mathematical application. A small percentage of the population is homosexual relative to the entire population.

My query in to Civil Union, as distinct from marriage relative to that which could be defined by the State is to whom does the Civil Union apply. I am not talking about sin or theocracy. I am inquiring, not OPINING, into the limits of what sexual behaviours can take part in Civil Union if it is not based in Marriage. Animals have rights under the law. People even leave estates (property) to them. Also, a corporation is a legal person.

Also, we are One nation Under God. This is not a secular state.
It was not designed to be secular or atheistisic but non-sectarian. Our Civil Doctrine is Deist.

Declaration of Independance.
"...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
"...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"

Simply because more people today are secular than were at the onset of our government does not mean that our country was not founded on Deist principles.

If we have no Creator, there is no God, there is no Natural Law, and Nature itself has no God, then under what premise did our country begin?

This is totally divergent though...

LIBERAL FRIEND 1

Excuse me, Aberrant does mean "differing from the norm," but if you read down the dictionary page further, you'll also see that it means things like, "departing from the RIGHT, normal, or usual course," or "untrue to type," or "abnormal." Don't pretend that you're unfamiliar with the negative connotations of that word.

It's also the root word for Abberation, which, if you'd like to read the definitions, range from the simple "normal path" to "MENTAL IRREGULARITY OR DISORDER." I'm sure you're well aware of all of this, and I think it's really quite telling about how you feel about God's creatures; your brethren.

Since we're defining things, Deism is "the belief that a supreme God exists and created the physical universe, and that religious truths can be arrived at by the application of reason alone, without dependence on revelation."

Therefore, by correctly pointing out my secularist assertion, you've actually made my overall point for me: YOUR scripture doesn't enter into the equation of how we chose what minorities to grant freedoms to. When the many scriptures, philosophies, and theologies don't mesh, then it isn't going make reasonable legislation in this supposedly "free" society. (though let's face it, we're far from the most-free nation in the world)

And yes, that means pot should be legal because Rastafarians want it, and no, I've never smoked pot nor do I plan to. My personal feelings are irrelevent :P

POLITBANTER

Agreed. Homosexuality does diverge from the normal or usual course. But I mean the primary definition as I explained for the purpose of reviewing Civil Unions. As a behavior diverging from the norm.

I think I was pretty clear that I was reviewing Civil Union as a State Institution as distinct from a Biblically Defined one. I am not sure where you are getting this from. Of courese I believe "Marriage" as exclusively heterosexual. But as to Civil Unions, I am reviewing my position on that relative to the State. I have suspended opinion for further inquiry... I don't see where you missed that?

I cannot disagree that marijuana should be legal for avowed and practicing legitimate rastifarians. Nor can I disagree that Jews should be allowed to slaughter animals in sacrifice. Private religious practice that does not limit others' rights is acceptable in my view.

As to bretheren, not all of humanity are my brethren. John Wayne Gacy is not my brother. People may be fellow Americans, not not necessarily my brethren.

LIBERAL FRIEND 3

All three Abrahamic worship the same God. If we go with the rules of one, then we should go by the rules of all of them - minimum- if we start rolling with breaking down the separation of church and state.

That seems like it would be a righteous mess personally.

Frankly I don't think that, other than protecting children and animals, the state should in any way regulate sexual activity. Falls under the right of privacy as far as I'm concerned.

Marriage as far as the state is concerned is predominately a matter of taxation and property ownership. Thats about it. Leave it to the Churches to make the rules for people who choose to follow that religion.

One of the primary things that makes this country great is that we practice tolerance of others. Sure there's racism and bigotry, but they are both aberrant and abhorrent. Once we start legislating away our tolerance of others, then its a slippery slope.

Plus we have far bigger problems in this country than this.

POLITBANTER
the Abrahamic discussion really is not bearing on Civil Unions, but a tangent on the veracity of the Hebrew Scriptures. The comment was made that dietary restrictions for the Jew relative to pork was the result of a rabbinical edict, and I was clarifying, with no reflection on the current discussion, that the Levitical Laws were instituted by God, given to Moses. Something all thre agree on (Muslim, Christian, Jew).

Again, I agree that America should not be a Theocracy, but that it should be a non-sectarian society that is friendly, not hostile to people of faith who practice their faith without infringing on the rights of others.

Marriage is an institution that has existed since the dawn of humanity for good reason. The breakdown of the family is the root of hundreds of social problems from gangs to drugs, to prostitution...many people are profoundly and adversely affected by divorce. If Marriage is not the proper foundation establishment of family, then why?

ONGOING....

October Ratings - Fox News #2 in All of Basic Cable

2008-10-28T23:34:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, Oct 28
October Ratings - Fox News #2 in All of Basic Cable
Source: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/october_ratings_fox_news_2_in_all_of_basic_cable_98871.asp

Fox News was the #2 cable network in prime time basic cable during the month of October. (TBS was #1 in prime time.) This marks the 82nd month in a row that FNC has led all cable news channels in total day and prime time viewership.

The network's top show, The O'Reilly Factor, averaged 4 million viewers a night marking 95 consecutive months at #1 (since December 2000.)

As for all of prime time, FNC averaged 3.36M Total Viewers, compared with CNN's 2.14M and MSNBC's 1.58M. In total day, FNC led with 1.49M total viewers compared to CNN's 1.01M MSNBC's 675,000.

More highlights after the jump...

â€¢ FOX News Channel marked its 12th anniversary in October with remarkable ratings gains, leading all cable news competitors during political peak and tumultuous economic times. FNC remained the top-rated cable news network in both total viewers and in the key 25-54 demographic. Every FNC program experienced double or triple-digit percentage gains during October 2008 when compared to October 2007 in both total viewers and in the 25-54 demographic.

â€¢ October was FOX News Channel's fifth highest-rated month in the network's history.

