Thread: For balance: a few Conservative web resources

Billastro - 1/21/2009 at 09:54 PM

Since so many (whether here or via the national media) are currently deifying President Obama, I'd like to add some balance to the mix. Here are few Conservative Web resources I find helpful:

Town Hall: http://townhall.com/
American Thinker: http://americanthinker.com/
National Review online: http://nationalreview.com/
WorldNetDaily: http://worldnetdaily.com/

Any others?

Billastro



SquatchTexas - 1/21/2009 at 11:05 PM

Balance? World Nut Daily? Instead of spin, how about if we wait for facts and reality, Bill?


spacemonkey - 1/21/2009 at 11:22 PM

quote:
Since so many (whether here or via the national media) are currently deifying President Obama, I'd like to add some balance to the mix. Here are few Conservative Web resources I find helpful:

Town Hall: http://townhall.com/
American Thinker: http://americanthinker.com/
National Review online: http://nationalreview.com/
WorldNetDaily: http://worldnetdaily.com/

Any others?

Billastro








cnn
fox news
cbs news

all the major media is owned by the big corporations .

wott balance?


Billastro - 1/21/2009 at 11:28 PM

quote:
Who has deified Obama? Show me. Or is this just your opinion again, an opinion about people that has no basis in fact?

Geeze, I can't stand your smarmy attitude. But feel free to put it on display as often as you like.
To quote your words from another thread, "The preceding was brought to you by an American expressing his right to free speech."

I've seen, heard, and read enough hyperbolic statements about Obama that I stand by what I posted.

Tell me about "smarmy", please. What's wrong with my attitude?

Billastro


Billastro - 1/21/2009 at 11:30 PM

quote:
Balance? World Nut Daily? Instead of spin, how about if we wait for facts and reality, Bill?
Leftish websites display a respectable amount of spin. I can't think of (m)any websites that are completely neutral.

As far as facts and reality are concerned, I disagree with much of what Obama has said he stands for, and his veiled history concerns me.

If he turns out better for the country than I hope (given my Conservative pov), then that's fine with me. But I don't look forward to his term.

Bill


spacemonkey - 1/21/2009 at 11:39 PM

quote:
Tell me about "smarmy", please. What's wrong with my attitude?


That your POV is absolute truth and any other POV is BS.

Both are just POV.s

the constantant railing against "the liberal media" which from my POV doesn't exist.

the constant complaining about liberals, especially at a band's website where the
founding members were pretty liberal.

for starters .


spacemonkey - 1/21/2009 at 11:43 PM

as far as the topic goes. I am liberal but not a fan of Obama. What I have seen
is not any deification, but the natural excitement about a victory and the possibilities
that change can bring.

You are so filled with hate for Obama that you can't stop with the sniping just
a day after inaguration.

My observation for what it is worth.


alloak41 - 1/21/2009 at 11:45 PM

quote:
Since so many (whether here or via the national media) are currently deifying President Obama, I'd like to add some balance to the mix. Here are few Conservative Web resources I find helpful:

Town Hall: http://townhall.com/
American Thinker: http://americanthinker.com/
National Review online: http://nationalreview.com/
WorldNetDaily: http://worldnetdaily.com/

Any others?

Billastro






Here's one, Bill....Very informative.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html


SmilingJack - 1/21/2009 at 11:49 PM

"Tell me about "smarmy", please. What's wrong with my attitude?"
_______________________________________________________________________
How about the constant bashing of Obama about his 'plans' before anything ever happened since the inauguration was yesterday? You "27 percenters" can't see the past 8 years (24 of last 36 years) for what they were yet are positive about all the bad things that are going to happen now.


Billastro - 1/22/2009 at 02:18 AM

quote:
as far as the topic goes. I am liberal but not a fan of Obama. What I have seen
is not any deification, but the natural excitement about a victory and the possibilities
that change can bring.

You are so filled with hate for Obama that you can't stop with the sniping just
a day after inaguration.

My observation for what it is worth.
Forgive my bluntness, but your observation is so filled with ignorance that you haven't a leg to stand on.

I've repeatedly said I don't hate him, but I disagree with his policies (I hate abortion, for example). Who deified you to the extent that you can gauge my feelings?

Typical liberal bull.

Billastro


Billastro - 1/22/2009 at 02:18 AM

quote:
quote:
Tell me about "smarmy", please. What's wrong with my attitude?
That your POV is absolute truth and any other POV is BS.
Is this wrong, or is it just something you don't approve of?

quote:
Both are just POV.s

the constantant railing against "the liberal media" which from my POV doesn't exist.

the constant complaining about liberals, especially at a band's website where the
founding members were pretty liberal.

for starters .
Why does this disqualify me from posting Conservative opinions? I can enjoy someone's music without agreeing to their politics.

Billastro

[Edited on 1/22/2009 by Billastro]


bigann - 1/22/2009 at 02:22 AM

27% ?

When asked about Mr. Bush’s performance over the last eight years, 22 percent of respondents said they approved. That matched Mr. Bush’s job-approval rating for much of last fall, the lowest of his presidency. In the current poll, 73 percent disapproved of his performance over the course of his two terms.


Bhawk - 1/22/2009 at 03:34 AM

quote:
quote:
as far as the topic goes. I am liberal but not a fan of Obama. What I have seen
is not any deification, but the natural excitement about a victory and the possibilities
that change can bring.

You are so filled with hate for Obama that you can't stop with the sniping just
a day after inaguration.

My observation for what it is worth.
Forgive my bluntness, but your observation is so filled with ignorance that you haven't a leg to stand on.

I've repeatedly said I don't hate him, but I disagree with his policies (I hate abortion, for example). Who deified you to the extent that you can gauge my feelings?

Typical liberal bull.

Billastro


Aww, hell, Bill, relax. It's just day one. Shoot, it'll get around to returning the favor of calling you and all the other conservatives America-hating, terrorist loving traitors soon enough. I'm sure you'll enjoy being on the other end of that, huh?


SquatchTexas - 1/22/2009 at 07:32 AM

quote:
Leftish websites display a respectable amount of spin.


Relative. I read both sides and I have found far more facts and truth and supporting information on "leftish" sites than I have from the Right. Coincidence?

quote:
As far as facts and reality are concerned, I disagree with much of what Obama has said he stands for, and his veiled history concerns me.


Well, today was a fantastic day. Banning torture and an EO closing Gitmo as well as blocking the sealing of Bush's presidential papers? Awesome in my book.


spacemonkey - 1/22/2009 at 08:18 AM

quote:

Typical liberal bull.

Billastro


see what I mean.

You asked the question, sorry you don't like the answer.


sibwlkr - 1/22/2009 at 02:04 PM

Couple of sites that I go to and reflect a "true conservative" point of view, as opposed to a right wing, Republican point of view which in many cases in not the least bit conservative.

American Conservative - http://www.amconmag.com/
Patrick J. Buchanan - http://buchanan.org/blog/


RBK - 1/22/2009 at 04:05 PM

quote:
"Tell me about "smarmy", please. What's wrong with my attitude?"
_______________________________________________________________________
How about the constant bashing of Obama about his 'plans' before anything ever happened since the inauguration was yesterday? You "27 percenters" can't see the past 8 years (24 of last 36 years) for what they were yet are positive about all the bad things that are going to happen now.




