Cain this all be true?

bravo said:
You have a problem following along with the thread don't you.....this has nothing to do with Cain or the crazy Baptist pastor...nothing at all....
Christie was responding to my post and so was Jughead.....

Christie said.."That Harry Reid never ran for president so his religion wasn't important to anyone"....

So exactly what is she saying....the Reids Mormonism isn't important because he isn't running to President ?
And Romney's Mormonism is a big deal because he is?.....doesn't that make her a hypocrite and a religious bigot.....cause it sure as hell seems like it....plus
Its not important for Reid cause hes a Democrat and its is for Romney cause hes a Republican.....

Jughead keeps saying to read the Art. 6....wtf ?...that has nothing to do with my post or my question...we don't disqualify anyone the office because of religion...at lease not out in the bright sun of daylight....


And, in a way, I am obsessed with the double standard....not only because of it being against the very essence of eveything our country should stand for, but for the unfair and unjust way people are treated and the character assassination that comes with and because of it....
Click to expand...

It only seems like that to you because your reading comprehension is nil.
 
poet said:
I don't believe abortion to be "baby-killing". Fetuses (or feti) are not "babies", IMHO. I think abortions should be done, if at all, in the first trimester. I think that they should be done to preserve the life of the mother. I think if the fetus is not viable or severely impaired it should be done. I believe it should be the course of "last resort", not first resort.
Birth control and condoms are readily available. Pregnancy can be prevented.
Click to expand...

I understand what you believe, however, I asked something different.

If you believed somebody was purposefully killing children, would there be any excuse that you would readily accept to allow it to continue other than self defense?

Basically, can you put yourself into the shoes of another in the same way that they are expected to do?

I personally believe that we should treat all living humans, including ones that are in the fetal stage of development, as a separate entity. If the mother doesn't want to incubate we should remove the fetus and attempt to incubate ex-utero... But I think differently than most in this argument.
 
Damocles said:
I understand what you believe, however, I asked something different.

If you believed somebody was purposefully killing children, would there be any excuse that you would readily accept to allow it to continue other than self defense?

Basically, can you put yourself into the shoes of another in the same way that they are expected to do?

I personally believe that we should treat all living humans, including ones that are in the fetal stage of development, as a separate entity. If the mother doesn't want to incubate we should remove the fetus and attempt to incubate ex-utero... But I think differently than most in this argument.
Click to expand...

In answer to your question, on the surface, my answer is "no". But I don't see how that relates to the topic. And I believe the decision as to what to do with the contents of a woman's body, rests with no one other than the woman in question. But for eons, men have viewed women as "property", so the Neanderthalic view is rather standard. I'm a feminist, and believe otherwise.
 
Dixie said:
Right... and people who stone women to death for allowing themselves to be raped, must have their religious beliefs protected and guarded at all costs!

IRONIC!
Click to expand...

Stoning women to death isn't allowed in America. I would also oppose any Presidential nominee who supported this.

So, what's your point?
 
poet said:
I don't believe abortion to be "baby-killing". Fetuses (or feti) are not "babies", IMHO. I think abortions should be done, if at all, in the first trimester. I think that they should be done to preserve the life of the mother. I think if the fetus is not viable or severely impaired it should be done. I believe it should be the course of "last resort", not first resort.
Birth control and condoms are readily available. Pregnancy can be prevented.
Click to expand...

It simply doesn't matter what your opinion is, that isn't how science determines what is a living organism and what is not. In all the mountains of threads this has been debated in, not a single one of you has articulated why a fetus is not a living human organism, unique from the mother carrying it. You can call it anything you like, or claim it's not something that it's not supposed to be... no, it's not a "baby" at that point, just as it's not a "teenager" or "senior citizen" at that point, but it's STILL a human being. Science supports this, but you simply want to ignore science and form your own ignorant opinion.

1. If it is not human, what kind of living organism is it?
2. If it is not living, why would it require termination?
3. If it is living, and is human, why are we debating this?
 
Onceler said:
Stoning women to death isn't allowed in America. I would also oppose any Presidential nominee who supported this.

So, what's your point?
Click to expand...

I think Dix may have confused you with a hard-line Islamic cleric.

It's easily done.
 
Onceler said:
Stoning women to death isn't allowed in America. I would also oppose any Presidential nominee who supported this.

So, what's your point?
Click to expand...

People have left their homelands because of religious differences. In some cases I'm sure that would be next to impossible....but who forces religion or traditions on a person?
Before you say "evangelicals", or Muslim extremists...I would say all cultures, nations, religions and sects, have their "nuts".
 
charver said:
I think Dix may have confused you with a hard-line Islamic cleric.

It's easily done.
Click to expand...

I was going to answer him along these lines but you did it better.

I know, the resemblance is striking! That's what I always think when I see Onceler's posts. There goes another one of those radical mullahs!
 
Onceler said:
Stoning women to death isn't allowed in America. I would also oppose any Presidential nominee who supported this.

So, what's your point?
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out your double standard on religious tolerance. I haven't heard Cain say he supports what you claim, and I don't think anyone has even posted a link, it's just been thrown out there as a baseless accusation, like all the other crap you dishonest fucktards throw out on a daily basis... BUT.... people who are opposed to abortion for religious reasons, have the right to their viewpoint, regardless of what your opinion is. I just find it stunning that people who practice, as their religion, the act of stoning women to death for being raped, are routinely defended by you and other pinheads here, but you want to attack people who religiously believe something much less heinous and grotesque. That was my point, to show what a two-faced, double-standard, hypocrite you are.
 