â€¢ Both Brit Hume and Shepard Smith again dominated their respective hours (Special Report with Brit Hume at 6PM and The FOX Report with Shepard Smith at 7PM). Both programs were #1 for 85 consecutive months during their time period. Smith pulled in 2,227,000 viewers and Hume attracted 2,140,00 viewers.

â€¢ FOX News Channel secured 4 out of the top 5 programs in cable news for the month based on total viewership. Each of FNC's all-star prime time programs experienced extraordinary gains during October.

When compared to October 2007:
The O'Reilly Factor was up 76% (4,002,000),
Hannity & Colmes was up 132% (3,260,000), and
On The Record w/ Greta Van Susteren was up 163% (3,068,000).

All three of FNC's prime time programs continued to be the most watched of all cable news programs during their respective time slots.

A very strong presentation on the Mansourian Candidate

2008-10-28T14:00:00.000-07:00

So what about Khalid al-Mansour?

2008-10-28T13:52:00.000-07:00

Excerpt from Jack Cashill's Cashill.com
http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/why_obama_is_mum.htm

Five years after leaving Columbia, Obama decided on law school. His lack of resources did not deter him from thinking big. Nor did his B-minus effort at his Hawaii prep school or his equally indifferent grades at Columbia.

As Obama relates in Dreams From My Father, he limited his choices to only three law schools--“Harvard, Yale, Stanford.” (It must be nice to be Obama.) He does not mention his connections.

Harvard law School is notoriously difficult to get into. Annually, some 7,000 applications apply for some 500 seats. Applicant LSAT scores generally chart in the 98 to 99 percentile range, and GPAs average between 3.80 and 3.95.

If Obama’s LSAT scores merited admission, we would know about them. We don’t. The Obama camp guards those scores, like his SAT scores, more tightly that Iran does its nuclear secrets.

We know enough about Obama’s Columbia grades to know how far they fall below the Harvard norm, likely even below the affirmative action-adjusted black norm at Harvard.

As far back as 1988, however, Obama had serious pull. He would need it. As previously reported, Khalid al-Mansour, principal adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, lobbied friends like Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton to intervene at Harvard on Obama’s behalf.

An orthodox Muslim, al-Mansour has not met the crackpot anti-Semitic theory he could not embrace. As for bin Talal, in October 2001, New York mayor Rudy Giuliani sent his $10 million relief check back un-cashed after the Saudi billionaire blamed 9/11 on America.

....

In February 1990, after an ideologically charged all day affair, Obama’s fellow editors elected him president from among 19 candidates. As it happened, Obama prevailed only after the HLR’s small conservative faction threw him its support.

Curiously, once elected, Obama contributed not one signed word to the HLR or any other law journal. As Matthew Franck has pointed out in National Review Online, “A search of the HeinOnline database of law journals turns up exactly nothing credited to Obama in any law review anywhere at any time.”

The Men behind Obama

2008-10-28T13:45:00.001-07:00

Very strong expose by Malcom X's Lawyer connecting Radical Black Power Muslim al-Mansour to Barack Obama.

Another Obama mentor, Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, calls for the murder of white people.

2008-10-28T13:43:00.000-07:00

Exposing the Myth of Liberal "Tolerance": Tolerate and embrace evil while hating Truth.

2008-10-28T12:52:00.000-07:00

Warning: Graphic Images below.

I interspersed the embedded images from Liberal Friend's website througout this dialogue to help illustrate the perspective of Liberal Friend for my readers as far as what my Liberal Friend views as normal, acceptable, and a positive cultural ideology/religion.

POLITBANTER
I saw your Haiti project slideshow. VERY moving. I have a real heart for kids in developing nations. My wife and I sponsor some children in Africa and correspond with them regularly. www.compassion.com

It has been an awesome program. They sponsor kids in Haiti by helping them get off the streets, feeding, clothing, sometimes lodging, and educating these kids. Voudun culture has a lot to do, in my mind with the problems there. Very sad. Very little hope.

LIBERAL FRIEND
I'm glad you could appreciate my work.
Funny you should mention the Vodou religion as the cause for Haiti's problems....

In my time in Haiti I had quite a great deal of contact with the Vodou culture - particularly high up. I also had quite a lot of contact with many of the missionaries out there as well.

From my perspective having seen, experienced and heard from both parties I have quite strong feelings about the perception you describe.

Vodou is a passionate and amazing religion - I don't subscribe - but I have always celebrated different religions across the globe and their influence their respective cultures. I was privileged to attend a couple ceremonies as well as spend time in the country (where vodou flourishes more than in Port au Prince) with prevalent Vodou families and a great deal of time with a leading vodou priest in Port au Prince.

The poverty from what I have seen globally again and again comes from - at the very top- the US and its globalizing partners. The issues that occur are more like a cause and effect of this superpower issue. Violence/kidnapping and stealing come from desperation, which comes from poverty, which comes from corruption, which comes from exploitation. Haiti has been exploited by the US and Canada for ages and I see Haiti’s dire situation as being very much the fault of US policies economic capitalising and consumerism and exploitation. Much of the world’s pain is suffering because of it and the US hardly ever takes responsibility - like Iraq. America is a disaster and what it’s doing to the world is horrific – but that’s a sideline really.

From my experience and perception Vodou has little or nothing to do with Haiti’s problems. Its a crutch of support to these people through the terrible times they are having as most religions seem to be and unfortunately the missionaries are vehemently trying to discourage this cultures basic belief systems. I can't stand that - how dare they! (clearly I’m very passionate about this issue☺ )

Photo from Liberal Friend's Website of a demon posessed woman under the influence of drugs

The missionaries I met claimed vodou as evil and 'walking with the devil', blah blah blah etc. None of whom have little if any knowledge or experience of this religion. Thus they frighten the Haitians in to condemning (publicly at least) their own beliefs. Often if a murder or a crime is committed the foreign missionaries are quick to blame vodou and any known vodou practioners rather than see the problem and issue for what it is. So of course Haitians deny being voudouist - it could cost the their lives - but wether they admit it or not - 100% of Haitians are Vodouist.