Based on BarryO's past actions, associations, writings and senate voting history "bad things that are going to happen" is a pretty safe bet. It's too bad so many voters were so focused on the PAST (see post above) that they didn't give the future a serious thought. Had they done so we might not be facing what is indeed coming.


Billastro - 1/22/2009 at 04:16 PM

quote:
quote:
Leftish websites display a respectable amount of spin.
Relative. I read both sides and I have found far more facts and truth and supporting information on "leftish" sites than I have from the Right. Coincidence?
And I could say the opposite. I don't dispute your sincerity, but it seems to me there's more spin on the Left.
quote:
quote:
As far as facts and reality are concerned, I disagree with much of what Obama has said he stands for, and his veiled history concerns me.
Well, today was a fantastic day. Banning torture and an EO closing Gitmo as well as blocking the sealing of Bush's presidential papers? Awesome in my book.
I agree with the first, have mixed thoughts on the second (where, then, should we detain these people?), and agree on the third -- they should be public record unless (and this is slippery, I'll admit) there are clear issues of national security.

For example, I disagree strongly with his views on abortion (this is a litmus test for me), since he's made it clear he believes in no significant restrictions. This was a factor in my voting for McCain (I was lukewarm about him) -- partly to vote against Obama.

I lean strongly toward Conservative (not necessarily Republican) with maybe a bit of Libertarian stirred in, so I want as little government in my life as possible. I realize we've gone so far down the road of Big Federal Government that this is probably a lost hope. But I still think the Constitution should be the standard for federal government "activities", and that much of what the feds have taken over should rightly be restored to the individual states.

Like it or not, Obama is my president. I disagree with him on most of fundamental issues and policies, and will try to watch him closely. But I'm not obliged to trust him, so I'll do what I can to keep an eye on him from the remote outpost of Minnesota.

Billastro


Billastro - 1/22/2009 at 04:19 PM

quote:
"Tell me about "smarmy", please. What's wrong with my attitude?"
_______________________________________________________________________
How about the constant bashing of Obama about his 'plans' before anything ever happened since the inauguration was yesterday? You "27 percenters" can't see the past 8 years (24 of last 36 years) for what they were yet are positive about all the bad things that are going to happen now.
He's been really clear about many of his beliefs, and most of them run counter to mine. Why should I support him?

As far as the bashing goes, I've disagreed with his positions, values, stances, and so on. Where have I bashed him personally? Can you defend your statement, or are you just twisting my words to justify your accusation?

Billastro


Billastro - 1/22/2009 at 04:23 PM

quote:
27% ?

When asked about Mr. Bush’s performance over the last eight years, 22 percent of respondents said they approved. That matched Mr. Bush’s job-approval rating for much of last fall, the lowest of his presidency. In the current poll, 73 percent disapproved of his performance over the course of his two terms.
What's that got to do with anything? We're far too close (in time) to his presidency. IIRC, Truman's numbers were way down when he left office, and they later changed. Now he's considered one of the better POTUSes. Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_President s .

A president has a greater obligation and responsibility to do what he considers right, than he has to maintain high numbers.

Billastro


Billastro - 1/22/2009 at 04:26 PM

quote:
quote:
Forgive my bluntness, but your observation is so filled with ignorance that you haven't a leg to stand on.
Nope, nothing smarmy about you at all.
Good call

Here's what http://dictionary.reference.com/ says:
quote:
excessively or unctuously flattering, ingratiating, servile, etc.: the emcee with the smarmy welcome.
If you're going to call someone something, or try to insult them, at least use the right word.

Billastro


Billastro - 1/22/2009 at 04:28 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
as far as the topic goes. I am liberal but not a fan of Obama. What I have seen is not any deification, but the natural excitement about a victory and the possibilities that change can bring.

You are so filled with hate for Obama that you can't stop with the sniping just a day after inaguration.

My observation for what it is worth.
Forgive my bluntness, but your observation is so filled with ignorance that you haven't a leg to stand on.

I've repeatedly said I don't hate him, but I disagree with his policies (I hate abortion, for example). Who deified you to the extent that you can gauge my feelings?

Typical liberal bull.

Billastro
Aww, hell, Bill, relax. It's just day one. Shoot, it'll get around to returning the favor of calling you and all the other conservatives America-hating, terrorist loving traitors soon enough. I'm sure you'll enjoy being on the other end of that, huh?
You're right. Probably it was just the meds wearing off And I can hardly wait for the Real Stuff to begin!

Billastro


RBK - 1/22/2009 at 04:32 PM

quote:
Since so many (whether here or via the national media) are currently deifying President Obama, I'd like to add some balance to the mix. Here are few Conservative Web resources I find helpful:

Town Hall: http://townhall.com/
American Thinker: http://americanthinker.com/
National Review online: http://nationalreview.com/
WorldNetDaily: http://worldnetdaily.com/

Any others?

Billastro





Ignorant hate speech all.


Bhawk - 1/22/2009 at 04:50 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
as far as the topic goes. I am liberal but not a fan of Obama. What I have seen is not any deification, but the natural excitement about a victory and the possibilities that change can bring.

You are so filled with hate for Obama that you can't stop with the sniping just a day after inaguration.

My observation for what it is worth.
Forgive my bluntness, but your observation is so filled with ignorance that you haven't a leg to stand on.

I've repeatedly said I don't hate him, but I disagree with his policies (I hate abortion, for example). Who deified you to the extent that you can gauge my feelings?

Typical liberal bull.

Billastro
Aww, hell, Bill, relax. It's just day one. Shoot, it'll get around to returning the favor of calling you and all the other conservatives America-hating, terrorist loving traitors soon enough. I'm sure you'll enjoy being on the other end of that, huh?
You're right. Probably it was just the meds wearing off And I can hardly wait for the Real Stuff to begin!

Billastro


This is, sadly, what American politics is. There is not nor will there ever be a "post-partisan" era.


spacemonkey - 1/22/2009 at 05:05 PM

quote:

Like it or not, Obama is my president. I disagree with him on most of fundamental issues and policies, and will try to watch him closely. But I'm not obliged to trust him, so I'll do what I can to keep an eye on him from the remote outpost of Minnesota.

Billastro




I am sure America can sleep easier with you on watch. give me a break!


RBK - 1/22/2009 at 05:06 PM

quote:
quote:

Like it or not, Obama is my president. I disagree with him on most of fundamental issues and policies, and will try to watch him closely. But I'm not obliged to trust him, so I'll do what I can to keep an eye on him from the remote outpost of Minnesota.

Billastro




I am sure America can sleep easier with you on watch. give me a break!


Somebody has to do it. The people who elected him don't give a rip.


bigann - 1/22/2009 at 05:09 PM

Actually, there are a number of us who care....we're just willing to wait until Obama does something worthy of disagreeing with before we start piling on. So far he's doing okay.

Side note....I heard a report last night that Bush spent over 1,000 days of his presidency on vacation!! About 34%. The way things went when he was at work I wish he'd made it maybe 50 of 60%.


RBK - 1/22/2009 at 05:12 PM

quote:
Actually, there are a number of us who care....we're just willing to wait until Obama does something worthy of disagreeing with before we start piling on. So far he's doing okay.




Within the parameters of those who voted for BarryO I'm willing to bet the "number of us who care" is a vast minority. Most are watching judge shows on afternoon TV and waiting to "get paid."


bigann - 1/22/2009 at 05:14 PM

Don't start in on my judge shows now, Harley, or it's going to get ugly around here.


