away4real:

Okay in other words you can't answer them. Logic warped just because you say so. Show the fallacy in the logic.

Yeah i asked Jeseoul, at the last count u were not Jeseoul or are you?

We are having a debate here if u don't can't refute arguements then i guess its obvious where the intellectual laziness lies.

Nope,  Logic Warped cause the FACTS SAY SO. I am not having a debate with you. Simply answering you. I am sorry you came late to this but I am not going to start over just cause you want to debate now. There have been at least 100 posts on this topic already. Go read them please. If, However, you choose instead to believe I can not refute your argument, then I am ok with you thinking that too.

away4real:

This was quite early enough in the debate so i don't get the "tired of trying", anyway if thats the way you feel. And why do i care, I really don't, its a debate if u choose to answer or not, will not give me a pass to the federal reserve. I just saw this thread and scanned through and noticed that no one answerd those questions.

In addition Jeseoul please if u lean towards the right, please can u respond to the question.

  _{*comes back from behind the scenes watching the debate*}
what's the question?

Kobojunkie:

I asked why you care cause you seem to put so much weight in wanting to know if I lean towards the right and yet again I see you asking if @Jesoul leans towards the right. Anywho, I believe the reason is cause the logic behind the questions is warped and so I instead thought it best to leave the person to his/her beliefs rather than spend my own time trying to help the person understand why and how it is warped thinking.

 I understand Kobo's frustration. Not too many people can be honest, reasonable and levelheaded in a discussion and keep their emotions from clouding their judgement.

@Hannibal

Your insulting posts show you are immature. Everyone can't have the same views.
You can choose to come at me with your childish and dumb insults, I will not bother replying them.
Grow up! Enough said.

@Kobojunk
You know people have the right to their opinions, which do not have to be the same as yours. That's why in politics, there is the left, right, independent, etc,
In religion, you know what sects there are.
Try to make your point as you sometimes do, instead of the narrow-minded belief that anyone whose views differ from yours is unintelligent.

Thanks Jeseoul, my question was do u lean towards the right if you do attempt to respond to that post of sean.

away4real:

Agreed, the pregnancy in itself does not.

But her policies do and if there clear evidence that one of her very strong policies fails in her house, why should she be allowed to spread that failure to the nation. Allowed if possible to contribute opinions that would appoint supreme court judges, that would turn Roe vs Wade. She is not suitable if we can see from her own home that the ideology doesnt work.

And this policy is supposed to be America's greatest problem as we speak??

Cynicism infecting every corner of American life??
A tectonic shift to a multi-polar world??
A collapsing educational system??
Iraq War??
Credit Crunch??

@ Khai-Khai,

Move on already, will ya?

Stop taking us 19 steps backwards with ur spastic comments.

Hannibal:

And this policy is supposed to be America's greatest problem as we speak??

Cynicism infecting every corner of American life??
A tectonic shift to a multi-polar world??
A collapsing educational system??
Iraq War??
Credit Crunch??

Agreed theres more, but we were kind of looking at Palins daughter being preganant and so what? We know the stand of the 2 camps on the issues lets not attempt to turn this to a foreign policy or green thread.

Kobojunkie:

Nope, Logic Warped cause the FACTS SAY SO. I am not having a debate with you. Simply answering you. I am sorry you came late to this but I am not going to start over just cause you want to debate now. There have been at least 100 posts on this topic already. Go read them please. If, However, you choose instead to believe I can not refute your argument, then I am ok with you thinking that too.

Ok. Facts say so but they were not presented.

If you dont want to post dont its not by force. I am okay with your response.

away4real:

Agreed theres more, but we were kind of looking at Palins daughter being preganant and so what? We know the stand of the 2 camps on the issues lets not attempt to turn this to a foreign policy or green thread.

If the teen daughters of George Bush, Al Gore or the Clintons had gotten pregnant while they were running for office, would there be such intense focus on their fathers?

away4real:

Thanks Jeseoul, my question was do u lean towards the right if you do attempt to respond to that post of sean.

 I'm neither Rep nor Dem but my general philosophies do tend to lean toward the right. I don't speak for Reps since I'm not one but I'll try indulge you concerning Sean's post .

Its simple, The republicans do not practice what they preach.

1. The Republicans are Pro- Life yet they support the war.

   Abortion and war are two seperate issues that Sean is attempting to make one. I support declarations of war when it is justified (the Iraq war wasn't) in order to protect a people . . . does this mean I don't value human life? and I'm being a hypocrite? of course not.

