Yes we can!

[Jeff C.]

"In the unlikely story of America, there's never been anything false about hope."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

[delta1124]

Awesome video. Have you noticed that some people have a problem with his color, his name. Some have a problem with his supporters, their color, their age. Its the coming of an age, the taking back what rightfully belongs to us, the people. No more tired old poiticians running this country, no more rights lost under the guise of "we're doing it for your own safety", no more torturing of combatants, no more Bush, no more McSame.

[Marty]

I can respect what Jeff is saying and believes in but you delta I just don’t understand. In your other life with a different Username in WBC I believe what you were saying and respected you but now as delta1124 every word you type is false, dishonest, phony, and fake. When you used your other Username on WBC you said you were going to vote for McCain but now you are saying something completely different. In your anonymity you have become hateful and someone I would not list too and would advise other not to list too.

[Ringer]

Whassup Fish?

[Marty]

No it is not Fish - Fish I have respect for!

[delta1124]

tsk tsk Marty. Why wont you answer the question Marty? You would rather worry who I am or am not than to have a meaningful discussion? Here it is again, just for you. How can you be against ABORTION and be for WAR? C'mon I would like you to answer one question, I've never seen you do it yet.

[Ringer]

I am a single issue voter and it ain't about killing babies. I vote to defend my right to keep and bear arms including my AR-15 rifles with those nasty 30 round clips. Biden and Obama are the number one and number two gun control freaks in the senate.

[Marty]

I will answer this in two parts because unlike you it is not a game with me, I believe in what I’m saying and I will use my name and not hide behind a screen like you! You are just trying to play games by saying “how could you do one and not the otherâ€

[Marty]

How can a Moral Society justify its immoral actions?

Today we Americans look back to the nineteenth century and condemn our ancestors for holding human beings in bondage against their will. Depriving a race of its freedom and liberty. A crime that no righteous person would conceive of doing in our current moral society!

The question that needs to be answered to prevent a moral society from repeating history is how did we justify such behavior? Humans, good or evil need to validate their deeds with a justification for each and every action they do.

In the nineteenth century there were two opposing factions in this conflict of slavery, the ones that could not justify slavery and rebelled against it. Then there were the ones that justify slavery by changing the subject from slavery to arguing they had property rights. They validated their wrongs by defending slavery as their right to do what they wanted with their property there-by demeaning a human to being a slave. By changing the subject matter they legalized the above transgressions. The appalling thing was that there were some federal judges of the day that agreed with this argument.

Now in the twentieth century the righteous person believes this action of slavery was immoral and slavery has nothing to do with property rights.

What will the righteous person in the twenty-second century say of us, which condemned the nineteenth century when in fact we are doing the same thing? We are now changing the argument to validate our actions. We are now in the process of depriving life to other human beings. No, I am not referring to the death penalty! The person on death roll had a choice in their actions. The ones I am referring to have no choice at all and rely on others to guard their right to one day to have a chose.

I am referring to the unjustified killing of millions of unborn babies a year by changing the argument from abortion to a woman’s rights. Don’t get upset, I’m not comparing slavery with abortion, but how a moral society validates its immoral actions. They validated their wrongs by defending abortion as their right to do what they want with their own body there-by demeaning a human life and sentencing it to death.

Our so-called moral society does not end with just changing the debate from abortion to a woman’s rights. They use words like “Pro-Choiceâ€

[Marty]

I answered your question 1124 now are you going to reveal to the others who you are because without there can’t be no meaningful discussion. Have you noticed that some people have a problem with the truth and can’t man up. How can you talk about the same old tired politicians running this country when you are no better then they are? Come clean no more lies under the guise of "anonymity".

[Greg_Cornish]

I had no idea you were Rudyard Kipling.

[getalife]

How can you be against ABORTION and be for WAR?

Are you kidding? What a stupid question.

[Jeff C.]

delta1124 wrote:
How can you be against ABORTION and be for WAR?


Are you kidding? What a stupid question.

Actually, that's a legitimate question, and it's just one example of the hypocrisy of conservative thought. Here are some other examples I'd like you Conservatives to explain to me:

How can Conservatives claim to be pro life while at the same time being in favor of the death penalty?

How can Conservatives claim to be pro life while at the same time demanding that human embryos be thrown in the trash instead of used for lifesaving research?

How can Conservatives claim to be for limited government while at the same time pledging to take away a woman's reproductive decisions?

How can Conservatives claim to be for limited government while at the same time proposing laws preventing the marriage of two consenting adults?

And here's one especially for this board, how can Conservatives be fishermen while at the same time supporting a party that has consistently favored business interests over the environment?

Seriously, I look forward to hearing how you Conservatives can rationalize these conflicting views.

[Greg_Cornish]

Seriously, I look forward to hearing how you Conservatives can rationalize these conflicting views.

I don't.