Billastro - 1/22/2009 at 05:54 PM

quote:
did. Use either definition below, it fits.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smarmy

smarmy

Date: 1924
1 : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness <a tone of smarmy self-satisfaction — New Yorker>
2 : of low sleazy taste or quality <smarmy eroticism>


Apparently you think I show a smugness, etc., that I possess low, sleazy taste or quality. The fact that I'm confident in my views doesn't make me smug, just confident. If I think I'm right, and we disagree, then by ordinary logic, I think you're wrong. Simple enough?

As far as the taste and quality are concerned, you're attaching your subjective opinion where it has no impact.

quote:
As opposed to trolling on a web site where they don't like anyone. It's difficult to take someone like that as anything other than a jackass.
It's hard to respond to the arrogance of your claims without sounding sarcastic or patronizing, but I'll try.

You claim that I don't like anyone here. That's complete and total bullsh!t. I lost my temper with Squatch once, posted stuff I shouldn't have, apologized, and he seems to have accepted my apology, but that was the extent of it. You have no way to gauge my likes and dislikes of anyone, so you might want to consider shutting up, since you have no clue what you're talking about.

I've had good exchanges with people I disagree with completely, not only here but face to face in a wide range of contexts. It might even be that if you and I were to connect in person we'd like each other, but not each other's views. This happens all the time in real life.

When you assume that I don't like people because I don't like their views you reveal your own immaturity, nothing more. Most adults understand that they don't need to like a person's ideology to like the person, as my family, coworkers, neighbors, and more can tell you.

Taking my disagreements as personally as you seem to do is grade-school thinking, and says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Billastro


Billastro - 1/22/2009 at 05:56 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Like it or not, Obama is my president. I disagree with him on most of fundamental issues and policies, and will try to watch him closely. But I'm not obliged to trust him, so I'll do what I can to keep an eye on him from the remote outpost of Minnesota.

Billastro
I am sure America can sleep easier with you on watch. give me a break!
Somebody has to do it. The people who elected him don't give a rip.
I think they'll be watching him to make sure the handouts and income redistribution proceed without a hitch!

Billastro


spacemonkey - 1/22/2009 at 05:57 PM

quote:
Apparently you think I show a smugness, etc., that I possess low, sleazy taste or quality. The fact that I'm confident in my views doesn't make me smug, just confident. If I think I'm right, and we disagree, then by ordinary logic, I think you're wrong. Simple enough?


Being Confident in your view is not the problem.
It is the distain you show for those with a different Point of View.


woodsdweller - 1/22/2009 at 05:58 PM

You mean like the $700 Billion dollar "handout" Bush gave to Wall Street?


SquatchTexas - 1/22/2009 at 06:05 PM

quote:
You mean like the $700 Billion dollar "handout" Bush gave to Wall Street?


Thats different!


Billastro - 1/22/2009 at 10:16 PM

quote:
quote:
Apparently you think I show a smugness, etc., that I possess low, sleazy taste or quality. The fact that I'm confident in my views doesn't make me smug, just confident. If I think I'm right, and we disagree, then by ordinary logic, I think you're wrong. Simple enough?
Being Confident in your view is not the problem.
It is the distain you show for those with a different Point of View.
You can choose to see disdain if you wish; I'm not responsible for your interpretations, especially regarding something that isn't there. But there are areas which I view in terms of moral absolutes, and I don't owe it to anyone to say that their point of view might be right when I'm convinced it isn't.

BTW, I see a helluva lot more disdain in this forum directed from the Left to the Right than the other way around. But that may be my perception, so I usually keep quiet about it.

Billastro


SmilingJack - 1/22/2009 at 10:22 PM

quote:
quote:
"Tell me about "smarmy", please. What's wrong with my attitude?"
_______________________________________________________________________
How about the constant bashing of Obama about his 'plans' before anything ever happened since the inauguration was yesterday? You "27 percenters" can't see the past 8 years (24 of last 36 years) for what they were yet are positive about all the bad things that are going to happen now.
He's been really clear about many of his beliefs, and most of them run counter to mine. Why should I support him?

As far as the bashing goes, I've disagreed with his positions, values, stances, and so on. Where have I bashed him personally? Can you defend your statement, or are you just twisting my words to justify your accusation?

Billastro

_______________________________________________________________________
How about talking about what he does instead of what you are afraid of? Most presidents have to take into consideration a number of pov's (Bush did not-the exception to the rule) and then use their best judgement (which is, of course affected by their biases), but I expect President Obama to be more thorough than President Bush in his decisions. I' ll base my criticisms on what happens, and not what I am afraid of, like you are doing. How smarmy to answer everyone the same way (liberal bs etc.) and then have the nerve to ask for justification of me saying you are bashing Obama constantly-just reread every thread, mr. kneejerk #2. I keep reacting to your bashing so I don't need to go back to see if you are doing it. You are a constant nah nah guy but it is about you, not what is happening-really, there is a difference.


heineken515 - 1/22/2009 at 10:26 PM

quote:
You mean like the $700 Billion dollar "handout" Bush gave to Wall Street?


Bush, and every Senator and Congressman, including Obama...they all agreed to it.


geordielad - 1/22/2009 at 10:44 PM

quote:


For example, I disagree strongly with his views on abortion (this is a litmus test for me), since he's made it clear he believes in no significant restrictions. This was a factor in my voting for McCain (I was lukewarm about him) -- partly to vote against Obama.

I lean strongly toward Conservative (not necessarily Republican) with maybe a bit of Libertarian stirred in, so I want as little government in my life as possible. I realize we've gone so far down the road of Big Federal Government that this is probably a lost hope. But I still think the Constitution should be the standard for federal government "activities", and that much of what the feds have taken over should rightly be restored to the individual states.

Like it or not, Obama is my president. I disagree with him on most of fundamental issues and policies, and will try to watch him closely. But I'm not obliged to trust him, so I'll do what I can to keep an eye on him from the remote outpost of Minnesota.

Billastro


So you want government interference in your life kept to a minimum but you're quite happy to stick your nose into the business of a woman who is considering not carrying her child to term?


Billastro - 1/22/2009 at 10:56 PM

quote:
quote:
For example, I disagree strongly with his views on abortion (this is a litmus test for me), since he's made it clear he believes in no significant restrictions. This was a factor in my voting for McCain (I was lukewarm about him) -- partly to vote against Obama.

I lean strongly toward Conservative (not necessarily Republican) with maybe a bit of Libertarian stirred in, so I want as little government in my life as possible. I realize we've gone so far down the road of Big Federal Government that this is probably a lost hope. But I still think the Constitution should be the standard for federal government "activities", and that much of what the feds have taken over should rightly be restored to the individual states.

Like it or not, Obama is my president. I disagree with him on most of fundamental issues and policies, and will try to watch him closely. But I'm not obliged to trust him, so I'll do what I can to keep an eye on him from the remote outpost of Minnesota.

Billastro
So you want government interference in your life kept to a minimum but you're quite happy to stick your nose into the business of a woman who is considering not carrying her child to term?
Yes. I maintain that life begins at conception, and I see abortion as murder. I stuck my nose between a father and his stepdaughter when she told me he'd molested her, and helped put him in prison for 26 years.

BTW, why do you think it's wrong for me to "stick my nose" in the business of a woman who wants to kill the child she's carrying?