Dixie said:
It simply doesn't matter what your opinion is, that isn't how science determines what is a living organism and what is not. In all the mountains of threads this has been debated in, not a single one of you has articulated why a fetus is not a living human organism, unique from the mother carrying it. You can call it anything you like, or claim it's not something that it's not supposed to be... no, it's not a "baby" at that point, just as it's not a "teenager" or "senior citizen" at that point, but it's STILL a human being. Science supports this, but you simply want to ignore science and form your own ignorant opinion.

1. If it is not human, what kind of living organism is it?
2. If it is not living, why would it require termination?
3. If it is living, and is human, why are we debating this?
Click to expand...
Bitch, you can "wax philosophical", until cows come home...it wouldn't make a hill of beans. You're entitled to your beliefs, as I am. Don't want abortion. Don't get one. But I'll be goddamn if you try to prevent a woman who wants one from having one, and I'm anywhere near.

Science, like truth, doesn't need for you to say what it is. We've all seen how the Bush administration fudged the scientific data on global warming to its' own agenda. Science can be "hijacked" or "co-opted", like anything else. Roe V. Wade is the law of the land. Circumvent it if you dare. Like someone tried to lay a guilt trip on me earlier, by saying "this is a land of laws"...must have been bullshit, because your kind doesn't respect what the people demanded. As much as you can find science to support your view, I can find science to dispute it. I reject your view. My prerogative.
 
Dixie said:
I was just pointing out your double standard on religious tolerance. I haven't heard Cain say he supports what you claim, and I don't think anyone has even posted a link, it's just been thrown out there as a baseless accusation, like all the other crap you dishonest fucktards throw out on a daily basis... BUT.... people who are opposed to abortion for religious reasons, have the right to their viewpoint, regardless of what your opinion is. I just find it stunning that people who practice, as their religion, the act of stoning women to death for being raped, are routinely defended by you and other pinheads here, but you want to attack people who religiously believe something much less heinous and grotesque. That was my point, to show what a two-faced, double-standard, hypocrite you are.
Click to expand...

But you ended up just showing what an idiot you are, so it didn't work out for you. I never said that Cain's beliefs shouldn't be allowed, or that he should be persecuted for them. He shouldn't be President for them.

And someone who supports stoning women shouldn't be President, either.

It's all very consistent.
 
Dixie said:
I was just pointing out your double standard on religious tolerance. I haven't heard Cain say he supports what you claim, and I don't think anyone has even posted a link, it's just been thrown out there as a baseless accusation, like all the other crap you dishonest fucktards throw out on a daily basis... BUT.... people who are opposed to abortion for religious reasons, have the right to their viewpoint, regardless of what your opinion is. I just find it stunning that people who practice, as their religion, the act of stoning women to death for being raped, are routinely defended by you and other pinheads here, but you want to attack people who religiously believe something much less heinous and grotesque. That was my point, to show what a two-faced, double-standard, hypocrite you are.
Click to expand...

Liar. Find any poster here who supports the stoning of women, for anything, including rape. Produce that posting, quick, fast and in a hurry. Proof that "facts" don't matter to conservatives...only their ends.
 
Dixie said:
I was just pointing out your double standard on religious tolerance. I haven't heard Cain say he supports what you claim, and I don't think anyone has even posted a link, it's just been thrown out there as a baseless accusation, like all the other crap you dishonest fucktards throw out on a daily basis... BUT.... people who are opposed to abortion for religious reasons, have the right to their viewpoint, regardless of what your opinion is. I just find it stunning that people who practice, as their religion, the act of stoning women to death for being raped, are routinely defended by you and other pinheads here, but you want to attack people who religiously believe something much less heinous and grotesque. That was my point, to show what a two-faced, double-standard, hypocrite you are.
Click to expand...

Start listening at 4:50.

 
poet said:
Bitch, you can "wax philosophical", until cows come home...it wouldn't make a hill of beans. You're entitled to your beliefs, as I am. Don't want abortion. Don't get one. But I'll be goddamn if you try to prevent a woman who wants one from having one, and I'm anywhere near.

Science, like truth, doesn't need for you to say what it is. We've all seen how the Bush administration fudged the scientific data on global warming to its' own agenda. Science can be "hijacked" or "co-opted", like anything else. Roe V. Wade is the law of the land. Circumvent it if you dare. Like someone tried to lay a guilt trip on me earlier, by saying "this is a land of laws"...must have been bullshit, because your kind doesn't respect what the people demanded. As much as you can find science to support your view, I can find science to dispute it. I reject your view. My prerogative.
Click to expand...

The only person "waxing philosophical" is YOU! I am going by what science and biology says is a human life. Nothing has been fudged, it's all perfectly reliable and peer reviewed, and nothing any of you have presented can contradict that.

Indeed, Roe v. Wade is law of the land, and I don't believe I said one word about circumventing it, or denying people the right to do what is legal to do. If your argument is, "Is abortion legal?" We are in agreement, it is indeed legal. I've never stated otherwise. If the argument is, "SHOULD abortion be legal?" That's a different argument, and the fact that it is currently legal, has nothing to do with whether it SHOULD be.
 
christiefan915 said:
Start listening at 4:50.

Click to expand...

Well, I started at 3:44, and he says in case of rape, it should be the woman's decision. He repeatedly says it shouldn't be up to the government. He does say that he [personally] doesn't believe a woman should get an abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, but I did not hear him EVER say he thought this should be mandated as law of the land by government, in fact, he repeatedly stated the direct OPPOSITE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top