Photo from Liberal Friend's Website of an occult frenzy of demon posession, wailing, and drug use.

In my experience it seemed that much if not all of the missionaries I met were often providing relief work in exchange for religion and renouncing of Vodou beliefs. It was like bribery - I found that shameful. Yes there is a lot of great work being done by missionaries - but at what cost.
Destroying a culture that was working quite well before America got its hands on it....

Photo from Liberal Friend's Website of Vodun men in a frenzy humping one another under invited demonic influence.

Tragic. It breaks my heart and so I continue to try to do my little part. But with great respect and reverence for the cultures and beliefs I come across. To me that feels the path of greatest integrity. So and (sic) earful you’ve received – sorry about that but I hate the idea of vodou getting a bad rap.

Please don’t think it’s meant to be anything other than sharing my experience as I know so few people really know what is happening there. The press sensationalise everything. I always love to take the opportunity to clear the air.

POLITBANTER
In a nutshell, my view is that animistic cultures typically struggle with self-governance because of the capriciousness of their ideals. This, in effect is precisely what makes them prone to colonial influences. Nations and cultures who build governments and societies on absolute tenets are not typically colonized or exploited, unless by force of war, they are traded with. This is true of many tribal cultures. Honestly, philosophies like voudon etc are the force maejure in inviting cultural, economic, and social chaos. This is why governance from the people in a republic is such a great thing. It is what empowered Napoleon to destroy papal powers, and thrones to establish the Code. The leaders are intended to express the will of the people. There is much confusion, contradition, abuse of self, and ignorance in voudun, not to mention the malevolent spritual connections. Voudun is no crutch indeed as it contributes to the lawlessness in Haiti and compounds their problems.

In college I was an anthropology/family studies major with an emphasis in french and focused on Haitian culture and art. This has been my view well before I ever became a Christian, so it is brought without that bias.

Read "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe. A fantastic treatment of the culture of Nigerian animism in a colonial backdrop. I met and discussed the book with the author.

I love engaging discourse. cool to see that you do too. I have several long discussions going that will probably become a book

I can't disagree with you about the bent of missionaries. Certain ones that is, especially Catholic...

LIBERAL FRIEND
I appreciate your friendliness and your willingness to communicate and get in touch.

I dare say however I am not interested in debate nor am I interested in any biblical references.

Photo from Liberal Friend's Website which illustrates Liberal Friend's system of beliefs.

I found your opinions on Vodou rather critical and full of bias and completely lacking experience to make those judgments.

Like with any book - bias is inevitable - so my feeling is that your studies might have given you but a mere a window into a world one simply cannot understand without experiencing and even then that can only fully be experienced without bringing your own bias, judgment and belief systems to the table.

I'm not interested in debating my views with yours as I have no interest in changing your ideals and beliefs. However I can say that your perspective on both of those as well as your comments on politics disturb and offend me.

Where you and I are at in life could not be more of a polarity.
I loath the Christian cult and all it's sects. Although I'd once found an acceptance of it, having gone to Haiti my revulsion has been re-ignited. My feelings on politics is not too dissimilar with my regard for Republicans and even more so religious ones.

Additional Photo from Liberal Friend's Website which shows Liberal Friend's alternative to Christianity.

Like I said - I have no wish to change your opinions nor do I wish to have you try to change mine - that's more or less the goal of debate in my opinion and I couldn't be more disinterested in that sort of exchange.

POLITBANTER

No one's trying to change you by opining, maybe you could be more tolerant of Christians? I don't remember "shoving Bible down your throat" or trying to debate you. It seems you are either very easily offended or intolerant of other word views. An odd turn indeed to the converstion.

I certainly respect your views and I actually referred one of my liberal friends to contact you who is doing work in Haiti.

But honestly, your bias is probably just as strong as mine although polarized opposingly. As wrong as secular liberals are, their intolerance and moral negligence don't offend me. Nor do competing ideologies.

Again, no one's trying to evangelize you or force their opinions on you.
Just because my views may be as strong as yours in another direction, I am as entitled to them as you are.

I have just as many friends that disagree with me than agree with me because I have learned to keep perspective all around me.

I am as vocal as any liberal activist. But, must I remain silent because I profess a belief in One God, moral absolutes, and socially conservative politics? Surely not. Do you treat people who are as vocal as I, that align with your views the same way? Just because I have strong opinions doesn't mean I hate people or want to impose things on them.
I don't remember trying or wanting to actually debate you about Haiti, I was just making conversation.

Again, there are other views. I believe that there is Absolute Truth that can be known and understood through inquiry. Of course, I am a Christian, but not like those in the mainstream. And I became so after a very lengthy and detailed period of research, investigation, and witnessing of miracles.

I totally accept your right to view the world completely differently.
Being open-minded is not the same thing as subjectively accepting everything to be true that may not be.

Yes, my world-view is Christ Centered. It's not about a cult or sect, but about a relationship with a God that Loves me. If you knew Him, like I knew Him and had seen the things that I have, you would probably feel differently both about what I believe and who I am.

Politics aside, I am not trying to coerce you to become a Christian, but I wonder if you have really substracted the time and energy to really research the Bible and it's claims with as open a heart as you do the Haitian experience. If so, perhaps you would be more tolerant.

I have always enjoyed our friendship and discussions over the years. Yes, we seem to be on quite different paths, but I think that is what makes life interesting. I am always an open student of the human experience.

In Peace.

========================================================================

3 John 1:11
Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Romans 1
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Iranian Caviar: Michelle Obama Spreads the Wealth Around

2008-10-27T17:32:00.000-07:00

Martin Luther King on Southern White Liberals

2008-10-27T06:41:00.000-07:00

Who decided to wake up one day and label the Republican Party as racists?

Gov. George Wallace after all, was a Democrat. Segregationist Strom Thurmond as well. It was Democrat Representative Howard Smith who was the most vehement opponent of the Civil Rights Act. In the Senate it was the Democrats, led by Bill Russell who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And Democrat Robert Byrd led a serious rhetorical charge against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Republicans are the ones who pushed it through. Republican Abraham Lincoln Ended Slavery.