Billastro


Billastro - 1/22/2009 at 10:58 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
"Tell me about "smarmy", please. What's wrong with my attitude?"
_______________________________________________________________________
How about the constant bashing of Obama about his 'plans' before anything ever happened since the inauguration was yesterday? You "27 percenters" can't see the past 8 years (24 of last 36 years) for what they were yet are positive about all the bad things that are going to happen now.
He's been really clear about many of his beliefs, and most of them run counter to mine. Why should I support him?

As far as the bashing goes, I've disagreed with his positions, values, stances, and so on. Where have I bashed him personally? Can you defend your statement, or are you just twisting my words to justify your accusation?

Billastro

_______________________________________________________________________
How about talking about what he does instead of what you are afraid of? Most presidents have to take into consideration a number of pov's (Bush did not-the exception to the rule) and then use their best judgement (which is, of course affected by their biases), but I expect President Obama to be more thorough than President Bush in his decisions. I' ll base my criticisms on what happens, and not what I am afraid of, like you are doing. How smarmy to answer everyone the same way (liberal bs etc.) and then have the nerve to ask for justification of me saying you are bashing Obama constantly-just reread every thread, mr. kneejerk #2. I keep reacting to your bashing so I don't need to go back to see if you are doing it. You are a constant nah nah guy but it is about you, not what is happening-really, there is a difference.
I've covered my thoughts about Obama enough already. I don't like what he's stood for in the past, the promises he's made about his presidency, and so on. I don't want him in a position where he can affect anything significant.

Billastro


bigann - 1/22/2009 at 11:05 PM

Too late.


geordielad - 1/22/2009 at 11:35 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
For example, I disagree strongly with his views on abortion (this is a litmus test for me), since he's made it clear he believes in no significant restrictions. This was a factor in my voting for McCain (I was lukewarm about him) -- partly to vote against Obama.

I lean strongly toward Conservative (not necessarily Republican) with maybe a bit of Libertarian stirred in, so I want as little government in my life as possible. I realize we've gone so far down the road of Big Federal Government that this is probably a lost hope. But I still think the Constitution should be the standard for federal government "activities", and that much of what the feds have taken over should rightly be restored to the individual states.

Like it or not, Obama is my president. I disagree with him on most of fundamental issues and policies, and will try to watch him closely. But I'm not obliged to trust him, so I'll do what I can to keep an eye on him from the remote outpost of Minnesota.

Billastro
So you want government interference in your life kept to a minimum but you're quite happy to stick your nose into the business of a woman who is considering not carrying her child to term?
Yes. I maintain that life begins at conception, and I see abortion as murder. I stuck my nose between a father and his stepdaughter when she told me he'd molested her, and helped put him in prison for 26 years.

BTW, why do you think it's wrong for me to "stick my nose" in the business of a woman who wants to kill the child she's carrying?

Billastro


Doesn't matter how you see it, abortion is not murder, at least not by any law you live by. As far as I'm aware The USA or even Minnesota doesn't live by the moral code of Billastro. So if a woman decides she is unable to keep her unborn child, and makes a decision to legally terminate that pregnancy, what the f*ck does it have to do with you?


Billastro - 1/23/2009 at 03:00 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
did. Use either definition below, it fits.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smarmy

smarmy

Date: 1924
1 : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness <a tone of smarmy self-satisfaction — New Yorker>
2 : of low sleazy taste or quality <smarmy eroticism>


Apparently you think I show a smugness, etc., that I possess low, sleazy taste or quality. The fact that I'm confident in my views doesn't make me smug, just confident. If I think I'm right, and we disagree, then by ordinary logic, I think you're wrong. Simple enough?

As far as the taste and quality are concerned, you're attaching your subjective opinion where it has no impact.

quote:
As opposed to trolling on a web site where they don't like anyone. It's difficult to take someone like that as anything other than a jackass.
It's hard to respond to the arrogance of your claims without sounding sarcastic or patronizing, but I'll try.

You claim that I don't like anyone here. That's complete and total bullsh!t. I lost my temper with Squatch once, posted stuff I shouldn't have, apologized, and he seems to have accepted my apology, but that was the extent of it. You have no way to gauge my likes and dislikes of anyone, so you might want to consider shutting up, since you have no clue what you're talking about.

I've had good exchanges with people I disagree with completely, not only here but face to face in a wide range of contexts. It might even be that if you and I were to connect in person we'd like each other, but not each other's views. This happens all the time in real life.

When you assume that I don't like people because I don't like their views you reveal your own immaturity, nothing more. Most adults understand that they don't need to like a person's ideology to like the person, as my family, coworkers, neighbors, and more can tell you.

Taking my disagreements as personally as you seem to do is grade-school thinking, and says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Billastro




The part about trolling was directed at RBK, not you. I apologize to you for the confusion.
I missed this part due to a time crunch. I don't know how you'll respond to this late post, but I appreciate the clarification. But I still disagree with a lot of the other things you've said about me.

At any rate, I accept the apology, for what this is worth.

Billastro


Billastro - 1/23/2009 at 03:05 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
For example, I disagree strongly with his views on abortion (this is a litmus test for me), since he's made it clear he believes in no significant restrictions. This was a factor in my voting for McCain (I was lukewarm about him) -- partly to vote against Obama.

I lean strongly toward Conservative (not necessarily Republican) with maybe a bit of Libertarian stirred in, so I want as little government in my life as possible. I realize we've gone so far down the road of Big Federal Government that this is probably a lost hope. But I still think the Constitution should be the standard for federal government "activities", and that much of what the feds have taken over should rightly be restored to the individual states.

Like it or not, Obama is my president. I disagree with him on most of fundamental issues and policies, and will try to watch him closely. But I'm not obliged to trust him, so I'll do what I can to keep an eye on him from the remote outpost of Minnesota.

Billastro
So you want government interference in your life kept to a minimum but you're quite happy to stick your nose into the business of a woman who is considering not carrying her child to term?
Yes. I maintain that life begins at conception, and I see abortion as murder. I stuck my nose between a father and his stepdaughter when she told me he'd molested her, and helped put him in prison for 26 years.

BTW, why do you think it's wrong for me to "stick my nose" in the business of a woman who wants to kill the child she's carrying?

Billastro


Doesn't matter how you see it, abortion is not murder, at least not by any law you live by. As far as I'm aware The USA or even Minnesota doesn't live by the moral code of Billastro. So if a woman decides she is unable to keep her unborn child, and makes a decision to legally terminate that pregnancy, what the f*ck does it have to do with you?
It's murder by the biblical laws I live by (from the New Testament). As I've said before I get my moral code from the God of the Bible. I've never claimed perfection, but I do the best I can.

You still haven't told me why you think it's none of my business, but you're sure belligerent about it. So, why is it none of my business? If you have a moral code, does it come from anywhere? If it's just your own perspective, then what authority does it have over me or anyone else?

Billastro


Billastro - 1/23/2009 at 03:07 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
did. Use either definition below, it fits.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smarmy

smarmy

Date: 1924
1 : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness <a tone of smarmy self-satisfaction — New Yorker>
2 : of low sleazy taste or quality <smarmy eroticism>


Apparently you think I show a smugness, etc., that I possess low, sleazy taste or quality. The fact that I'm confident in my views doesn't make me smug, just confident. If I think I'm right, and we disagree, then by ordinary logic, I think you're wrong. Simple enough?

