Thanks Bob

[CRASH]

Yes. Saddam killed about 30,000 people per year. Bush killed 1.2 million in four years.

Are you trying to work global warming deaths into the figures for Bush?
:dizzy:

 

[PKevman]

Yes. Saddam killed about 30,000 people per year.

What a great fellow.

 

[PKevman]

Really?
According to whom the Council of American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) or Osama Bin Laden himself?

Maybe if Al Franken says it enough times it becomes true.

 

[PKevman]

From the L.A. Times:

The military has said civilian deaths from sectarian violence have fallen more than 55% since President Bush sent an additional 28,500 troops to Iraq this year, but it does not provide specific numbers.

According to the ORB poll, a survey of 1,461 adults suggested that the total number slain during more than four years of war was more than 1.2 million.

ORB said it drew its conclusion from responses to the question about those living under one roof: "How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?"

Based on Iraq's estimated number of households -- 4,050,597 -- it said the 1.2 million figure was reasonable.

There was no way to verify the number, because the government does not provide a full count of civilian deaths. Neither does the U.S. military.

Both, however, say that independent organizations greatly exaggerate estimates of civilian casualties.

HERE

 

[S†ephen]

No we would do the right thing and try to save BOTH!

This problem is built on the premise that both cannot be saved.

 

[sopwith21]

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

That's because its a clear violation of constitutional law for the federal government to interfere with the freedom to travel. Instead of using government violence to prevent people from traveling to place where they might possibly someday have an abortion, we should be making sure that the state outlaws abortion before they get there, which, ironically, is precisely what Ron Paul wants to do.

Would you favor outlawing automobiles in order to prevent people from driving to abortion clinics? If you say "no," then you're clearly pro-choice! If that's sounds stupid, that's because it is.

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

That's because its a poorly conceived law with horrible unintended consequences.

Its ridiculous to think that someone could possibly know if any women in a given group are pregnant. And its outright hypocritical for a Christian to believe that a fetus should not be afforded all the protections of every law in place... IOW, according to the pro-life position, the laws already on the books already apply to all human life.

How many times do we need to outlaw the same thing? When will Christians stop begging government for "just one more law" to outlaw things that have been outlawed for two centuries?

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)]

Whoa.... Kevin, do you actually want to murder mothers so that their children may live? (See how ridiculous these stupid accusations are getting?)

If your wife is pregnant and you know that carrying the baby full term will kill your wife, there is no "right" and "wrong" in this situation. One person will die and there's nothing that can be done about it. That tragic decision belongs to you and your wife, not a self righteous group of religious zealots who named themselves God and decided to make that decision for you. Your problems are already bad enough without an army of interfering, nosy busybodies trying to kill your wife in the name of God Almighty.

 

[elected4ever]

like it or not the baby is at this time under the control of the mother. The constitution does not protect unborn life. I do not know a system of law that does. Even the Mosaic law did not. The unborn is at the mercy of the born.

 

[sopwith21]

Really?
According to whom the Council of American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) or Osama Bin Laden himself?

Don't ask others to do your homework for you. Its an embarrassment that you do not care enough about what's being done by your country in your name with your tax dollars to have already educated yourself on this long ago. Its even more embarrassing that you only bring it up because you want to prove me wrong, not because you have genuine concern about the loss of innocent lives.

This information was publicly released along with all data and supporting information and a full disclosure of how the figures were arrived at. If I could research it, you can too.

Where is the self righteous pro-life rhetoric about saving hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in Iraq? Why are we only pro-life when it comes to white American babies? That shows you how pro-life we really are... we don't even care enough about innocent life to spend a few hours digging and researching to find the truth. If our commitment to truth is that low its no wonder we've had abortion in this country for 35 years.

 

[sopwith21]

From the L.A. Times:



HERE

Congratulations. You've done a thirty second web search and that is an excellent start. Another suggestion is to find out who did the study and read the study itself instead of a single-sentence synopsis from Google. Then study the manner in which the results were gathered, then the manner in which the US military results are gathered, then the manner in which the US military results are concealed, then study the 30,000 additional US casualties that you were never told about on the news and then study why no pictures exist of any of them. This should take you less than a week and it would qualify, at least, as a minor effort for starters.

Obviously, you just looked this up real quick in an attempt to ridicule the previously posted claims, but there's a far greater point here... by doing this, you asked a question. For probably the first time in your life, you questioned the standard propaganda line about casualties in Iraq. That's fantastic! Its the first step toward finding truth. You have so much more to do, but any effort is a good effort and I encourage you to really dig into this and get to work.

 

[CRASH]

Don't ask others to do your homework for you. Its an embarrassment that you do not care enough about what's being done by your country in your name with your tax dollars to have already educated yourself on this long ago. Its even more embarrassing that you only bring it up because you want to prove me wrong, not because you have genuine concern about the loss of innocent lives.