2. They say they do not want the government to be involved in People lives but yet enforce the patriot act.

 I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act either, I don't like to be spied on but I can understand the pros and cons of it.

3. They accuse Dem's of being spendthrifts but yet cause the country to be bankrupt.

 Whether or not the country is broke, the fact is Dems are historically notorious for their spending. So if the Reps are bad right now, I can imagine how much worse it woulda been under a Dem rule.

4. They support the wealthy by cutting taxes on the rich

 I support cutting taxes for everyone. However I don't understand the anger and hate spewed by the Dems on rich people. What have rich people done wrong? Shouldn't they also be allowed to keep their hard-earned money? why should they be taxed harsher than poor people? why should they be penalized just cos they're rich?

5. They believe in freedom but yet try to push the Christian beliefs on everyone. What ever happen to Religion being left out of politics. Didn't Jesus say "“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

 I don't believe in pushing my beliefs on anyone at all. BUT the fact that I am a christian it is only common sense that my morals will be based on and inspired by the bible. and it is the same bible that teaches to live at peace with everyone. For example I'm pro-life, but if a woman got raped n didn't want to keep the baby, who is anyone to force her to do so?

Hannibal:

If the teen daughters of George Bush, Al Gore or the Clintons had gotten pregnant while they were running for office, would there be such intense focus on their fathers?

That would depend on who amongst them is running around with the belief the schools should teach kids abstinence-only.

well i think this will affect John Mccain's campain though obama did dispute this,

she was only only vetoed and  interviewed by Mccain's lawyers for the post a

month ago, am still wondering how this was not been detected earlier,and the baby

daddy to be claiming he does not want to have a child . I personally think we should

be ready for more surprise before elections.

I always get the same response on blogs from republicans, if i wasnt a Liberal i know i definatley wont lean towards the right, their arguements cant be presented clearly, its always clouded.

The other day Obama sated the arguement clearly this preganancy has helped shaped it in reality."if we cant agree on abortion at least we can agree on keeping teenage pregnancy down". So why should the arguement be shaped as simply pro life or pro choice, when does life start. When its not quite simple, personalities and behavioural patters affect societies that people face problems everyday they didnt plan for so what happens when it comes.

Bristol is lucky she's from a supportive and comfortable home, what happens to d girl that her parents cant even afford to pay their bills still in high school, what should she do, should the effort have been at preventing it not only by abstinance which is part of it any way but also that she can decided to use condoms whenever she faces d decision.

Am not sympathetic at all she deserves it all. Sorry am diverting here, Please where are John McCcains kids? if any. SO much talk of family values show us your family, we are way past what he did to the first wife at least he regrets it, but what father role did he play in the life of his kids.

@ Jeseoul thanks for your response.

khai_khai:

That would depend on who amongst them is running around with the belief the schools should teach kids abstinence-only.

Most folks try their best as parents, but the kids don't always turn out the way parents planned.
They might reject their parent's values. They might make mistakes. Does that mean parents have "failed?''
I don't care about her family. . . . .Just lower people's taxes and gas and everything will be alright.

away4real:

I always get the same response on blogs from republicans, if i wasnt a Liberal i know i definatley wont lean towards the right, their arguements can't be presented clearly, its always clouded.

 Actually if you look at both camps Dems & Reps, usually they regurgitate whatever talking points they hear on the news or read on blogs and reiterate them over n over, usually without stopping to think if they make sense or not.

The other day Obama sated the arguement clearly this preganancy has helped shaped it in reality[b]."if we can't agree on abortion at least we can agree on keeping teenage pregnancy down".[/b] So why should the arguement be shaped as simply pro life or pro choice, when does life start. When its not quite simple, personalities and behavioural patters affect societies that people face problems everyday they didnt plan for so what happens when it comes.

 You know this is one statement that I can agree with 100%.
Whoever the incoming president will be, he will not have the power to overturn Roe vs. Wade anyways. I don't think at any time America will revert to pro-life. So for me the politicians stand on an issue is simply to inform me of his/her morals n beliefs - because they cannot bring to pass 95% of the promises they make anyways.

I do not see though why you think Palin's daughter is an issue.
Her daughter is NOT the one running for office. Her daughter has never been on the political frontlines. Why should the daughters choice reflect on Palin's qualification to be VP? ignoring every other major accomplishment, and applaudable deed the Gov has done, people are choosing to dwell solely on this pregnancy and dismiss Palin as unfit. It makes no sense to me.

@ Jeseoul thanks for your response.