As far as the taste and quality are concerned, you're attaching your subjective opinion where it has no impact.

quote:
As opposed to trolling on a web site where they don't like anyone. It's difficult to take someone like that as anything other than a jackass.
It's hard to respond to the arrogance of your claims without sounding sarcastic or patronizing, but I'll try.

You claim that I don't like anyone here. That's complete and total bullsh!t. I lost my temper with Squatch once, posted stuff I shouldn't have, apologized, and he seems to have accepted my apology, but that was the extent of it. You have no way to gauge my likes and dislikes of anyone, so you might want to consider shutting up, since you have no clue what you're talking about.

I've had good exchanges with people I disagree with completely, not only here but face to face in a wide range of contexts. It might even be that if you and I were to connect in person we'd like each other, but not each other's views. This happens all the time in real life.

When you assume that I don't like people because I don't like their views you reveal your own immaturity, nothing more. Most adults understand that they don't need to like a person's ideology to like the person, as my family, coworkers, neighbors, and more can tell you.

Taking my disagreements as personally as you seem to do is grade-school thinking, and says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Billastro




The part about trolling was directed at RBK, not you. I apologize to you for the confusion.
I missed this part due to a time crunch. I don't know how you'll respond to this late post, but I appreciate the clarification. But I still disagree with a lot of the other things you've said about me.

At any rate, I accept the apology, for what this is worth.

If you get this bent out of shape because I neglected to acknowledge your apology, that's your problem, not mine. I've apologized to people here, none have acknowledged this, and that's their choice. I don't take offense at that.

Billastro


bigann - 1/23/2009 at 03:09 AM

Personally I believe everyone is intitled to his and her moral compass....as long as it doesn't lead them to walk over me or my rights.


Billastro - 1/23/2009 at 01:49 PM

quote:
Too late.
Oh, well, we can hope for impeachment after the Republicans re-take the Senate and the House!

Billastro


gondicar - 1/23/2009 at 01:59 PM

RBK said:

quote:
Based on BarryO's past actions, associations, writings and senate voting history "bad things that are going to happen" is a pretty safe bet. It's too bad so many voters were so focused on the PAST (see post above) that they didn't give the future a serious thought. Had they done so we might not be facing what is indeed coming.


Do you even see the hypocrisy in this post?


bigann - 1/23/2009 at 03:50 PM

Wonder what the republicans will try to 'impeach' Obama for when they 'take control' in a couple of years.......possibly doing a good job? I can see how they might think something was up with that turn of events in that for eight years the previous guy didn't manage to do it.


lolasdeb - 1/23/2009 at 05:14 PM

quote:
I've covered my thoughts about Obama enough already.
Word! Yours and every other Drudge-like site you can post a link to, billastro!


SantaCruzBluz - 1/23/2009 at 05:20 PM

Bill, I don't think you get that your big problem is that you think God wrote the Bible, and so everything the Bible says is right, and that makes you right for believing what it says. You further think that you have authority from God to try to impose those beliefs on other people. Just because you believe abortion to be murder, based on your belief that God wrote the Bible, doesn't make it so. If a woman chooses to abort a pregnancy, it is none of your business, because it is none of your f*cking business. Just because YOU think it is your business does not make it so.

One thing you should remember is that there are people our there, including me, who are just as confident that what they believe is right as you are. Just because you have an old book you can drag out to prove you are right doesn't make you any more right than anyone else. The only place you are "right" is in that space between your ears, the world of the mind of Billastro. Outside of that space, other people get to be right, too.

I've told you before, if you really want to get real about God, toss that Bible, with all its ancient fears and prejudices, in a closet, and get out there and find out what Jesus was really all about. I don't expect you to do it, because you have a little book that allows you to decide who is right and who is wrong, and which allows you to justify your own fears and prejudices.


Bhawk - 1/23/2009 at 06:09 PM

My favorite Bible verse has always been this one:

quote:
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. - Matthew 6:5-6


Billastro - 1/23/2009 at 06:10 PM

quote:
Bill, I don't think you get that your big problem is that you think God wrote the Bible, and so everything the Bible says is right, and that makes you right for believing what it says. You further think that you have authority from God to try to impose those beliefs on other people. Just because you believe abortion to be murder, based on your belief that God wrote the Bible, doesn't make it so. If a woman chooses to abort a pregnancy, it is none of your business, because it is none of your f*cking business. Just because YOU think it is your business does not make it so.
There is a mountain of historical evidence that verifies the supernatural nature of the Bible, and I'm confident that God did inspire its authors. God doesn't give me the authority to impose my values, but the election process does. I'll vote with my values every time it's possible. You have the same right.

There's more to my belief that abortion is murder. I'll post a piece in a message shortly after this that shows how even atheists (such as Camille Paglia) acknowledge this, and this has nothing to do with biblical teaching.

Your reason that it's not my business means nothing objectively; you're simply stating, then restating your opinion. Mine differs, and I'll reject yours as readily as you reject mine. Here's how it goes: I'm right, because I'm doggone right, because I'm jolly well right, because I'm thoroughly right. (I saw your two, then raised you to four ). Your call!
quote:
One thing you should remember is that there are people our there, including me, who are just as confident that what they believe is right as you are. Just because you have an old book you can drag out to prove you are right doesn't make you any more right than anyone else. The only place you are "right" is in that space between your ears, the world of the mind of Billastro. Outside of that space, other people get to be right, too.
I remember that others disagree with me, but I don't see any reason to include that in my belief system, any more than they seem to think they should assimilate mine.

The age of the book is irrelevant. There is more historical foundation for the writings in the Bible than for anything else from that era, as well as internal consistencies, continuity in the texts in periods spanning hundreds of years, and other factors that historians consider when they evaluate documents. None of this "proves" the Bible is correct, but it provides far more verification than there is for any other religious writings.

Right and wrong are absolute, not relative, concepts. You seem to be saying that's not the case, but since you strongly disagree with what I've said, you clearly have committed views on them. SCB is right, Bill is wrong. You contradict yourself and weaken your stance.
quote:
I've told you before, if you really want to get real about God, toss that Bible, with all its ancient fears and prejudices, in a closet, and get out there and find out what Jesus was really all about. I don't expect you to do it, because you have a little book that allows you to decide who is right and who is wrong, and which allows you to justify your own fears and prejudices.
How will "getting out there" tell me more about Jesus than the reports of three eyewitnesses, a contemporary chronicler of His life, and the writings of two of His half-brothers (among others)? What are the sources I'll need to teach me what you imply that I'll find?

The Bible doesn't allow me to decide what's wrong, but to recognize the difference. I have no fears and very few prejudices that I'm aware of; would you identify the ones you think I have? Saying that a behavior is morally wrong has nothing to do with fear or prejudice since it refers to behaviors, not the people themselves.

I'll criticize behaviors and values, but try to the best of my ability not the people themselves. But I still slip.

Billastro


Billastro - 1/23/2009 at 06:32 PM

quote:
Doesn't matter how you see it, abortion is not murder, at least not by any law you live by. As far as I'm aware The USA or even Minnesota doesn't live by the moral code of Billastro. So if a woman decides she is unable to keep her unborn child, and makes a decision to legally terminate that pregnancy, what the f*ck does it have to do with you?
Check this out the following piece. Even though it's from a conservative source, consider the words and try not to kill the messenger (Kyle-Anne Shiver, not me). BTW, none of it relies on the Bible.
quote:
Roe Is Only the Beginning
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

"I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue."
- Camille Paglia (an atheist)
quote:
If given the choice, I always prefer to debate atheists, such as Camille Paglia, on the abortion issue. The arguments are simple, direct and uncomplicated by walls of denial.