Like France who forgets her allegience to the US for saving her from Hitler, Black America has forgotten its allegience to the Republican Party which stands for equality, faith, family, smaller federal goverment, and civil rights.

93% of southern democratic US Representatives opposed the Civil Rights Act.
95% of southern Democratci US Senators opposed the Civil Rights Act.

The Republican Party has a long history of change that we can believe in.

Newspaper Shows Obama Belongs to Socialist Party

2008-10-27T06:37:00.001-07:00

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945

Link to World Net Daily

Phillip Berg Sues the Government for a redress of the Ballot: Obama NOT a citizen!

2008-10-27T06:34:00.000-07:00

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2066207/posts

Jeremiah Wright: "Jesus was a poor black man"

2008-10-27T06:33:00.000-07:00

"Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country, and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people."

Correction: Jesus was a Galileean Jew, a Semite under the rule of Jewish King Herod, a vassal king of the Roman Empire. Jeremiah Wright does not believe his Bible which teaches him that Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And that His kingdom was not of this world... if it were his servants would have fought Rome. Jesus Christ was in control of everything.

JOHN 18
33Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 38Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
39But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
40Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

John 19
1Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.
2And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
3And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.
4Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.
5Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!
6When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.
7The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
8When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
9And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
10Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

"It just came to me within the past few weeks y'all, why so many folk are hatin' on Barack Obama. He doesn't fit the model. He ain't white, he ain't rich, and he ain't priveleged."

Correction: Barack Obama is 1/2 white, he is rich (1.6M home), and is privileged (had his harvard education paid for by radical black muslim benefactor al-Mansour)

"I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it...Hillary ain't never been called a nigger...oh I'm so glad I've got a god who knows what it is to be a poor black man in a country that is controlled by and run by rich white people"

Correction: Jesus was hated by his own people because of his ministry, not his race.

Obama and Connections to Louis Farrakhan

2008-10-27T06:32:00.000-07:00

Obama: "Words do matter"

2008-10-27T06:31:00.000-07:00

Obama denies and admits he listened to controversial speeches by Jeremiah Wright

2008-10-27T06:29:00.000-07:00

Obama says he never heard Wright's controversial marks.
Obama says he heard Wright's controversial remarks.
Anderson Cooper asks why he didn't get up and walk out...???

An Atheist was Walking in the Woods

2008-10-26T12:15:00.000-07:00

An atheist was walking through the woods.

'What majestic trees!'

'What powerful rivers!'

'What beautiful animals!'

He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charging towards him.

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out, 'Oh my God!'

Time Stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. 'You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist, and even credit creation to cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?'

The atheist looked directly into the light and said, 'It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?'

'Very Well,' said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:

'Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen.'

Liberals Deny and Attack Again!

2008-10-25T10:34:00.000-07:00

In response to my accurate post about the shady connections of Barry (aka "Barack")
http://politbanter.blogspot.com/2008/10/audacity-truth-about-obamas-plan-for.html
Several Liberals had comments for me...

Liberal 1
This is providing reasons to not to vote for Obama, but doesn't do anything to tell me why I should Vote for McCain. Pretty typical of the Republican campaign of recent weeks. I haven't heard one thing, with specifics, from McCain regarding policies he would enact that would benefit me. Perhaps I don't live in a Pro-America area (as Palin so ... Read Moreinsultingly reffered to regions of the country that disagree with her)
Last post with the movie motivated me to donate. I think this post may motivate me to go door to door. Thanks

Liberal 2
I respect the fact you are voting for McCain and understand you are compelled to tear down his opponent in a effort to make him more appealing. In this case I would urge you to check you facts as rhetoric clearly trumps truth in your latest anti-Obama post.

Politbanter
The simple truth is that Obama has been connected to radicals, communists, black supremicists, militant muslims, and anti-semites since his earliest days, and continues to sympathize with their ideals. These ARE facts that threaten the integrity of our nation when these ideals, which run contrary to the Ideals set forth in our Constitution, Bill ... Read Moreof Rights, and Declaration of Independance.

I vote McCain/Palin because:
1) They do not support the slaughter of partially-born infants
2) They will not leave infants to die from botched abortions
3) Their position on National Defense is sound
4) They are not for the socialization of our healthcare system
5) They will not redistribute wealth to those with no tax liability
6) Their tax plan is better for me as a small business owner
7) They support Israel
8) They do not associate or take money from Terrorists
9) John McCain keeps his word and can be trusted
10) He does not take or give money from/to Thugs, Racists, Terrorists

Unfortunately, when you dismiss the vetting of Obama as merely "negative attacks" you fail to accurately assess the true nature of this man, which is RHETORIC and DECEIT, very artfully concealing money trails through a web of very un-american cronies.
read this:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78106

Read about: The ... Read MoreWoods Fund, The Joyce Foundation, The Gamaliel Foundation,

"It's not that I want to punish your success. … I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

It is NOT good for everybody when his record of spreading wealth goes to these extremist groups!

I don't agree with Palin's statement above. Just for the record, I am an independant who is against Obama. I am largely voting for the McCain/Palin ticket on the issues of National Security and Abortion, and as a strategy vote against a man with very dangerous ideologies who conceals his beliefs.

Liberal 1
It is unrealistic to believe that "being connected to" necessarily means that Obama supports or actively promotes such idealogy. In fact, based on his legislative initiatives (which you can look up via the lobrary of congress search engine called "Thomas", loc.thomas.gov I believe.) You will get a clear indication of the types of things he is... Read More for. Education, Alternate energy, helping the poor and transparency in government. Contrast with McCains legislation over the same period. [By the way, Obama was more prolific than McCain over the 109th and 110th congresses] Who focusing on War and Big business. These are the facts. There is no inference of associations, or hypothetical fear mongoring.