You are more than welcome.

JeSoul:

I do not see though why you think Palin's daughter is an issue.
Her daughter is NOT the one running for office. Her daughter has never been on the political frontlines. Why should the daughters choice reflect on Palin's qualification to be VP? ignoring every other major accomplishment, and applaudable deed the Gov has done, people are choosing to dwell solely on this pregnancy and dismiss Palin as unfit. It makes no sense to me.

Brilliant post.

Enjoying this debate where do i start.

Let me start with what i think on your first post before i take the issue of Palin.

I agree that abortion and war are 2 different issues and wont attempt to mix them up.

My arguement is this, being Pro life shouldnt only affect views on abortion or when life starts. It should also affect when it can end, and how it should be preserved. Then if i take a pro life stand then i should be extremely careful when i choose to send troops in harms way to die. You talked about the Iraq war i share your sentiments, it was unjustified.  

The arguement goes beyond that, what are the views on how life is preserved and nutured health care, then how is that pursued.

I agree with you am a christain, born again and my beliefs are guided and inspired by the bible, but i know i have fallen short once or twice so i know it happens. Keeping a child like in d case u mentioned (rape) and to me it extends but i will leave it at that. I shouldnt be instrumental to ensuring that people don't have the choice to do what they want to, i can show them the options but also ensure they have options.

On tax and all, theres no hatred on rich folks, but theres inequality and perceived bias when u cut dividend income tax and cut personal income at maybe d same rate or dividend income even more, (i don't have Bush's figures) the impact is felt more on the salary earner. Warren Buffet explained this when he said his secretary pays more tax than him in propotionate terms, ie tax as a percentage of what he earns, and hes not a salary earner.

Finally on the bankrutsy, Dems manage the economy better example clinton and history shows that, I believe President Clinton was lucky and takes more credit than he deserves but credit to the guy he left the US in a surplus.

khai_khai:

@Kobojunk
You know people have the right to their opinions, which do not have to be the same as yours. That's why in politics, there is the left, right, independent, etc,
In religion, you know what sects there are.
Try to make your point as you sometimes do, instead of the narrow-minded belief that anyone whose views differ from yours is unintelligent.

Please consult a dictionary to know the difference between posting an Opinion and posting rubbish !



opinion Definition
opin•ion (ə pin′yən, ō-)
noun
1. a belief not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge but on what seems true, valid, or probable to one's own mind; judgment
2. an evaluation, impression, or estimation of the quality or worth of a person or thing
3. the formal judgment of an expert on a matter in which advice is sought
4. LAW the formal statement by a judge, court referee, etc. of the law bearing on a case



intelligent Definition
in•tel•li•gent (in tel′ə jənt)
adjective
1. having or using intelligence; rational
2. having or showing an alert mind or high intelligence; bright, perceptive, informed, clever, wise, etc.
3.
a. designating or of a terminal capable of performing certain functions with the data, independently of the computer
b. equipped with a microprocessor or computer an intelligent missile
4. ARCHAIC aware (of something)
Etymology: L intelligens, prp. of intelligere: see intellect



unintelligent Definition
un•in•tel•li•gent (-in tel′i jənt)
adjective
having or showing a lack or deficiency of intelligence
• unintegrated

Then on the second.

Agreed no matter what the extreme right says i for one will always be against it, but that doesnt mean i wont consider the veracity or falsity of the claims. Both camps will always talk and as u said its all about the morals and perception. You stated a key point politicians stand on issues informs u of his morals. The right has ruled so much because of this perception of morals they propagate and every reasonable man likes a man with morals.

Who says a Liberal or the democrats has no morals because of his views on choice or can't protect America because of their positions so that media war will go on, the left has long been out done, they will need to do more.

Please on the Roe vs Wade sweetie don't be decieved at all. Theres more at stake in this election than a lot know, in the next 4 years there might be room to appint 4 Judges and adding that to what is on ground now, a lot can change. I don't see that Judgement changing but the issue is that the legal climate can change and who knows with the kind of ideology vibrating of the McCain camp its scary.

Then on Palin agreed this singular action of her daughter should not be used to access her qualification as VP, as kids are more likely to go against their parents guidance, parents can only trust that bring up your child in the way he should go when he is old he wont depart, thats only what parents can hold on to.

The issue is on the positions she takes, she definately has some major accomplishements for her to have come this far and credit to her. But as VP now what Martin Luther  King called the "urgency of now", another extremist bush kind of views wont cut,  another Cheeney only younger and pretty would be disaster. They stand for more of the the same things.