An atheist's defense of abortion, as opposed to say, first degree murder for money, rests upon a single characteristic of the unborn child: location. In this view, we accept the reality of our murdering the "unwanted" child for our own convenience, simply because the child requires his mother's womb to continue living. In the atheist's mind, this matter of utter dependence confers the right to kill without provocation.

It seems to go unnoticed, even by atheists, that a great many others are also completely dependent upon other human beings to continue living, all infants and young children, severely handicapped persons, many infirm elderly, etc.

Thinking of individual persons as property is certainly not new, not by any means. Yet even modern atheists recoil at the notion of slavery, as a barbaric practice among less-enlightened people. However, as Alveda King, niece of MLK passionately explains, abortion is quite akin to slavery:
quote:
How can the "Dream" survive if we murder our children?

Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. In the hands of the mother is the fate of that child - whether that child lives or dies.
What else can one call abortion but another form of slavery?

As the slave was legally considered the property of the slave-owner, giving legal authority over the life or death of the slave, so does the Roe decision grant this right to the owner of the womb, in which an equal-in-all-manner, merely smaller, human being resides. The very Latin word, fetus, translates simply to "little person." Atheists, at least, are quick to admit this fact.

Just as African slaves were once considered not "real" people, and therefore unworthy of Constitutional protection, so the decision in Roe comes down against protection of the child in his mother's womb. Even Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe, admitted that once "personhood" could be medically/scientifically established, the fetus would necessarily be given full protection by the 14th Amendment. Ultrasound technology accomplished this visual proof 2 decades ago; yet Roe still stands.

On the matter of abortion, we wish not to be confused with inconvenient facts.

In the end, atheists fall back on the woman's womb as sacrosanct property of the mother, not to be interfered with by the state. It's a hard argument to refute. Abolitionists faced the same resistance from slave owners, who regarded their plantations as private property, absolutely sacrosanct in the eyes of American jurisprudence. This argument, too, proved difficult to refute and required a Civil War to finally decide.

Nevertheless, I'll always prefer to argue abortion with atheists.

At the very, very least, neither the atheist nor I, is put into the scientifically indefensible position of claiming that abortion is not murdering another human being or that it is in any way a positive, much less altruistic act.

Honestly, the contortions a practicing Jew or Catholic or Protestant Christian will go to in defending the abstract "rightness" of abortion is mind-boggling.

So why, oh why, do we do it?


The answer really is quite simple. We continue, despite 40+ years of heavy Darwinian indoctrination, to be a Nation of religious people. Nearly 90% of us profess to be Christians. Orthodox and conservative Jews make up a small percentage of our population, but are often even more vocally dedicated to moral certitude being codified by law.

The matter of abortion puts Americans, philosophically speaking, between a huge rock and a very hard place. The fact that we remain a religious people in a Nation that has systematically murdered 49 million of its own offspring through abortion over 36 years, absolutely requires that we be in complete denial and continue to debate its merits in bastardized language.

Let's get real, shall we?

Isn't it high time we get real on abortion? Twisting our words on a matter does not change its character one whit.

And there's no longer any need to mince words on the matter.

Abortion is not in danger in these United States of America.

Its absolute legality is the law of the land in all 50 states. We have just elected a President sworn to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which will codify Roe, require payment by the state for abortions, and even strike down the conscience clauses that now protect medical personnel. Our new President is also certain to appoint Supreme Court justices highly supportive of abortion rights. No one is mounting an army to rush in and destroy abortion mills all over the Country. Abortion is set to reign in America, perhaps forever.

There is nothing that I, as an individual, can do to change this reality. I continue to pray for the awakening of moral conscience, continue to offer substantive help to women who want to choose life for their unborn children, and continue to vote for candidates sworn to uphold the most basic human right there is -- the right to life, from the moment of conception as a unique human being. Unless I were willing to become a murderer myself, intent on bombing abortion mills and killing those inside them, I can do nothing else to stop it.

One thing I absolutely will not do, however, is surrender my common sense to the psycho-babble position of morally defending abortion. I insist that it be named precisely what it is -- murder of a helpless person for convenience.

There is absolutely no reason to continue the charade of defending our legal support for the "right to abort," as a humane and altruistic thing. If we are the enlightened, postmodern, post-Christian nation that liberals believe us to be, then there is positively no reason for verbal shenanigans aimed at reassuring our moral sensibilities. We are supposed to have outgrown them.

Abortion and Genocide

Abortion in America was once quite rare and a highly individual choice. No one in our government, our public square, our churches or our schools was advocating abortion to young people caught unaware by inconvenient pregnancies. Today, nearly 1 out of every 3 pregnancies ends in fully state-sanctioned, and some would say, "encouraged," abortion.

Webster's New World Encyclopedia, Prentice Hall General Reference, 1992, defines "genocide" as "The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable." The jurist, Raphael Lemkin, a Polish scholar of international law, coined the legal concept of genocide in 1944 in response to the Holocaust taking place at the hands of Nazi "exterminators." He joined the Greek word, genos, meaning "race" or "tribe," with the Latin, cide, meaning "killer" or "act of killing." Thus, the word, "genocide," entered our international vocabulary.

According to Genocide Watch, The International Campaign to End Genocide ( http://www.genocidewatch.org/ ), there are 8 stages to Genocide, of which classification, the Holocaust was the first acknowledged internationally.

Is abortion the new, unacknowledged genocide?

The 8 stages of genocide are:

1. CLASSIFICATION: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into "us and them" In abortion, the "us" are all citizens we can see, those of us already born; the "them" are those still residing within a woman's womb, technically the "unborn." Specifically, abortion requires a further separation of those intended for extermination, the "wanted unborn" as opposed to the "unwanted unborn."

2. SYMBOLIZATION: We give names or other symbols to the classifications. We call the unwanted, unborn child, the fetus, the blastocyst, the glob of tissue, or anything whatsoever except the unwanted, unborn child. Nearly all of us, quite naturally, call the wanted child the baby. Maternity clothing shops abound with t-shirts bearing the phrase, Baby on Board, and not Blastocyst Herein.

3. DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Planned Parenthood of Minnesota/South Dakota, for instance, has run newspaper advertisements which read in part "BABIES ARE LOUD, SMELLY, AND EXPENSIVE. UNLESS YOU WANT ONE. 1-800-230-PLAN." The slogan for Planned Parenthood, the Nation's #1 provider of abortions to the tune of more than $100 million each year, is "Every child a wanted child," thus dehumanizing the group of children deemed "unwanted." Unwanted children are dehumanized for the express purpose of extermination.

4. ORGANIZATION: Genocide is always organized, usually by the state. While abortion in the United States remains (at the moment) the "free choice" of individual women, it is largely state-supported, through taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood and other groups promoting abortions and through pro-abortion educational models present in American public schools. American obstetricians routinely counsel expectant mothers to abort any baby found to possess any abnormality. To say that abortion is "organized" and "promoted by the state" is not a far stretch by any means.