Abortion is a non-issue. Bush was not able to make it go away with a majority in Congress. It is simply a wedge issue. As Obama said, no one is pro-abortion. McCain should never have condesenginly mocked the "heath" of the mother.

On "health" -
I don't believe the government should dictate what a medical Dr. can and cannot do to save the life of a patient. It is not their role.
The Mccain tax plan is better for big business. 98% of small bussiness owners don't bring home $250k net. This is after all expenses are paid. People are acting like it is a huge amount of money. We ... Read Moreare talking ~3% difference between Obama and McCain. 3%!!!!! are you kidding? This is only on the amount over $250k. So if you are at $300k it is $1500!!!!! So, the whole Joe the Plumber thing is based on Joe's addmitted ignorance of the plan.

Obama has indicated he supports Israel and considers it our only ally in the Middle East. . .

National security may be McCains strong suit, but I am not up for sacrificing my personal freedoms further than they have been eroded under Bush. To quote Ben Franklin - "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security. "

Politbanter
The problem is that medical doctors are not performing abortions to save the life of the mother. These are rare cases. In fact, statistically, a mother's life is more at risk BECAUSE of abortion. Again, 1.2 MILLION every year. It IS the government's role to protect and Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. For all.

I am all for a repeal... Read More of the Patriot Act and the unaccountable NSA surveillance satellites. I am very libertarian in that regard.

However, life and the liberty to exist is something that should be defended by our government. To take an innocent life is murder and it is the role of goverment to protect citizens from themselves.

Even if you allow for rape, and the health of the mother you are looking at 100's or maybe 1000 or so abortions rather than millions.

look at the stats: http://politbanter.blogspot.com/2008/10/abortion-choice-or-escape.html

If you go to the CDC and research the stats, you will see that abortion is being used as birth control

Debate with a Liberal Friend

2008-10-25T10:26:00.000-07:00

POLITBANTER
I am much more anti-Obama than I am pro-McCain. I was abstaining until Palin got on the ticket. My candidate was Huckabee. I respect Palin for standing strong for Pro-Life and the family.

TS (OBAMA SUPPORTER)
He's got some skeletons that could be dragged through the mud. I suspect if he was a democrat, we would have heard a lot about the specifics of his multiple plane crashes, the Keating Five, him leaving his wife, etc.

Funny enough, I saw this cover on someone's desk right after I sent my previous response:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/... Read Morehttp://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

The sad thing is, neither candidate is really "looked into" beyond what makes a quick talking point for the next day's news cycle.Personally, I prefer to look at what their ideas are and their stances on the issues and make my decision that way. Everything else is a distraction.

POLITBANTER
i'm not hot about the Keating 5 or the marriage deal either. McCain did acknowledge in the Saddleback that marriage was his greatest personal failure.

Honest question: Why do you support Obama?
http://politbanter.blogspot.com/2008/10/audacity-truth-about-obamas-plan-for.html

TS (OBAMA SUPPORTER)
Because I believe in what he stands for. He makes me excited about politics and the outlook of this country. And my beliefs are generally democratic leaning, so I agree with him on most issues.

I think the personal association argument is incredibly weak. You could play that game with any politician. I'm not voting for a pastor, I'm voting for A president. Palin, I think she's despicable. I don't see one redeeming quality aside from having a talent for delivering insults. She can't even give interviews for cripes sake!

Joe the plumber has given more interviews than her since she was announced as the VP candidate. Really, he has. I respect McCain, but I think he's the wrong person for the job. I don't respect Palin.

I understand your Pro-Life commitment. That's obviously a very divisive issue.

I actually wish some sort of acceptable compromise could be found on the abortion issue because it dominates so much of our political discourse, and we have some other seriously major issues to deal with.

I won't try and persuade you to agree with me politically. I'm... Read More cool with agreeing to disagree. What I will constantly fight though are the personal attacks (for either side). I don't like Palin and don't agree with her on most things, but I will never accuse her or any other politician of being anti-american or unpatriotic just because I disagree with them. Nor can I accept the way that she and McCain have been not-so-subtly suggesting that Obama is a terrorist and we should be afraid of him. Or the emails claiming obama is a muslim and trying to take over the country. It's just nonsense, but people are changing "kill him" and well, that's just not right.

POLITBANTER
I have to agree that saying "kill obama" is over the line. But take a look at the people I put up on this image http://www.unthinkit.com/images/AUDACITY.jpg
and look deeply into their backgrounds. It is, in fact very disturbing. For example, if McCain was linked to Timothy McVeigh in any way, the liberal media would eviscerate him. Of course I ... Read Moreonly posted snippets, but dig deeply into the rhetoric and background of each of the men on this image that have deeply influenced obama and you will see a very clear picture of a very radical man who is holding his cards very close.
I respected John Kerry, and Al Gore although I disagreed with them. Obama has done nothing in 1 term as Senator that is worthy of distinction. He is not qualified to be president.
Biden however, is qualified to be a dem president. Clinton Biden is an honorable ticket or Biden/Clinton. But Obama anything is very dangerous in my mind. He is very naive and his rhetoric only reflects opinion, no solutions.

I totally respect my friends with opposing politics and worldviews.

For me, politics aside Obama has:
Zero executive experience,
Zero budget management experience,
Zero commander-in-chief experience.
A poor voting record (present?)
Zero bi-partisan efforts in the Senate
Zero macro-economic experience
Little Experience in the Senate
Little ... Read MoreExperience in the Illinois Senate
Very Questionable Ties all over the place
Has been birthed out of a very radical political machine
Has surrounded himself consistently with racists and radicals

So... even before this guy opens his mouth he is not qualified as to character, experience, or public record.
ESPECIALLY when the country is in such financial shambles.

I run my own design agency but that doesn't qualify me to take over Oglivy and Mather. My vote is largely a strategy vote against Obama. I think Huckabee had the best platform with a Fair Tax.

TS (OBAMA SUPPORTER)
I disagree with almost everything you said. I think the association argument holds ZERO water. You can make that argument with any politician (McCain and Palin included). But the Rovian style of campaigning works in ... Read Moretwisting people's fears and anxiety, I'll give them that.