On one key position she takes, the result of failure started from her own house. Its only unfortunate thats its her daughter, its the failure of her policies for me that doesnt make her qualified.

Kobojunkie:



opinion Definition
opin•ion (ə pin′yən, ō-)
noun
1.   a belief not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge but on what seems true, valid, or probable to one's own mind; judgment
2.   an evaluation, impression, or estimation of the quality or worth of a person or thing
3.   the formal judgment of an expert on a matter in which advice is sought
4.   LAW the formal statement by a judge, court referee, etc. of the law bearing on a case



intelligent Definition
in•tel•li•gent (in tel′ə jənt)
adjective
1.   having or using intelligence; rational
2.   having or showing an alert mind or high intelligence; bright, perceptive, informed, clever, wise, etc.
3.  
a.   designating or of a terminal capable of performing certain functions with the data, independently of the computer
b.   equipped with a microprocessor or computer an intelligent missile
4.   ARCHAIC aware (of something)
Etymology: L intelligens, prp. of intelligere: see intellect

PRICELESS.

away4real:

Enjoying this debate where do i start.

Let me start with what i think on your first post before i take the issue of Palin.

I agree that abortion and war are 2 different issues and wont attempt to mix them up.

My arguement is this, being Pro life shouldnt only affect views on abortion or when life starts. It should also affect when it can end, and how it should be preserved. Then if i take a pro life stand then i should be extremely careful when i choose to send troops in harms way to die. You talked about the Iraq war i share your sentiments, it was unjustified. The arguement goes beyond that, what are the views on how life is preserved and nutured health care, then how is that pursued.

I see your point. I do hold that one who is pro-choice should also have just as much reservations about jumping into a war as well.

I agree with you am a christain, born again and my beliefs are guided and inspired by the bible,

it's always great to 'meet' a fellow saint

but i know i have fallen short once or twice so i know it happens. Keeping a child like in d case u mentioned (rape) and to me it extends but i will leave it at that. I shouldnt be instrumental to ensuring that people don't have the choice to do what they want to, i can show them the options but also ensure they have options.

Oh by no means do I support aborting pregnancies due to rape. I'm simply saying I would perfectly understand why a woman would want to do it. I have less 'understanding' though for those who got pregnant due to lack of common sense or self-control.

On tax and all, theres no hatred on rich folks, but theres inequality and perceived bias when u cut dividend income tax and cut personal income at maybe d same rate or dividend income even more, (i don't have Bush's figures) the impact is felt more on the salary earner. Warren Buffet explained this when he said his secretary pays more tax than him in propotionate terms, ie tax as a percentage of what he earns, and hes not a salary earner.

I don't have the exact figures either from Bush's policy and I am aware of the breaks he awarded the rich n corps. In general, I have a strong aversion to the seeming hatred most democrats have towards rich people. I believe everyone should be taxed the same percentage, if you cut tax for one grp, cut it for all; increase for one, increase for all.
But if you think about it, in the history of the world, taxes have steadily increased, it is not about to change with Obama or McCain.

Finally on the bankrutsy, Dems manage the economy better example clinton and history shows that, I believe President Clinton was lucky and takes more credit than he deserves but credit to the guy he left the US in a surplus.

I dunno if I can say Dems as a whole are better economists. Perhaps they can spend better becos they have more money becos they tax more? Fiscal responsibility and curbing wasteful govt spending don't seem to be major talking points coming from the Obama camp, two things that are very important to me.

-Imagine the Massachusetts governor, a democrat, first thing he does when he gets into office is to buy a brand new Cadillac and he pimped it.
-Sarah Palin gets into office n turned down the private governors jet, saying it was a waste of money and sold it and gave the money back.
If it had been the mass gov, he woulda put rims on the plane
My point is that these seperate actions speaks volumes about the kind of person in question. Economic savvy varies from Dem to Rep.

Hannibal:

Most folks try their best as parents, but the kids don't always turn out the way parents planned.
They might reject their parent's values. They might make mistakes. Does that mean parents have "failed?''
I don't care about her family. . . . .Just lower people's taxes and gas and everything will be alright.

That's a given. But this parent we are refering to has her beliefs/party policies which she believes should be implemented.
One of which is the teaching of abstinence-only in schools, as opposed to what the rival propose(the use of contraceptives et al).
Obviously her policy on the issue could not even work with her daughter(in her home).
But she'D rather stick to it like some fanatic. Most of the policies they are bringing to the table are the same ones oga GWB has been using. They should accept failure and bring something different, rather than keep peddling the same failed stuff.

away4real:

Then on the second.