5. POLARIZATION: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Polarization on abortion occurred quite early in Roe's life as our mainstream media adopted pro-abortion language, deeming abortion proponents as being, "pro-choice," as opposed to pro-life defenders being deemed as "anti-choice." This polarization in the media puts the onus of defense upon those dedicated to upholding the worth of the unborn child as opposed to the other way around. (Once sane people consciously admit that there is no biological difference between a child that is "wanted" as opposed to one that is "unwanted," this polarization becomes impossible. But at the moment, it reigns undaunted.)

6. PREPARATION: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic, religious or other group identity. This stage began the day the Roe decision was announced, January 22, 1973. From that point onward, the baby in the womb of a mother who happens not to want it, was separated out due to group identity ("unwanted children"), and prepared for extermination.

7. EXTERMINATION begins, and quickly becomes the mass killing legally called "genocide." It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. If we ever once admit to ourselves as a society that the unborn (all of them, whether wanted or unwanted) are human beings, then abortion will be viewed as the American Holocaust and its defenders will be as few as Neo-Nazis. Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust; 49 million Americans have been killed by abortion. No one in his right mind can conclude that abortion has not become "mass killing."

8. DENIAL is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. As we remain in this final stage of genocide, "Denial," we can be absolutely certain that "further genocidal massacres" are in our foreseeable future as a Nation. Any study of Hitler's Holocaust quickly uncovers the fact that his first victims of eugenic exterminations were not the Jews. His first victims were the incurables, the handicapped and the insane.

Boomers are Next

I predict that the next American genocide will be the elderly, large swaths of the 79,000,000 Boomer generation. By sheer numbers, and in an economy that threatens long-term scarcity, these Boomers stand to be the next big losers in our increasingly utilitarian morality.

As any student of genocide can predict, once the innate and inviolable value of any group of human beings is rendered less than the value of others, then extermination (once all utility has been garnered from the group) is the natural inclination of human beings. And as long as we continue in the state of denial, then any group can become a target.

Roe, at 36 years old today, is only the beginning -- the mere sprout of the onion in the killing fields that America has become. Until we decide to change course, then every one of us is fodder for someone's genocide.

And no amount of rationalization or moral relativity or verbal contortionism can alter that immutable fact.

Roe's thriving at 36 threatens the very existence of our Republic. No Nation can survive a blatant disregard for God's simple, ancient dictum: Thou shalt not murder.

To paraphrase Immanuel Kant, "Murder is not abominable because God prohibits it; God prohibits it because it is abominable. Mass murder -- genocide -- is not only abominable; it is cultural suicide.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.
Billastro


gondicar - 1/23/2009 at 07:04 PM

Sorry in my view that entire article is nothing more than a dissertation based on opinions of the author (for example, the opinion that every atheist holds the same view of, and makes the same defense of, abortion) with no objective facts offered, sensationalized by running through the "8 stages of genocide" and making a spurious claim that "boomers are next" for "extermination". And to even suggest that a woman's body/womb is analogous to a piece of property i.e. a plantation is just plan silly, IMO.

If this was supposed to be an opinion mover, the author missed the mark by a long shot IMO. Seems more like simple preaching to the choir of people who share author's views to me.


[Edited on 1/23/2009 by gondicar]


spacemonkey - 1/23/2009 at 07:05 PM

abortion is not murder

Abortion is legal

Murder is not.



SantaCruzBluz - 1/23/2009 at 08:28 PM

quote:
quote:
Bill, I don't think you get that your big problem is that you think God wrote the Bible, and so everything the Bible says is right, and that makes you right for believing what it says. You further think that you have authority from God to try to impose those beliefs on other people. Just because you believe abortion to be murder, based on your belief that God wrote the Bible, doesn't make it so. If a woman chooses to abort a pregnancy, it is none of your business, because it is none of your f*cking business. Just because YOU think it is your business does not make it so.
There is a mountain of historical evidence that verifies the supernatural nature of the Bible, and I'm confident that God did inspire its authors. God doesn't give me the authority to impose my values, but the election process does. I'll vote with my values every time it's possible. You have the same right.

There's more to my belief that abortion is murder. I'll post a piece in a message shortly after this that shows how even atheists (such as Camille Paglia) acknowledge this, and this has nothing to do with biblical teaching.

Your reason that it's not my business means nothing objectively; you're simply stating, then restating your opinion. Mine differs, and I'll reject yours as readily as you reject mine. Here's how it goes: I'm right, because I'm doggone right, because I'm jolly well right, because I'm thoroughly right. (I saw your two, then raised you to four ). Your call!
quote:
One thing you should remember is that there are people our there, including me, who are just as confident that what they believe is right as you are. Just because you have an old book you can drag out to prove you are right doesn't make you any more right than anyone else. The only place you are "right" is in that space between your ears, the world of the mind of Billastro. Outside of that space, other people get to be right, too.
I remember that others disagree with me, but I don't see any reason to include that in my belief system, any more than they seem to think they should assimilate mine.

The age of the book is irrelevant. There is more historical foundation for the writings in the Bible than for anything else from that era, as well as internal consistencies, continuity in the texts in periods spanning hundreds of years, and other factors that historians consider when they evaluate documents. None of this "proves" the Bible is correct, but it provides far more verification than there is for any other religious writings.

Right and wrong are absolute, not relative, concepts. You seem to be saying that's not the case, but since you strongly disagree with what I've said, you clearly have committed views on them. SCB is right, Bill is wrong. You contradict yourself and weaken your stance.
quote:
I've told you before, if you really want to get real about God, toss that Bible, with all its ancient fears and prejudices, in a closet, and get out there and find out what Jesus was really all about. I don't expect you to do it, because you have a little book that allows you to decide who is right and who is wrong, and which allows you to justify your own fears and prejudices.


How will "getting out there" tell me more about Jesus than the reports of three eyewitnesses, a contemporary chronicler of His life, and the writings of two of His half-brothers (among others)? What are the sources I'll need to teach me what you imply that I'll find?

The Bible doesn't allow me to decide what's wrong, but to recognize the difference. I have no fears and very few prejudices that I'm aware of; would you identify the ones you think I have? Saying that a behavior is morally wrong has nothing to do with fear or prejudice since it refers to behaviors, not the people themselves.

I'll criticize behaviors and values, but try to the best of my ability not the people themselves. But I still slip.

Billastro


Exactly. In my mind, I'm right. In your mind, you are right. There is absolutely no difference. You think there is, because you have a book you are pretty sure is inspired by God, and you think that gives you more validity. I let go of that book, and went searching for God outside of ancient pages. We both think we have found the right way. No problem.

I think neither one of us has the right to tell a woman considering abortion what she should do. You think you do. There is the difference.


Billastro - 1/23/2009 at 10:23 PM

quote:
I think neither one of us has the right to tell a woman considering abortion what she should do. You think you do. There is the difference.
In most circumstances I'd agree that we don't have the right to tell her what to do. But since I think that abortion = murder, and I think the unborn baby has a right to live, then in this situation I do think that society has that right and obligation.

I've defended my position several times in different threads. Tell me, please, why do you think that society (as compared with Billastro) shouldn't have this right? What's the moral foundation of your belief? What rights does the woman have that override the saving of a human life? And where does this right come from?