Again, id you don't like obama or his views, that's one thing. But I will constantly argue falsehoods or misconceptions.

Executive Experience argument is a bad one. Aside from McCain having none either, some great presidents in history had none (Jackson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Grant, etc). It's a straw dog argument meant to hold Palin up as somehow more qualified than Obama which is clearly not true.

Experience - More than Bush had. More than Palin has.
No candidtate has esperience in everything. We can't expect that of anyone.

To say he has zero commander in chief experience shows how illogical the arguments are. No one has that experience except ex-presidents.

Voting record - I don't judge any politician on voting record because it's almost impossible to judge the reason they voted for or against a bill. With all the wording, loopholes, riders, etc, people will vote ... Read Moreagainst bill they believe in or for bills they generally oppose because of the particular circumstances.

As for voting present, do some research into that (non-partisan research). It's not a negative thing, even though McCain has tried to paint it that way. It's the way some states run and the option exists for a reason.

Macro-Economics experience - What about his campaign? What Macro-Economics experience did any of the R candidates have?

Zero Budget management? How about the most successful fund raising campaign in history?

Zero bipartisan efforts in the senate? Not true. Look it up (from a non-partisan source).

To say Obama is unqualified and Palin is qualified is laughable.

I would never criticize someone for voting for what they believe in, so I support your decision to vote for whomever you choose.

But I cannot carry on this discussion if it's going to be about smears and distrust and things like that.

I think both Obama and McCain have the ... Read Morecountries best interests in mind. Does McCain have more experiece? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean Obama is not qualified. History has shown us that.

And again, McCain and Palin both have their fair share of troubling associations (check out the background of some of the people who work on their campaigns, not to mention the legal trouble both have/had).

But I think those things are just distractions.

The only question is, who do you agree with on the issues and who do you think would be the best president? If it's McCain, vote for McCain. If it's Obama, vote for Obama.

BTW: After doing a little digging, turns out Obama has been very prolific in the Senate.

http://you.presscue.com/node/442

So, whether you agree with his views or not, he's not as inactive as people think.

POLITBANTER
i love the depth of your involvement. If only more people were!
I do want a president with miltary experience, tenure in government, and who supports socially conservative policies.

Palin is over the National Guard as commander-in-chief and has family serving in the military. And as per tenure, she is not the head of the ticket. She is well equipped to preside over the Senate.

I think McCain v Clinton would have been a better contest as they are centrist on some overlapping issues. Obama is just WAY too far left.

Who decided to wake up one day and call Republicans Racists?

2008-10-25T10:22:00.000-07:00

Sources:
Martin Luther King on Southern White Liberals 1:24am
Source: au.youtube.com
http://malcolmxfiles.blogspot.com/ Reverend Martin Luther King gives his assessment as to whether or not Southern White Liberals can be won over to help him and his organization.
http://malcolmxfiles.blogspot.com/

Commentary:

Who decided to wake up one day and label the Republican Party as racists? Gov. George Wallace after all, was a Democrat. Segregationist Strom Thurmond as well. It was Democrat Representative Howard Smith who was the most vehement opponent of the Civil Rights Act. In the Senate it was the Democrats, led by Bill Russell who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And Democrat Robert Byrd led a serious rhetorical charge against it. Republicans are the ones who pushed it through. Republican Abraham Lincoln Ended Slavery.Like France who forgets her allegience to the US for saving her from Hitler, Black America has forgotten its allegience to the Republican Party which stands for equality, faith, family, smaller federal goverment, and civil rights.

93% of southern democratic US Representatives opposed the Civil Rights Act.
95% of southern Democratic US Senators opposed the Civil Rights Act

I agree that the Rep party has been, especially through the 80's, aligned with big business. But if you look at the trends in big business today, many corporations are taking on socially liberal causes, Ford being a prime example.I think what the media and the parties forgot to tell everyone is that there are social-conservatives out there who ... are pro-environment, pro-equal opportunity, pro-equality, pro-life, and who are more centrist in their economics.As far as a Theocracy, I don't see that actually. Bush was less open about his beliefs than Lincoln. In fact, He is seen by many conservative christians as only a nominal christian, and his policies reflect that. I do support the "culture of life", but the Patriot Act is one of the most reprehensible assaults on personal liberty ever imposed on our nation outside of Slavery and Abortion.

I feel that most racists today are not white, but black. And that they still take solace in the Democratic Party. Rev. Wright, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Farrakhan, and many many others.Our generation was taught to accept black people.They are still taight within their culture to hate.http://politbanter.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html

I am a fiscal moderate, and social conservative. So I have to agree that Bush has grown the Federal Government far too much, but then again - So did Clinton. Bush's initial tax cuts WERE very good for lower and middle class families, most getting refunds. IN addition to the stimulus checks.I believe there are sensible solutions to our economy that NEITHER party is handling very well. Flat tax is one.Trade imbalance is another. I think what you are seeing now with the Hucakbee/Tancredo/McCain platforms is a shift to more centrist policies.I solve trillions of debt first of all by being more fiscally responsible and not buying what you can't pay for. For this reason I do not own credit cards. I buy what I can pay for.Including cars. I would create incentives so that American would transition back to a producing economy rather than one of consumption.

In our area, like many for example, our smaller town has no new money coming into it. The people work in jobs (walmart, etc) and their income goes directly into consumption. The main businesses are large corps who send their profits to their headquarters in another state. So, while people are getting jobs, they are not netting out anymore than if they were poor. The only ones who are actually producing in local economies are small businesses or regionally owned businesses who produce products to sell and trade outside of a local economy. Big Chain stores are really to blame for this drain. And they should be taxed. But I propose legislation that will provide more clear dilineation to the TYPE of corporation one is. Retail, Manufacturing, Wholesale, Medical, etc and the tex code should be written in such a way that it helps grow the american economy. In this way, when tax tables need to fluctuate they aren't fluctuating for "all business". This is much like how zoning works.

also, I like Huckabee's platform which taxes consumption not production. This will make wiser consumers and better producers.

