Wierd

[LadyinOrange]

Originally posted by milohimself@Nov 6, 2004 2:03 PM
I think we can all agree that abortion is okay in the event of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.

No we can't.

How many ACTUAL "rape, murder, incest" abortions are performed in a year?
If abortion is murder, then ALL abortions are murder. And abortion IS murder.
And concerning "the life of the mother", a woman knows when she can safely get pregnant and when she can't. Miscarriage is the body's way of seeing to the risky pregnancies.

 

[rwemyss]

Wow, if you really want to stir a debate, drop the crap about political parties and leanings... and move on to abortion or gay marriage! :lol:

Who IS pulling the party right, GAVol? Libertarians that can't find a home?

I'm a Boortz fan, but most libertarians are too far out there for me to even decide WHICH way they lean.

 

[GAVol]

Originally posted by rwemyss@Nov 9, 2004 1:07 PM
Who IS pulling the party right, GAVol? Libertarians that can't find a home?

lol: No I think the Libertarians probably have it more right than any Republican would like to admit.

I don't think the Republican party has really moved to the right as much as the Dems are getting pulled to the left by big money donors in Hollywood and guys like George Soros. If the Republican party has moved to the right at all, it is a backlash against the perception of a threat from the Democratic party to crap all over traditional values if they gain power.

 

[rwemyss]

Originally posted by GAVol+Nov 9, 2004 5:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (GAVol @ Nov 9, 2004 5:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-rwemyss@Nov 9, 2004 1:07 PM
Who IS pulling the party right, GAVol?  Libertarians that can&#39;t find a home?

lol: No I think the Libertarians probably have it more right than any Republican would like to admit.

I don&#39;t think the Republican party has really moved to the right as much as the Dems are getting pulled to the left by big money donors in Hollywood and guys like George Soros. If the Republican party has moved to the right at all, it is a backlash against the perception of a threat from the Democratic party to crap all over traditional values if they gain power. [/quote]
Could be... my age harms my perception of things in the past. I was only 8 when the Berlin Wall fell.

How about that Michael Moore? Man I love that guy&#33; :naughty:

So when is the revolution going to occur? When are we finally going to kill &#39;big government&#39; and get our rights back? I say not in our lifetime... it just gets worse and worse.

 

[milohimself]

I should have known beforehand that &#39;abortion&#39; was a dirty word in here. Shame on me. If you wanna let financially unstable mothers keep cranking out babies so they can get more government checks that come out of YOUR pockets, go right ahead. I suppose you could fight to cut off welfare in all forms, though. Good luck on that one. But I&#39;m not gonna go on a scientific tiraid of why I&#39;m pro-choice, it would be absolutely useless in a forum like this.

And Libertarians... NO taxes? NO gun control what so ever? NO trade monitoring? NO government enforcement of the law? Hell, they only enforce a slightly different version of torts. I think they assume that everybody in the country can act responsibly and with dignity. These guys represent the fringe of anarchy.

 

[Memphis_Volunteer]

Ending welfare would be a good idea. I doubt it will ever happen, however.

 

[rwemyss]

Actually most libertarians just support smaller government, fair tax, etc. etc.

What good is gun control anyway? Do you really think that the people who would use a firearm for the purpose of commiting a crime choose to follow the laws ANYWAY?

Anyways... just goes to show a cultural difference between where we live. Unfortnately most of us form opinions before we understand both sides. I&#39;ve heard the liberal line in college, and I think I&#39;ll stick to my current frame of thought.

 

[milohimself]

Yeah, I realize most libertarians are alright. But I have read the actually party platform statement, and it is pretty extreme. And I absolutely believe people should have guns... But why an assault rifle? And I support background checks on guns, too. I know criminals can get firearms, but why make them readily available anyways?

And as far as ending welfare... I would say have a combination of limited welfare for the unemployed and help them get a job. Consistent welfare only to the truly disabled.