Agreed no matter what the extreme right says i for one will always be against it, but that doesnt mean i wont consider the veracity or falsity of the claims. Both camps will always talk and as u said its all about the morals and perception. You stated a key point politicians stand on issues informs u of his morals. The right has ruled so much because of this perception of morals they propagate and every reasonable man likes a man with morals.

 To be honest each party touts themselves as things they're not. Democrats say they're "for the people" Republicans say they're "good people" it's all lies and like you say 'propaganda'. There are good, bad and terrible politicians on both sides.

Who says a Liberal or the democrats has no morals because of his views on choice or can't protect America because of their positions so that media war will go on, the left has long been out done, they will need to do more.

 Perhaps its just my perception but I'll rather trust my safety to a McCain than an Obama. It seems to me dems have a kool-aid view foreign relations, to me they seem soft and to eager to kiss and hug everyone in the world. Islamic fascists will hate the west no matter how much "dialogue" or "talking" is done - it's just a fact of life, they want to kill us and will not stop trying. And since you're a christian, you understand that Hagars seed will be forever at war with his brothers. Muslims hate Jews, christians and everything we stand for - this will never change.

Please on the Roe vs Wade sweetie don't be decieved at all. Theres more at stake in this election than a lot know, in the next 4 years there might be room to appint 4 Judges and adding that to what is on ground now, a lot can change. I don't see that Judgement changing but the issue is that the legal climate can change and who knows with the kind of ideology vibrating of the McCain camp its scary.

 It can change, but the likelihood of that is the same as the likelihood of my winning the lottery (keep in mind I don't even play it).

Then on Palin agreed this singular action of her daughter should not be used to access her qualification as VP, as kids are more likely to go against their parents guidance, parents can only trust that bring up your child in the way he should go when he is old he wont depart, thats only what parents can hold on to.

The point pro-Palin'ers have been trying to make! and Lets not get into the hundreds of events I was a participant of that my parents would scream at if they knew

The issue is on the positions she takes, she definately has some major accomplishements for her to have come this far and credit to her. But as VP now what Martin Luther  King called the "urgency of now", another extremist bush kind of views wont cut,  another Cheeney only younger and pretty would be disaster. They stand for more of the the same things.

 lol . . . make you no compare vibrant, lively Palin to trigger-happy Cheney! one is gorgeous the other is just gorey.
By the way, most of her 'extremist' views happen to christian views so I have no beef with that! I support the death penalty, right to bear arms, pro-life etc. Which of her views exactly ain't you 'feelin'?

On one key position she takes, the result of failure started from her own house. Its only unfortunate thats its her daughter, its the failure of her policies for me that doesnt make her qualified

 I don't really get this statement.
How does her daughters choice to have sex =  a failure in Palin's policy?
Like Kobo stated earlier then you can also say that God's laws for abstinence for christians is also a failure! becos some christians obviously don't obey this law.

Besides this is such a small and largely insignificant issue; abstinence vs. contraception vs sex education, it is probably ranked problem #245 in the list of America's most pressing problems, this thing has been blown, stretched n re-blown way out of proportion. It is not a big deal at all.

This is exactly my arguement with those who lean towards the right, it all about religion in a secular society.

Let me pick few of your points. Am comfortable debating so i will strain a bit away just to drive my points home, hope thats alright?

JeSoul:

Oh by no means do I support aborting pregnancies due to rape. I'm simply saying I would perfectly understand why a woman would want to do it. I have less 'understanding' though for those who got pregnant due to lack of common sense or self-control.

Then Palins daughter falls into that category. I agree that there should be limits and the challenge is where to draw the line, but extreme pro life views am totally against because its irrational and bigotry, those that preach it most are often the ones that face situations like this more, am not saying others don't, but it always happens to the so called "good " why?. I remeber those days in school bad girls hardly get pregnant except intentionally, its always the good girls that get all the drama. The first time i ever heard of the so called "safe period" was from a bad girl, a lot of my bretheren (sisters) didnt know because they felt they don't need to. Needless to say a lot fell along the way, thanks to Gods grace to bring them back, knowledge in the ways of the world would have saved a lot.

JeSoul:

By the way, most of her 'extremist' views happen to christian views so I have no beef with that! I support the death penalty, right to bear arms, pro-life etc. Which of her views exactly ain't you 'feelin'?
  I don't really get this statement.
How does her daughters choice to have sex =  a failure in Palin's policy?
Like Kobo stated earlier then you can also say that God's laws for abstinence for christians is also a failure! because some christians obviously don't obey this law.