If I said, Flat tax, I am actually more in favor of Fair Tax, or a consumption based tax for individuals. With some twists. Companies consume more than individuals and their consumption is at a first-cost basis so the consumption tax should be lower for corporations buying materials for us in production or operation of a business that produces a good or service that will be consumed by individuals and subject to the consumption tax. I do agree therefore that a CEO should not. I believe that the income tax is not Constitutional. Also in this way, no one escapes paying taxes and it drives the market to bring goods that are truly useful.I believe that a Fair Tax system can effectively reduce the crap that pours in from China that sits on shelves and that ends up getting dumped in our landfills.

Yes, I am not a huge fan of NAFTA the way Clinton ratfied it. Especially as related to the supernation ideology. I am for removing duties for consumers for all goods sold into Canada.removing all tariffs also removes leverage to pressure nations who adopt policies who threaten our national security.But honestly, the world IS organizing itself into 10 supernations, which is also found in Biblical prophecy.I do favor domestic drilling immediately to begin the process of increasing our reserves, safe nuclear power... i am wary of offshore windfarms and tidal farms as they could be vulnerable to naval attack. I live near a nuclear plant actually and have a good friend who is charge of waste management. It is very well run and responsibly handled. Solar for residential should be part of every home in my mind.

Audacity: The Truth About Obama's Plan for Change

2008-10-21T21:19:00.000-07:00

Abortion: A "Choice" or an "Escape"?

2008-10-17T23:25:00.000-07:00

Read this FIRST:

Statistic: #
Total U.S.Citizen Deaths from All US Wars Since 1775: 1,032,223
Total U.S. Abortion Deaths Since 1973: 43,697,960

Total U.S. Deaths from the Iraq War since 2003: 4,185
Total U.S. Deaths from Abortion since 2003: 7,722,000

Total U.S. Population in 2003: 281,421,906
Total U.S. Police killed in Line of Duty 2003: 147
Total U.S. Rape Abortions Estimate in 2003: 342
Total U.S. Deaths from Iraq War in 2003: 529
Total Killed in Genocide by Saddam Hussein: 300,000 estimated
Total U.S. Deaths from Abortion in 2003: 1,287,000

Looking closely at these statistics it then becomes a great social and moral irony that:

Liberal women will decry the deaths of American Soldiers in Iraq to the tune of 4,185 since 2003...men (mostly) and women who have volunteered by conscious choice to serve the nation and defend Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and to depose a butcherous dictator.

But, honest, sincere, pragmatic people cannot decry the deaths of 43,697,960 innocent babies killed by women. Individuals that these liberal women have deprived of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for the sake of the convenience of birth control because a baby is unwanted and concieved outside of marriage.

Statistics since 1973 show overwhelmingly that the majority of abortions are requested by white women ages 17-34, who are unmarried, and who were NOT raped or victims of incest. Less than .026% that's two-hundreths of a percent are estimated as abortions due to rape. Insemination through coital rape is extremely rare, as are cases which TRULY endanger the health of the mother.

However, mainstream people are forced by liberal activists defend a woman's right to choose, because they fear being dominated by men. Yet, these same women who are getting abortions chose to submit their unmarried bodies to a man to get pregnant without PROTECTING herself, and the potential unborn life that could be hosted in her. It is NOT her life that she is CHOOSING, it is another's. A female is a host of a baby, another life.

Liberals will fight tooth-and-nail to protect the nesting grounds of a whale. (rightly so!) or the egg of an Eagle who has no chance against DDT. But will they be as responsible in defending their own flesh-and-blood against RU-486!?!?

It is not a woman's right to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy any more than it is a man's right to choose to rape a woman. To commit an act of brutality against the defenseless.
One cannot commit a moral crime to correct a bad decision. One cannot simply steal money from a bank because one owes on a credit card.

It comes down to one word. Selfishness.

Even if our government made clear and lucid allowace for documented rape cases for abortion, one is only looking at 350 or so every year. Versus the 1.2 MILLION.

Abortion is NOT birth control. Abstinence and condoms ARE!
Why is it a woman's right to brutally slaughter a baby because she was careless in her sexuality.

No one wants to see the pictures because they are too "graphic" well...
send this link to everyone you know... www.obamamustsee.com

Playing the other side of the coin now... Let's concede that women who abort believe the medical hoax that they are not actually murdering babies but killing fetal tissue, then why is it not a matter of property? If it is genetic property, tissue... then a MAN has an equal right to choose as well, for does he not have an interest in what becomes of his genetic tissue?

I want my right choose too darn it, and I'll fight you in the courts for my blastocyst.

If one cannot honestly see how ludicrus the liberal arguement of "choice" is. It is unfathomable how to bring America to reason again. It is not choice that people seek here, but freedom from responsibility, from accountability, and from having to be self disciplined.

Most abortions are between 8-13 weeks, and this is what an infant looks like at that stage. It can move and respond to pain, it can hear and sense light. It has toes and fingers.

Ask an expectant mother who is lovingly waiting for her baby to be born, how she feels when she miscarries in the 2nd or 3rd month. It is devastating!

What's the biological difference? nothing.

The expectant mother is moral. The abortive mother is not.

To the expextant mother considering abortion.... your medical bills for carrying your child to term are the consequence of your actions. Pay them as a responsible person. To the mother of that daughter in the same position, the same is true. If your child is unwanted, give it to a family who desperately wants to love and care for that baby. Through Private Placement Adoption, you may be able to get assistance for your Medical Bills as well.

It's not a choice. It's a DUTY.

Statistically speaking, as matter of Domestic Economic Output, if all of the babies killed since 1973 were allowed to live to work and pay taxes, Social Security would be solvent today!

Sources:
Center for Diseace Control, AGI, US Dept of Justice, US Census Bureau, National Right to Life, Wikipedia, www.lennartnilson.com

Everybody Hates Raymond

2008-05-03T09:40:00.000-07:00

Everyone does NOT love Raymond.