This information was publicly released along with all data and supporting information and a full disclosure of how the figures were arrived at. If I could research it, you can too.

Where is the self righteous pro-life rhetoric about saving hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in Iraq? Why are we only pro-life when it comes to white American babies? That shows you how pro-life we really are... we don't even care enough about innocent life to spend a few hours digging and researching to find the truth. If our commitment to truth is that low its no wonder we've had abortion in this country for 35 years.

Sop,
Thats not how it works here. You make the wild unbelievable claim and YOU have to provide the evidence to support your ridiculous claim!

Oh my gosh, you are another one of these idiots who think we shouldn't be taking the fight to these idiot extremist Muslims? If that is your position you should check your commitment to truth. Furthermore, what an inane comment about abortion. Are you such a self righteous, do nothing, that you don't know that blacks are murdered in the womb at a much higher rate than whites. Talk about needing to get up to speed on what really matters and you take the cake sop.:jawdrop:

 

[CRASH]

like it or not the baby is at this time under the control of the mother. The constitution does not protect unborn life. I do not know a system of law that does. Even the Mosaic law did not. The unborn is at the mercy of the born.

Just like the Jews were at the mercy of the NAZI's. You should fight to protect the unborn....

 

[CRASH]

This problem is built on the premise that both cannot be saved.

And the Christian solution is that you try to save both. Its been done. Tubal pregnancies have ended up with both the Mom and the baby living because someone did not rush in to kill the baby. Try to save both.

"Never commit murder to save a life."
----God

 

[CRASH]

1.4 million in 4 years. How stupid can you be.
Do you also think Bush planned The Attack on the world trade center?

 

[PatriotBeliever]

:rotfl:

NOT!

Go back and read it all again, it was a point his use of flawed logic. Be consistent.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sopwith21
No, Bob has lied. Ron Paul is not pro-abortion. Bob deliberately and repeatedly said something that is demonstrably untrue. That is a lie. He should publicly apologize to his congregation, his audience and to Ron Paul.

No Bob has not lied. You are wrong about Ron Paul. We could go round and round like this. You should apologize to Bob, his audience, and his congregation for continuing to call him a liar without talking with him or hearing him out.

Actually it's the way Bob Enyart operates. He also has stated that Ron Paul is a "secular humanist". That statement is slanderously wrong but Bob is willing to state it for effect, he is a talk show host after all. Bob uses emotional phrases and attaches labels freely to get people fired up or turn them against someone. That being said, Bob is right about a lot of things but about Ron Paul, he is wrong and has allowed his distaste for Paul's libertarian leanings to cloud his reason. It seems like Bob has treated himself like a disagreeing caller regarding Ron Paul. I've dealt with this earlier in the thread.

 

[PKevman]

This problem is built on the premise that both cannot be saved.

The premise is false. Both can in fact be saved, as has been pointed out already. The real heart of the issue is the desire to make exceptions for abortion. There should be no exceptions.

 

[PKevman]

Actually it's the way Bob Enyart operates. He also has stated that Ron Paul is a "secular humanist". That statement is slanderously wrong but Bob is willing to state it for effect, he is a talk show host after all. Bob uses emotional phrases and attaches labels freely to get people fired up or turn them against someone. That being said, Bob is right about a lot of things but about Ron Paul, he is wrong and has allowed his distaste for Paul's libertarian leanings to cloud his reason. It seems like Bob has treated himself like a disagreeing caller regarding Ron Paul. I've dealt with this earlier in the thread.

Blah. That's all I have to say to this drivel!

 

[PKevman]

And the Christian solution is that you try to save both. Its been done. Tubal pregnancies have ended up with both the Mom and the baby living because someone did not rush in to kill the baby. Try to save both.

"Never commit murder to save a life."
----God

AMEN BROTHER! :up:

 

[PatriotBeliever]

:bang:

The law needs to be irrevocable. Bottom line. Also, government needs to be smaller. This democratic republic is a not a good government.


Apparently not.


Then take that power away from them.

P.S.
The first person to allow abortion was not a federal government representative, but a state one.


But it still allows for states to allow abortion. That is a bad law.


And it doesn't stop states from allowing abortion.


:blabla:


And? All you're doing is proving democracy is evil.

Are you proposing a monarchy like Bob Enyart? Yea, o.k.
Also America was a representative republic which is something completely different than a democracy. You are right, democracies are evil and always destroy themselves.
You make a complete assumption about the states. I and others have completely dealt several times with your complaints about the Sanctity of Life Act and what the states might do and you still can't come up with anything real, just fear of a hypothetical state anarchy, so I have to assume you have read little of our reason or sources. Guesses on what states would do and pretending that we should live in a monarchical utopia where a human man should be given all power to execute God's "law" on the planet is preposterous without Jesus being that "man". Until the day he returns to do that, for the idea to be suggested as an alternative to our originally intended constitutional republic, is the stuff for a novel and distracts from the debate. It is an escape from the issue.