[Ringer]

Not too bright if you can't understand that a child is innocent and a criminal is guilty. I believe some life is to be protected and some is to be eliminated. Do you think that every person is the same? Do you think a man who rapes and murders a 3 year old is equal in value to a baby starting out in life? If you do then you and I are the perfect example of the difference in a liberal and a conservative.

[Jeff C.]

Not too bright if you can't understand that a child is innocent and a criminal is guilty. I believe some life is to be protected and some is to be eliminated. Do you think that every person is the same? Do you think a man who rapes and murders a 3 year old is equal in value to a baby starting out in life? If you do then you and I are the perfect example of the difference in a liberal and a conservative.

Actually, I'm for the death penalty so I say fry em.

I believe some life is to be protected and some is to be eliminated.

So you aren't pro life.

[Ringer]

Never have been. I am for killing and grilling. I don't think Obama's defending killing babies after they pop is too cool but no issues with abortion for this conservative. You don't have to be a religious freak to be conservative.

[Greg_Cornish]

To be fair, here's a McCain Video too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjbknhX383A

[Marty]

*How can Conservatives claim to be pro life while at the same time being in favor of the death penalty?

I already answer that above but here it is again - The person on death roll had a choice in their actions. The unborn human has no choice at all and rely on others to guard their right to one day to have a choice.

*How can Conservatives claim to be pro life while at the same time demanding that human embryos be thrown in the trash instead of used for lifesaving research?

Using human embryos is not the problem it is how they are obtain. The other problem is there are other cells that can be used for this same research.

*How can Conservatives claim to be for limited government while at the same time pledging to take away a woman's reproductive decisions?

Here is the twisting of words again – I’m not against a woman’s reproductive decisions – I just don’t want her to change her mind once she decides to get pregnant. The way you worded your statement I take it then you are for using abortion for birth control?

*How can Conservatives claim to be for limited government while at the same time proposing laws preventing the marriage of two consenting adults?

Have no idea how this goes with limited government! I don’t care what two consenting adults do with each other but don’t come to me looking to justify when one wants to put his penis in someone else anus by calling it a marriage.

*And here's one especially for this board, how can Conservatives be fishermen while at the same time supporting a party that has consistently favored business interests over the environment?

Because we are normal!

[Jeff C.]

Quote: How can Conservatives claim to be pro life while at the same time demanding that human embryos be thrown in the trash instead of used for lifesaving research?

Using human embryos is not the problem it is how they are obtain. The other problem is there are other cells that can be used for this same research.

Don't know what your getting at there. Embryos used for stem cells are obtained from in-vitro fertilization clinics. When a couple decides to do in-vitro they make "extra" embryos. Later if they don't need them they decide to throw them out or donate them to another couple or for research. Tens of thousands of human embryos are literally thrown in the incinerator every year rather than put to good use because your president vetoed a bill to allow them to be used in federally funded research. Are you saying that you are against in-vitro fertilization?

Good point about possible alternative cells, but that's likely many years away. In the meantime, you and me and our loved ones could very possibly die from some terrible disease that embryonic stem cells might have offered a cure. Probably the best eventual alternative would be to clone human cells, but that's also been forbidden by you know who.

Quote:
How can Conservatives claim to be for limited government while at the same time pledging to take away a woman's reproductive decisions?

Here is the twisting of words again – I’m not against a woman’s reproductive decisions – I just don’t want her to change her mind once she decides to get pregnant. The way you worded your statement I take it then you are for using abortion for birth control?

Don't you think your being a little naive here? You know as well as I that no birth control is 100% effective. I don't have any statistics to back this up but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that 25% or more of women have at least one unexpected pregnancy while on birth control in their lifetime.

Quote: How can Conservatives claim to be for limited government while at the same time proposing laws preventing the marriage of two consenting adults?

Have no idea how this goes with limited government! I don’t care what two consenting adults do with each other but don’t come to me looking to justify when one wants to put his penis in someone else anus by calling it a marriage.

I'll tell you what it has to do with limited government. The 14th Amendment of the US constitution guarantees equal protection to all of us. Equal protection means that the laws can't grant one particular class of people certain rights and deprive those rights of other people. This is the reason why no state nor federal law short of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is going to stop this train from pulling into the station. (literally and figuratively, ha!)

Here's a link if you are interested in learning more:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection

It is interesting to me how conservatives like to bitch and moan about activist judges and the sanctity of the U.S. consitution, and then ignore the constitution when it goes agains their own political views. Do you know that the same thing happened with the federal drug laws? As originally written the U.S. consitution did not grant the federal government the right to regulate drugs. That power was reserved to the States. However in 1970 Richard Nixon pushed for the Controlled Substance Act and conservative judges who followed allowed this "extra power" of the federal government to stand.

Back to the marriage issue, in my opinion, marriage should not be a government sanctioned status anyway. It's a religious issue not a government issue. When I was single it used to bug the hell out of me that married people got special rights over single people.