Besides this is such a small and largely insignificant issue; abstinence vs. contraception vs sex education, it is probably ranked problem #245 in the list of America's most pressing problems, this thing has been blown, stretched n re-blown way out of proportion. It is not a big deal at all.

I stand for the death penalty also on some crimes, right to bear arms no, it has no place in a civilised society, pro life too extrem for me i believe in choices. And please lets get it clear here these views are not christain they are republican. We no longer take an eye for an eye.

I totally agree its such a small issue there are bigger issues but this is what started our discuss. My reference to failed policy was to her abstenance only sex education policy, policy in singular terms, this constitutes part of her education policy. It just doesnt work, again all the sex education in the world wont eradicate the problem but i believe in all cards on the table them we trust God to do his thing. So how is it a failed policy, Daughters choice to have sex is a decison by daughter, daughter is educated in school and brought up practising abstenance only, Abstenance only is a failed policy it doesnt work. cos daughter obviously had sex and perhaps remotely knew about condoms, or thought it was unscriptural to use it though she was having sex. If not even if she had sex she wouldnt have been pregnant.

Bringing God here like Kobo did is a bit extreme only if we agree to limit it to us as christains, that law is not a failure because God gives room for us when we fail, having a high priest that understands what i feel i can approcah the throne for forgiveness. I remain a christain because i know and have tasted forgiveness.

My first question is what room is there when people fail in this pro life agenda, like Bristol must she have the child and marry the father?  Are there other choices or options for her?

JeSoul:

  To be honest each party touts themselves as things they're not. Democrats say they're "for the people" Republicans say they're "good people" it's all lies and like you say 'propaganda'. There are good, bad and terrible politicians on both sides.
  Perhaps its just my perception but I'll rather trust my safety to a McCain than an Obama. It seems to me dems have a kool-aid view foreign relations, to me they seem soft and to eager to kiss and hug everyone in the world. Islamic fascists will hate the west no matter how much "dialogue" or "talking" is done - it's just a fact of life, they want to kill us and will not stop trying. And since you're a christian, you understand that Hagars seed will be forever at war with his brothers. Muslims hate Jews, christians and everything we stand for - this will never change.

On the first part, I totally agree with you its all politics, at the end of the day both sides say all the things they say to win converts, statement in bold very important, i have always lived by those principle that there are good and bad people (sex, religion, tribe) and am not always quick to stereotype. I have met brethren that i wonder how God could forgive them because their wickedness radiates and "dey smell" as pidgin english will put it.

The other issue is where i fundamentally differ with you, McCain will not be a better guard. That perception is part of a larger propangand that has being built over time and is the challenge the Dems have now, to change. Why? tell me a democratic president that didnt defend America when it mattered? Tough talk and quick war decisions to me is not strength. Empathy is not weakness and shouldnt be mistaken for that.

There will always be enemies and interest to protect, i agree, if democrats believe in more diplomacy, its because not much is gained from war.

The republicans are always quick to go to war as a first premise not as a last after all diplomatic channels have broken down, that is what has been percieved as strenghth and i actually perceive that as a weakness.

I do not believe McCain will be willing to see through long and at times frustrating diplomacy. The Unilateral ideology is dangerous and would not work in the 21st century.

The enemity within the seeds will always be there as scripture teaches us, but thats scripture, can we leave it there. Muslims hate Christains, Jews and everything they stand for, why does America buy Oil from the Saudis where the Mecca is, the home of this so called Islam. This line of arguement is too extreme for a secular society.

Again i state it would be good if we allow scripture guide us in our personal lives but leave it there, if not what makes us different from the so call islamic extremist that cannot differentiate issues.

Thanks sis, i have had good fun debating with you, we would follow up another time.

OH MY GOSH!!! You mean the Bible does not state over and over that Fornication is wrong?? AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!  ORUNMILA!!! Where are you ROFLMAO!! You mean it was INVENTED by the Republicans



fornication Definition
for·ni·ca·tion (fôr′ni kā′s̸hən)

noun


voluntary sexual intercourse engaged in by a man, esp. an unmarried man, with an unmarried woman
voluntary sexual intercourse engaged in by an unmarried person: if the other person is married, the act of the unmarried person is sometimes considered adultery
Bible
any unlawful sexual intercourse, including adultery
worship of idols

@ kobo, maybe you can show me where i stated fornication is not a sin or wrong.

