Aquila? JD? Light? Why So Quiet?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

Oh good grief. Stop being so dumb.

It's not as though he could chose who his mother or grandparents were. Dur!

As far as the rest ... hilarious.

So about Dylann Roof. There was an interview with two kids who claimed to be his best friends. One kid was black. Yet you claim he's racist. How? Per your logic, he couldn't be racist because he had a black best friend!



It doesn't matter that obama's VP is white, nor that his cabinet was mostly white. There are obama policies, decisions and statements which have been based and influenced solely on his skin.

On the contrary, you are being dumb in trying to compare the President of the United States to an ignorant, racist, 22 year old who killed innocent church members in cold blood because they were black.

What the eternal darkness is wrong with you? Since when have you started calling me or anyone else names? How childish!

Do you want a conversation or do you want to meet me outside the schoolyard after the end of the day bell?

How do you define racist?

I am looking at what you are typing and I am trying to meet you where you are so that we can see that if we are talking in circles.

We agree that f-khan is a racist. Right?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Uh, hate to break it to you, but Hitler was a leftist in every sense of the word.

Does the brother mention Hitler in his several paragraph long post?

You are out of line and he is on point with his criticism of people using the GOP to make America un-American.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Does the brother mention Hitler in his several paragraph long post?

You are out of line and he is on point with his criticism of people using the GOP to make America un-American.

You can't be that dense. Internment camps? Genocide? What else do you think he was referring to?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

On the contrary, you are being dumb in trying to compare the President of the United States to an ignorant, racist, 22 year old who killed innocent church members in cold blood because they were black.

No, I'm not comparing him to Dylann. Read the post. I'm comparing your claim that because obama has white friends/VP/Cabinet/supporters that he can't be racist. That's hilariously absurd!

So since Bannon has blacks, latinos and Jews on his staff, your accusation that he's a racist is completely false and untrue! He cannot possibly be racist, based on your excuse for obama. Impossible.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

What the eternal darkness is wrong with you? Since when have you started calling me or anyone else names? How childish!

Says the guy who did the same in the first paragraph.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Do you want a conversation or do you want to meet me outside the schoolyard after the end of the day bell?

Am I back in grade school?

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I am looking at what you are typing and I am trying to meet you where you are so that we can see that if we are talking in circles.

Here's the problem, no matter what I post or evidence I bring, you are incredibly biased and closed it wouldn't matter. You will always move the goalposts. You will always define what you believe as valid or invalid claims. To you, anything and everything would be invalid.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

We agree that f-khan is a racist. Right?

If by f-khan you mean Farrakhan, then yes, he's an example of an overt racist.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

How do you define racist?

The definition is a bit broad these days. By definition, a racist was one who believed one race was superior to another. However, that's not always true. One may be racist or engage in racism without believing in the superiority of one race.

Farrakhan is an overt racist. obama is different. He's not overt, nor do I believe that he believes one race is superior, but many of his speeches, policies and decisions have subtle racism in them and are influenced because of his race. He may not be an overt racist like Farrakhan or Duke or the late Democratic Senator Bryd, but he still engages in racism, which is why I say he's a racist.

[KeptByTheWord]

In defining racism, one could ask, was Jesus "racist" because he included no women, or minorities to be his chosen 12 disciples?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Uh, hate to break it to you, but Hitler was a leftist in every sense of the word.

Nationalist SOCIALIST Party.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You assume I fully agree with them on this issue. But I would rather live under choice than a government that can force a woman to give birth against her will. Any nation that can violate one's sovereignty like that can also force a woman to abort against her will.

Besides, legality is not related to abortion rate. Nations like Belgium have the lowest abortion rates in the world, under 10 per every 1000 pregnancies, yet they are a prochoice. Whereas some nations like Mexico with rates higher than 30 per every 1000 pregnancies, but restrictions on abortion. It has more to do with birth control, economy, and available health care than legality.

Would you rather live in Belgium, one of the lowest abortion rates on earth? I would.

Then by all means join Whoopi, Miley, and the others and catch a plane out of here.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

See?

Dialogue not possible. "I'd rather live under a government that offers choice instead of one that would force a mother to give birth against her will."

I mean, how is reasonable discussion possible with such insanity?

Christians shouldn't lie or misrepresent. So, I will assume that you totally missed my point. My point was two fold. I'll break it down for you in greater detail:

1.) I'd rather live in a nation that allows for choice over a nation that can FORCE a woman to give birth against her will. Why? Because any nation that can violate a woman's sovereignty to FORCE her against her will, can FORCE her to abort (see China). Violation of personal sovereignty is a violation of personal sovereignty. The issue here isn't one's opinion regarding the morality of abortion, the issue is the extend of GOVERNMENT POWER. My position is in full harmony with not only many liberal Democrats, but also libertarians and Goldwater Republicans who see moral responsibility as being solely upon the individual who chooses abortion, while choice is viewed as curtailing GOVERNMENT power over the individual.

2.) Abortion's legality is a red herring. While it sounds all moral, right, and good to simply "ban" what one perceives as being "evil", it truly doesn't address the issue. For example, Prohibition. Abortion is much the same way. The legal status of abortion DOES NOT predict it's incidence. In fact, nations in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean have very restrict abortion laws, yet the abortion rate in these regions is at an average between 29 and 30 per every 1,000 pregnancies. However, European nations such as Belgium, The Netherlands, and Switzerland where abortion is legal, also boast the lowest abortion rates in the world averaging under 10 per every 1,000 pregnancies.

So, those who simply want abortion banned are not really knowledgeable or truly wanting to address the issue. If you want to address abortion merely banning it isn't the answer. Addressing the needs of women is the answer, especially those women who are likely to find themselves in unplanned or crisis pregnancies. Prolife Democrats offered a 17 point policy that made its way into the Pregnant Women's Support Act, but it failed. Interestingly, Obama put these policy suggestions into the ACA, but few (accept those deeply involved with the Prolife movement) noticed it.

Europe has demonstrated that to properly address abortion it must be handled as a national health issue. And so it is handled via public policy. These things are believed to be key:

A.) Readily accessible birth control.
B.) Comprehensive national healthcare.
C.) Affordable child care.
D.) Comprehensive sex education.

With these liberal policies central European nations have been able to drive their abortion rates to being the lowest in the world, while also being Prochoice. This is what conscientious liberals would like to see.

So, yes. There can be dialogue. But there should be mutual respect and an exchange of facts.

Would you rather live in a nation that has an abortion rate of 8 per every 1,000 pregnancies (liberal nation), or a nation that has a rate higher than our own at 30 abortions for every 1,000 pregnancies (conservative nation)???

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Uh, hate to break it to you, but Hitler was a leftist in every sense of the word.

Hitler was fascist. Hitler opposed most German democratic socialists and the Capitalist banking system that he claimed was controlled by the Jews. And so he assumed total power to address each.