 

[allvol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Nov 10, 2004 7:45 PM
If you wanna let financially unstable mothers keep cranking out babies so they can get more government checks that come out of YOUR pockets, go right ahead. I suppose you could fight to cut off welfare in all forms, though. Good luck on that one. But I&#39;m not gonna go on a scientific tiraid of why I&#39;m pro-choice, it would be absolutely useless in a forum like this.

I think that to rid the upper and middle class of the tax burden, that anyone living in America under the poverty line should be eliminated. :blink: That way we don&#39;t have to deal with the problem. :crap:

 

[allvol]

My previous post was sarcasm. Abortion has become big business with a huge lobby in Washington. Its not just a way to help poor people. The abortion industry could care less about the people it affects.

The decision made in the 60&#39;s was made on incomplete scientific data. The debate was initially over whether the fetus is just tissue or an actual human. This is no longer debated as we now know that the fetus is very human. The abortion groups now debate "choice" instead.

They have gone so far as to oppose government sponsored prenatal care to the unborn baby... something very vital and useful to mother&#39;s in poor communities. They&#39;ve become blinded by their own argument.... not even remembering what the original debate was.

-----

And regarding the USA&#39;s so-called allies...... France, Germany, and Russia all had illegal dealings (against UN resolutions) with the former Iraqi government. They all had much to lose by supporting any removal of Hussein from power. Must be why US soldiers found French and Russian equipment on the Iraqi soldiers and Sadaam&#39;s underground infrastructure built by German engineers. :bash:

 

[volmanjr]

screw france germany and russia

 

[allvol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Nov 6, 2004 3:03 PM
But, beyond that, I am supportive of first trimester abortions. As a Christian, I believe that somebody will go to hell for doing that. But as an American, I believe they have the right to choose to do that.

That is what I believed when I was in college. However, during my wife&#39;s first pregnancy... I soon realized that this unborn baby was just that... it was a baby. My wife bonded with him immediately. The ultrasounds, listening to heartbeats, etc. just reinforced to me how wrong it is for abortions to be legal.

And as far as I am concerned, murder is still illegal in America. The only "issue" is whether the unborn baby is "legally" recognized as part of the human race with rights guaranteed by our founding fathers. Don&#39;t forget that the supreme court upheld for a long time that an African-American was only 3/5 of a person. Just because the supreme court rules it and the law states it ... does not make it right.

 

[rwemyss]

Originally posted by allvol@Nov 12, 2004 1:11 PM
And regarding the USA&#39;s so-called allies...... France, Germany, and Russia all had illegal dealings (against UN resolutions) with the former Iraqi government. They all had much to lose by supporting any removal of Hussein from power. Must be why US soldiers found French and Russian equipment on the Iraqi soldiers and Sadaam&#39;s underground infrastructure built by German engineers. :bash:

Don&#39;t forget that the UN had it&#39;s own hand in this pot. Evidence shows that under the table dealings in the Oil for Food Program not only involved companies and countries that tried to block the invasion... but also the UN itself. Kofi Annan&#39;s son was a big-wig at a company that was making tons of money off the OfF scandal.

 

[milohimself]

I am still not the biggest fan of the Iraq war... Yes, Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, yes, it&#39;s nice that we spread democracy there and such, but our gains from it seem somewhat trivial. Our legitimate gain was to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists, as Hussein was obviously incapable of attacking America and her allies directly. But, it turned out we expended an incapacitating-sized chunk of our military force on one, probably medium-sized (at best) support for terror groups.

And Iraqi ties to Al-Qaeda (sp?) were pretty minimal. All I&#39;ve heard is minor contacts between them. The Al-Qaeda presence only increased when the US invasion of the country had started and they began to flood in. If we were to invade countries that did harbor terrorists and was a major part, there are many more that were better options. The Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Syria, Jordan, I could go on...

I just feel the whole thing we are doing right now is not enough, and a misapropriation of our military forces. Just a tactical disagreement.