You need to loosen up, i thought you didnt have time to post, you can run along its not by force.

You seem to be using the dictionary a lot, are you learning these words.

Oh,  I respond to ridiculous posts such as the one you posted about me earlier. I am sorry that gets you but I hate it when people lie to get by or try to wiggle their way into being right. Everyone knows the reason why republicans bring forward morals is to bring religious beliefs in. And when we speak of religion, we speak of God. So I don't know how you can set God to the side when the belief itself is based on the Bible which is about God. So if teaching abstinence, a practice taken from the bible is wrong, then it goes to say that God is wrong. ROFLMAO!!! I am sorry, there are no two ways to it. You can not tell me it is all about republicans when republicans who push that belief state clearly that it is taken from the Bible, which in turn, is the book of God. 


Not all persons that preach abstinence are republicans. So to say abstinence does not work is to say that whoever came up with the idea is wrong.

Kobojunkie:

Oh, I respond to ridiculous posts such as the one you posted about me earlier. I am sorry that gets you but I hate it when people lie to get by or try to wiggle their way into being right. Everyone knows the reason why republicans bring forward morals is to bring religious beliefs in. And when we speak of religion, we speak of God. So I don't know how you can set God to the side when the belief itself is based on the Bible which is about God. So if teaching abstinence, a practice taken from the bible is wrong, then it goes to say that God is wrong. ROFLMAO!!! I am sorry, there are no two ways to it. You can not tell me it is all about republicans when republicans who push that belief state clearly that it is taken from the Bible, which in turn, is the book of God.


Not all persons that preach abstinence are republicans. So to say abstinence does not work is to say that whoever came up with the idea is wrong.

Please highlight to me the ridiclous post i did about you.

While you are on that try and google "fallacy of composition and hasty generalisation", you need desperately some lessons on logic.

This forum cannot be a substitute for proper education you know.

Kobojunkie:

Oh,  I respond to ridiculous posts such as the one you posted about me earlier. I am sorry that gets you but I hate it when people lie to get by or try to wiggle their way into being right. Everyone knows the reason why republicans bring forward morals is to bring religious beliefs in. And when we speak of religion, we speak of God. So I don't know how you can set God to the side when the belief itself is based on the Bible which is about God. So if teaching abstinence, a practice taken from the bible is wrong, then it goes to say that God is wrong. ROFLMAO!!! I am sorry, there are no two ways to it. You can not tell me it is all about republicans when republicans who push that belief state clearly that it is taken from the Bible, which in turn, is the book of God. 


Not all persons that preach abstinence are republicans. So to say abstinence does not work is to say that whoever came up with the idea is wrong.

Its almost an impossible task afterall water came out of a rock so let me try.

Am i talking about all persons that preach abstinance or Sarah Palin. The statement in bold is a testament of your logic. You cannot refute a single arguement logically, this is my third olive branch you stated you were tired and i advised it wasnt by force, its still not by force at the last count you are not JeSoul i ask again are you?

Please allow me to digress here. Its all so pathethic some arguements i hear from christains. Lets go religious now 1 Corinthains 6:18 advise we flee fornication, a sin against ones own body. Abstinence is the only solution in the bible, in short all we are to flee all appearances of evil.

My question ? Is this done by the canal man or the man filled by the spirit, how can you live a life free from fornication if you dont have Gods spirit abiding on your inside, then some christains would attempt this on a carnal man as if that was Gods plan and when it fails you dare try to infer that those who oppose those views are against God or are saying that God has failed.

You guys better start thinking properly.

Away4real,
   you're not gone yet r you? 

away4real:

Then Palins daughter falls into that category. I agree that there should be limits and the challenge is where to draw the line, but extreme pro life views am totally against because its irrational and bigotry, those that preach it most are often the ones that face situations like this more, am not saying others don't, but it always happens to the so called "good " why?. I remeber those days in school bad girls hardly get pregnant except intentionally, its always the good girls that get all the drama. The first time i ever heard of the so called "safe period" was from a bad girl, a lot of my bretheren (sisters) didnt know because they felt they don't need to. Needless to say a lot fell along the way, thanks to Gods grace to bring them back, knowledge in the ways of the world would have saved a lot.

  I know Palin is pro-life BUT I'm yet to hear of an account where she's been extremist in attempting to 'enforce' it on others. I have no problem with her having those beliefs. I'm a christian so in many ways I understand and relate to her unrelenting stance on certain issues, not willing to compromise to fit the norm.