The show is not funny. There. I said it.

The jokes are unintelligent, predictable, and the script is forced.

Ray is not funny, not entertaining, and not engaging.

The show is utterly stupid.

It's an excercise in suggestability.

An open letter to Proctor and Gamble via AFA.NET

2008-05-03T09:34:00.000-07:00

GET INVOLVED! DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM!
http://www.afa.net/Petitions/Issuedetail.asp?id=316

Dear Mr. Lafley,

I am very concerned that Procter & Gamble has decided to side with the homosexual activists in promoting an unhealthy lifestyle. I would suggest that P&G continue making the best products possible instead of pushing the radical homosexual agenda.

People who practice homosexuality openly are a very small percentage of our country. Would you make a product and distribute through mass channels that was only focused on 1-2% of the nation? (refer Kinsey report)
No. Why? because it is bad demographics. Niche brands, luxury brands, and specialty goods focus on small demographic groups. P&G is a company whose products are broad ranging in their use and appeal.

If you continue to focus on vocal minorities as drivers of your business decisions, the masses will congeal and send you a strong financial message of abstinence from your products.

Certain personal characteristics are unalienable. Race, ethnicity, age, gender. Religion and sexuality are behaviors and practices initiated by choice and exposure to those ideals.

Homosexuality is optional sexual behavior based on preferences. People are free to prefer whatever they want as long as IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, in this case heterosexuality. As a white man, I am free to use the word "nigger" according to the first amendment, HOWEVER it is an infringement of an African-American person's right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

By virtue of the simple FUNCTION of our anatomy, homosexuality deviates from the correct medical and biological use of our bodies. The anus is physically designed for expelling waste, and the mouth is physically designed to eat, chew, swallow, speak, and taste food.

Our genitals have specifice purposes in their designs. To imply socially that these obvious medical facts are useless is to prefer social paradigm and political pressures, and fear of lawsuits over obvious science.

Sexuality is a behavior. Some expressions of sexuality are biologically sound, others are not.Promoting homosexuality promotes a gateway to many diseases and psychological problems.

Shall we condone people who cut their wrists for fun and scarify their bodies? This behavior is an aberration from normalcy and likely occurs on the same frequency as homosexuality, yet we do not make political inroads for them.

It is an offense to my heterosexuality, and limiting to my rights and protections under the law as a heterosexual, to have the products I purchase directly or indirectly go to finance the production of such programming without my consent.

When I buy soap, I do not sign a contract allowing your company to produce homosexual content. I buy soap to cleanse my clothes and body.

Your margin dollars should go to your shareholders, to reducing product costs, to innovating new products.

Socially appropriate actions by a corporation are in feeding, empowering education, opening economic opportunities for low income families, donating product to shelters...

Why not use your money to create low cost solar powered small washing machines for the millions of 3rd world women who wash their clothes in streams and filthy community areas.

They could use your soap, which when emptied into local watersheds has agents that work to clean water and fight waterborne disease.

do the RIGHT work and get the RIGHT pr.

Look what happened to FORD!

Shrek is stupid.

2008-04-10T22:36:00.000-07:00

Does anyone out there besides me know that Shrek is nothing more than a glorified ripoff of Raymond Briggs' "Fungus the Bogeyman" from 1977!

Dreamworks adds commercial crap to a fun story.

What will they do to other stories like "Trouble for Trumpets"?

lame-o

Re: Throw Grandma Under the Bus by Ann Coulter

2008-03-21T10:43:00.000-07:00

Re: article on Human Events.com
Throw Grandma Under the Bus
by Ann Coulter
Posted: 03/19/2008
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25610&page=142&cp=1#hec164652
"...Consequently, any white person 30 years old or younger has lived, since the day he was born, in an America where it is legal to discriminate against white people. In many cases it's not just legal, but mandatory, for example, in education, in hiring and in Academy Award nominations..."

POLIT BANTER'S REPLY:

Black culture should take notes on the Jewish Race. One of the historically most persecuted peoples in the entirety of the span of human civilization. They have been enslaved, deported, forcibly converted, stripped of identities, slaughtered in the millions, diasporated, expatriated, denounced, ridiculed, and more. Even today we have near whole nations calling for their "extermination" and that their country be "wiped off the map". YET... the Jewish people and culture persist. They rise up whereever they find themselves, and cling to specific VALUES that enable not only individual JEWS but entire Jewish COMMUNITIES to thrive, prosper, and rise above discrimination. They act on PRINCIPLES which guide them to become leaders, and empowered people with dignity, education, spirituality, and identity.

What can post-slavery black culture honestly say in light of this? Nothing. The lessons of history are plain. The post-slavery black culture has embraced social, political, religious, and cultural ideals that consistently erode the success story of black americans.

Many of our so-called "White" anscestors here actually have endured a lot of persecution. Irish, Italian, Polish... many immigrant peoples have been victims of racism. Even spiritual groups, right wrong or indifferent have thrived. Mormonism is a great example. A totally false religion, but as a persecuted people they clung to societal values that preserved their faith culture and prospered it.

It all starts with choice. Drop the guns and pick up a book.
Drop the hip-hop and gangsta rap and pick up gospel music.
Drop infidelity and practice monogamy. Drop AIDS by simply abstaining from sex until married or using protection. Drop the gambling mindset of rising high in sports and entertainment, and invest in your own mind and abilities that God has gifted you with.

Final thought. When the Rodney King riots broke out, did the black community march en-masse to Rodeo drive to riot there? NO! They destroyed and looted from businesses that were invested in providing needed services to the black community. Many owned by black proprietors themeselves.

Post-slavery black culture is its own worst enemy and it has nothing to do with skin color or nation of origin, or even slavery. It has to do with a selfish ill-tempered culture that is violent, degrading to women, and precoccupied with violence, sexuality, bravado, and athletics.

J.C. Watts for President.