I was going to answer the more recent challenges by PastorKevin but Stephen has dealt well with them. I will however, add the link to Ron Paul's comments concerning the Partial Birth Abortion "Ban" since Paul is the public official to take issue such as Bob did with it. If you have not read this opinion and you are truly concerned about actually doing something about it, you might want to: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403.htm

While your at it, it is apparent many here really do not understand Ron Paul's pro-life position. I encourage (again) you to read his article "Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle"http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403b.htm

And for those really interested in learning about Ron Paul on Abortion...http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=21

 

[PKevman]

That's because its a clear violation of constitutional law for the federal government to interfere with the freedom to travel.

:doh:
This isn't about "Freedom to travel". This is about freedom to travel with the EXPRESS INTENT to MURDER an innocent life! It's not as if the bill was about restricting people from going to see their grandmothers!

Instead of using government violence

I'm so tired of hearing that phrase. Government exists to enforce laws, to provide infrastructure such as roads, and to protect its people from foreign threats. Those should be its primary purposes in my opinion, and better yet I am not even a big fan of a military draft. I think a volunteer force is much stronger. The Revolutionary War was an indication of that. But yeah, I'm burnt on this whole whining about "Government Violence" stuff.

Sorry to vent, but WE LIVE in a society where the government is NOT violent enough on crime, therefore the people are wicked and violence reigns supreme. You want to take away the little bit of authority the government already does enforce. To do so would only make matters worse, not better.

to prevent people from traveling to place where they might possibly someday have an abortion,

Wrong. It's to prevent MINORS from traveling to another state to have an abortion! You forgot that little word MINORS, and you exchanged it for "people". Go back and read what was posted and try not to get it mixed up.

we should be making sure that the state outlaws abortion before they get there, which, ironically, is precisely what Ron Paul wants to do.

So says you and those he's brainwashed. His voting record and party affiliation say something different though. I would be all for banning abortion in every state as long as every state did so. But since we have no guarantee that they will, why leave it up to the state. Why not support banning it nationally for all 50 of the UNITED STATES!

Would you favor outlawing automobiles in order to prevent people from driving to abortion clinics?

That's silly. Come up with something better than that to make your point.

If you say "no," then you're clearly pro-choice! If that's sounds stupid, that's because it is.

That's right, because it's not relevant to the discussion or to the situation of minors going across state lines away from their parents to have an abortion.

That's because its a poorly conceived law with horrible unintended consequences.

REALLY? Let's see, a baby is killed by a criminal while he is in the process of committing a crime against the mother. He should be charged for the murder of that baby. Not difficult in the least, and not horrible in the least.

Its ridiculous to think that someone could possibly know if any women in a given group are pregnant.

Doesn't matter if they know or not. Don't be a crook and you won't get yourself in worse trouble! The life of the baby is what matters. And it doesn't take too long for a pregnant mother to show signs of their pregnancy now does it?

And its outright hypocritical for a Christian to believe that a fetus should not be afforded all the protections of every law in place

Nobody is saying that. The issue is that they are people too, and to deprive THEM of life is to be guilty of murder. Plain and simple. If by mugging a pregnant woman pushing her down, you cause her to lose her baby, then you should be charged with murder! Don't like it? Don't mug a woman and push her down!

... IOW, according to the pro-life position, the laws already on the books already apply to all human life.

But they don't apply to the fetus in many cases, and that was why this was a good bill that Ron Paul voted against.

Whoa.... Kevin, do you actually want to murder mothers so that their children may live? (See how ridiculous these stupid accusations are getting?)

:hammer:
No, your reply was ridiculous. Nobody said ANYTHING about murdering mothers. Try to follow the logic:

BABIES AND MOTHERS SHOULD BOTH BE SAVED! You don't do evil so that good may come from it! You don't murder a baby to save the mother. You try to save them both. You don't birth the baby partially and then suck his brains out or bash his skull in. Why is that necessary to save the life of a mother?

If your wife is pregnant and you know that carrying the baby full term will kill your wife, there is no "right" and "wrong" in this situation.

There is. The RIGHT thing to do is to seek to save them BOTH! If not, you deliver the baby early, and pray and hope he survives. Babies are born premature at EARLIER and EARLIER dates these days, so the whole issue is about making exceptions to KILL babies and not the other way around!

One person will die and there's nothing that can be done about it.

Neither has to die. Neither has to be murdered either!

That tragic decision belongs to you and your wife,

I thought you were pro-life? A Godly mother and father would want to save the baby AND the mother! Not assume the mother is going to die and MURDER the baby!

not a self righteous group of religious zealots who named themselves God and decided to make that decision for you.

:doh:

Your problems are already bad enough without an army of interfering, nosy busybodies trying to kill your wife in the name of God Almighty.

:sigh:
I'm very sad to see how you view your strong pro-life Christian brothers and sisters who refuse to buckle to the world's wacked out morals!