Billastro



[Edited on 1/23/2009 by Billastro]


bigann - 1/23/2009 at 10:28 PM

So basically once a woman is impregnated she becomes a citizen with NO rights? She's merely an incubator? I certainly didn't see myself that way when I was pregnant. Glad to know I was just fooling myself into thinking I mattered. Hell, just grow them in petri dishes and leave the woman out of it.


Billastro - 1/23/2009 at 10:54 PM

quote:
So basically once a woman is impregnated she becomes a citizen with NO rights? She's merely an incubator? I certainly didn't see myself that way when I was pregnant. Glad to know I was just fooling myself into thinking I mattered. Hell, just grow them in petri dishes and leave the woman out of it.
I have no idea how you extracted this from my comments, but it's totally wrong in that it doesn't represent my views at all.

Of course, she still has rights. But she doesn't have the moral right to have the baby killed. As I've pointed out before, the fact that something may be legal doesn't make it morally right.

Billastro


SantaCruzBluz - 1/23/2009 at 10:55 PM

Bill, my moral compass tells me that a woman has the right to decide whether another body grows inside her womb. Not you, or me, or anyone else. If God has a problem with it, He'll take care of it. If society believes abortion is wrong, or a segment of it, they should work like crazy to make as many other options as possible are available to a woman who finds herself having to make that unfortunate decision. Making it illegal is not the way to change society, or people.

And my "moral basis" is the same as yours. My intuition tells me this is what God desires...that we treat people with compassion rather than as criminals.


bigann - 1/23/2009 at 11:17 PM

quote:


Of course, she still has rights. But she doesn't have the moral right to have the baby killed. As I've pointed out before, the fact that something may be legal doesn't make it morally right.

Billastro


If it's not a woman's right to choose, exactly what rights would you accord her.....morallly I mean?


gondicar - 1/23/2009 at 11:43 PM

quote:
quote:
I think neither one of us has the right to tell a woman considering abortion what she should do. You think you do. There is the difference.
In most circumstances I'd agree that we don't have the right to tell her what to do. But since I think that abortion = murder, and I think the unborn baby has a right to live, then in this situation I do think that society has that right and obligation.

I've defended my position several times in different threads. Tell me, please, why do you think that society (as compared with Billastro) shouldn't have this right? What's the moral foundation of your belief? What rights does the woman have that override the saving of a human life? And where does this right come from?

Billastro



[Edited on 1/23/2009 by Billastro]


Where do you (or anyone else) get the right to decide what morals are good or bad and how they should apply to me? Morality is not an absolute.

Many people feel homosexuality is morally wrong, does that make it so? Many people think the death penalty is morally wrong, does that make it so? Many people think contraception is morally wrong, does that make it so? I could go on and on...


bigann - 1/23/2009 at 11:56 PM

Well, this ought to really get the right wing flying. Personally, I'm glad he did it.:


Obama reverses Bush abortion-funds policy
By LIZ SIDOTI and MATTHEW LEE, AP

-President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information — an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century. Obama's executive order, the latest in an aggressive first week reversing contentious Bush policies, was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by abortion rights foes.

The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.

A White House spokesman, Bill Burton, said Obama signed the executive order, without coverage by the media, late on Friday afternoon. The abortion measure is a highly emotional one for many people, and the quiet signing was in contrast to the televised coverage of Obama's Wednesday announcement on ethics rules and Thursday signing of orders on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and banning torture in the questioning of terror suspects.

His action came one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.

The Bush policy had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion as a family planning method.

Critics have long held that the rule unfairly discriminates against the world's poor by denying U.S. aid to groups that may be involved in abortion but also work on other aspects of reproductive health care and HIV/AIDS, leading to the closure of free and low-cost rural clinics.

Supporters of the ban say that the United States still provides millions of dollars in family planning assistance around the world and that the rule prevents anti-abortion taxpayers from backing something they believe is morally wrong.

The ban has been known as the "Mexico City policy" for the city a U.S. delegation first announced it at a U.N. International Conference on Population.

Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will oversee foreign aid, had promised to do away with the rule during the presidential campaign. Clinton visited the U.S. Agency for International Development earlier Friday but made no mention of the step, which had not yet been announced.

In a move related to the lifting of the abortion rule, Obama is also expected to restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), probably in the next federal budget. Both he and Clinton had pledged to reverse a Bush administration determination that assistance to the organization violated U.S. law known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment.

The Bush administration had barred U.S. money from the fund, to contending that its work in China supported a Chinese family planning policy of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. UNFPA has vehemently denied that it does.
Congress had appropriated $40 million to the UNFPA in the past budget year but the administration had withheld the money as it had done every year since 2002.
Organizations and lawmakers that had pressed Obama to rescind the Mexico City policy were jubilant.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the move "will help save lives and empower the poorest women and families to improve their quality of life and their future."

"Today's announcement is a very powerful signal to our neighbors around the world that the United States is once again back in the business of good public policy and ideology no longer blunts our ability to save lives around the globe," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Population Action International, an advocacy group, said that the policy had "severely impacted" women's health and that the step "will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."

Anti-abortion groups and lawmakers condemned Obama's decision.
"I have long supported the Mexico City Policy and believe this administration's decision to be counter to our nation's interests," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
"Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas — something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it "morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world."

"President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.


SantaCruzBluz - 1/24/2009 at 01:10 AM

I saw this on TV, bigann. Sounds like a good move to me. I was struck by these two quotes:


quote:

"I have long supported the Mexico City Policy and believe this administration's decision to be counter to our nation's interests," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
"Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas — something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it "morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world."



I don't remember anyone asking me if I minded them spending my tax dollars dropping bombs on Iraq.


bigann - 1/24/2009 at 01:14 AM

You summed that up nicely. They didn't ask me either.


spacemonkey - 1/24/2009 at 01:58 PM

quote:
quote:
I think neither one of us has the right to tell a woman considering abortion what she should do. You think you do. There is the difference.
In most circumstances I'd agree that we don't have the right to tell her what to do. But since I think that abortion = murder, and I think the unborn baby has a right to live, then in this situation I do think that society has that right and obligation.

I've defended my position several times in different threads. Tell me, please, why do you think that society (as compared with Billastro) shouldn't have this right? What's the moral foundation of your belief? What rights does the woman have that override the saving of a human life? And where does this right come from?

Billastro



[Edited on 1/23/2009 by Billastro]


What gives you the moral right to make abortion illegal and send careless young people to
back alley abortionists where conditions are less than sterile and young girls get mutilated
rather than have a safe medical procedure in a modern medical facility.

There will always be a need for abortion as long as young hormones run wild.
Sending medical procedures to back alleys is not a moral stance in my eyes.
That is all making abortion illegal will accomplish. That's how it worked when
It was illegal.


what really ticks me off is the same folks that don't want abortion don't want contraception
made available to young people either.





[Edited on 1/24/2009 by spacemonkey]


Goliath - 1/24/2009 at 02:35 PM

quote:
what really ticks me off is the same folks that don't want abortion don't want contraception
made available to young people either.


These same people also claim they want less government intrusion into their lives and they have the gall to label liberals as stupid and moronic. Whatever.


bigann - 1/24/2009 at 05:48 PM

That particular position never made much sense to me. Less government control over things they care about and more government control over other things they believe. I personally want government out of the bedroom all the way around. Last I heard....and it may have changed by now but I doubt it, oral sex in Georgia in the privacy of your bedroom, even between a married couple, is illegal.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=86984