I stand for the death penalty also on some crimes, right to bear arms no, it has no place in a civilised society, pro life too extrem for me i believe in choices. And please lets get it clear here these views are not christain they are republican. We no longer take an eye for an eye

  And what's so bad about the 2nd amendment? I have no problem with peoples right to bear arms and protect themselves or enjoy recreational hunting. It's just that we have implement stringent laws on its regulation.

I totally agree its such a small issue there are bigger issues but this is what started our discuss. My reference to failed policy was to her abstenance only sex education policy, policy in singular terms, this constitutes part of her education policy. It just doesnt work, again all the sex education in the world wont eradicate the problem but i believe in all cards on the table them we trust God to do his thing. So how is it a failed policy, Daughters choice to have sex is a decison by daughter, daughter is educated in school and brought up practising abstenance only, Abstenance only is a failed policy it doesnt work. because daughter obviously had sex and perhaps remotely knew about condoms, or thought it was unscriptural to use it though she was having sex. If not even if she had sex she wouldnt have been pregnant.

Bringing God here like Kobo did is a bit extreme only if we agree to limit it to us as christains, that law is not a failure because God gives room for us when we fail, having a high priest that understands what i feel i can approcah the throne for forgiveness. I remain a christain because i know and have tasted forgiveness.

  I don't think it is extreme at all. Its just logic. If you can say Palin's policy fails because her daughter got pregnant, then the same can be said about God's abstinence laws a failure because we don't always follow it. And its not about forgiveness, I'm sure Palin loves her daughter and 'forgives' her just like God loves n forgives us.

And i've always felt that tryin to seperate Religion and politics is a lost cause. People are religious, whether it is christian or atheist and they base their morals on their beliefs, how then can we suddenly expect them to abandon those beliefs when they come into politics? It's not reasonable and history has shown church n state cannot be seperated the way people 'ideally' want it to be.

My first question is what room is there when people fail in this pro life agenda, like Bristol must she have the child and marry the father?  Are there other choices or options for her?

  Lets give Palin a chance to answer these questions during the upcoming debates before we conclude that she doesn't have any wiggle room in her strong beliefs.

The other issue is where i fundamentally differ with you, McCain will not be a better guard. That perception is part of a larger propangand that has being built over time and is the challenge the Dems have now, to change. Why? tell me a democratic president that didnt defend America when it mattered? Tough talk and quick war decisions to me is not strength. Empathy is not weakness and shouldnt be mistaken for that.

There will always be enemies and interest to protect, i agree, if democrats believe in more diplomacy, its because not much is gained from war.

  I think 'diplomacy' is overated.
Not that I'm one to advocate shooting first and asking later but I believe in tough, swift and unequivocal action and reaction. You conceded that those fundamentalist islamic foot-soldiers will always want to kill us, we must be on alert at all time. I propose sympathy and conversation in place of brute force sometimes. It's good to not always be trigger-happy like Republicans are BUT I'D rather have an alert dog, than a docile cat. McCain is better for national security than Obama's kool-aid, Barney lets-all-hug approach. Lets just be real, they hate us and 'dialoguing' is not going to change that.

The enemity within the seeds will always be there as scripture teaches us, but thats scripture, can we leave it there. Muslims hate Christains, Jews and everything they stand for, why does America buy Oil from the Saudis where the Mecca is, the home of this so called Islam. This line of arguement is too extreme for a secular society.

  How so? A secular society? we are seeing the truth of these 'biblical' facts right before our eyes, why does it make a difference that the society itself is not 'christian'?

Again i state it would be good if we allow scripture guide us in our personal lives but leave it there, if not what makes us different from the so call islamic extremist that cannot differentiate issues.

No my dear, the difference between us and the islamos is that our religion teaches love and tolerance! theirs teaches and trains and commands them to kill us! For a christian, scripture does not stop being applicable in your 'personal life', it is very much alive in everyday political and social situations. My christianity affects my work choice, my actions there, it affects 100% of my political beliefs and I'm not ashamed to say it - and I praise Sarah Palin for not being ashamed to say it either.

Thanks sis, i have had good fun debating with you, we would follow up another time.

  Yes it has we shall be talking again soon I'm sure.

Abstinence-only sex education didn't work for her family, yet she promotes it politically. That's hypocrisy.

Seun:

Abstinence-only sex education didn't work for her family, yet she promotes it politically. That's hypocrisy.

Oboy, do not let our fanatical Repubs in the house hear that o. It isn't something their eyes can see.