 

[rwemyss]

Decent point, but there is also a bigger "idealogical" point to bringing demoracy to Iraq... creating a model for the region, ultimately in the end killing terrorism. I don&#39;t know that it will work, but that&#39;s a major part of the Bush Doctrine.

The thing about not being so many terrorists there to begin with, and having better options... while I like Syria as one to attack, do you think there are that many in Syria NOW? I&#39;d be willing to bet they&#39;ve all decided to "Jihad" us in Iraq... as you pointed out "they began to flood in", and better to deal with them there than here.

 

[allvol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Nov 12, 2004 2:57 PM
I am still not the biggest fan of the Iraq war... Yes, Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, yes, it&#39;s nice that we spread democracy there and such, but our gains from it seem somewhat trivial. Our legitimate gain was to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists, as Hussein was obviously incapable of attacking America and her allies directly. But, it turned out we expended an incapacitating-sized chunk of our military force on one, probably medium-sized (at best) support for terror groups.

And Iraqi ties to Al-Qaeda (sp?) were pretty minimal. All I&#39;ve heard is minor contacts between them. The Al-Qaeda presence only increased when the US invasion of the country had started and they began to flood in. If we were to invade countries that did harbor terrorists and was a major part, there are many more that were better options. The Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Syria, Jordan, I could go on...

I just feel the whole thing we are doing right now is not enough, and a misapropriation of our military forces. Just a tactical disagreement.

I haven&#39;t researched all of the countries you&#39;ve listed, but I do know that Jordan is very western friendly. Part of the royal family are americans. The new King was even on the travel channel showing off the Jordan countryside riding his Harley.

While some European countries don&#39;t support whats going on in Iraq, its funny that many Arab and Muslim countries do.

2/3 of Iraq was already being occupied by American forces prior to the invasion. It has been that way since the early 90&#39;s. The top 1/3 and lower 1/3 were patroled regularly and daily skirmishs were regular.

The election is over, so people need to stop buying into the Kerry rhetoric. Kerry wanted to be the anti-Bush and thus took contrary positions on everything, including Iraq. Funny how Kerry was very supportive of what was going on in Iraq until he started his campaign for president?

Also, the discussions were regarding weapons of mass destruction. I guess they were talking about nuclear and chemical only.... because all I heard recently was of the huge amounts of munitions found and destroyed in Iraq.

Its evident that the actions of 9/11 were not some ideology that will go away quitely. Its class-warfare on a global scale. They see the USA as the target for all their woes. People think that 9/11 won&#39;t happen again.... however, I never thought it would happen in the first place.... I was shocked..... and I don&#39;t think America can afford to be caught unaware like that again. Therefore the pre-emptive strike against Iraq was very much needed.

If you want to see how productive democratic countries that the USA invaded and helped rebuild.... just look at Japan and Germany. The people of Iraq will be much better off and so will the USA after democracy is established.

my :twocents:

also check out Iraq Humanitarian and Reconstruction Assistance Updates

and check out the pdf below called "A Decade of Deception and Defiance"

 

[allvol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Nov 12, 2004 2:57 PM
And Iraqi ties to Al-Qaeda (sp?) were pretty minimal. All I&#39;ve heard is minor contacts between them.

Don&#39;t forget that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with hijacker Muhammad Atta five months before he crashed an airplane into the World Trade Center.... a coincindence.

Osama Bin Laden&#39;s right hand man .... Zarqawi (sp?) fled Afgahastan only to find safe harbor in Iraq prior to the invasion. He is currently the one cutting off people&#39;s heads in Iraq.

Seems to me to more than minimal.

 

[milohimself]

I think that evidence is somewhat circumstantial, and even if it were 100% true, it justifies absolutely nothing for me. Al-Qaeda resides in what, well over 70 countries? I&#39;m just taking a wild guess that more than 1 (Iraq) is friendly to them.