Social Sciences Talk Social Sciences Talk    FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Catholic Democrats Risk Excommunication - Pope Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 1774, 1775, 1776  Next          Social Sciences Talk Forum Index -> Social Sciences Talk View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Server Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 4:57 pm    Post subject: Catholic Democrats Risk Excommunication - Pope #### Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Cary Kittrell Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 4:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Catholic Democrats Risk Excommunication - Pope "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> writes: Quote: "Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0001HW.C26C610500136269F0182648@news.giganews.com... {...} Quote: It's been so many decades since I took all those "Philosophy of Religion" classes that - at that time - Judaism was the only major monotheistic religion in the United States. Judaism has NEVER been a major religion in the US. Not what he said: Gray said it was the largetst monotheistic religion. And in that he was correct. -- cary Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Cary Kittrell Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 5:17 pm    Post subject: Re: The "Mother Nature" Divinity in America In article <1179143277.914312.128110@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> writes: Quote: The subject of this thread is "mother nature" as a divinity in America. It's not the only sin or even the worst sin that America is currently guilty of doing. Without accepting Christ, most are dead in sin, anyway, but many of those that have accepted Christ, already, are guilty of Babylonian worship of many gods in addition to Jehovah. The worship of "mother nature" goes back historically to animism and African and native American religious beliefs. It was believed one must please "nature" in order to get good weather. However, it is pantheism that Jehovah banned to do so. Just this morning, I watched THREE separate news casts that referred to what "mother nature" is doing out there. By doing so, they are admitting to the real power at work in their lives, Satan. Satan is called "prince of the power of the air" in Scripture, and storms were sent by the devil against both Jesus' own boat and that of the Apostle Paul in Acts. So, Satan therefore deserves praise -- even worship -- for cooling off- shore evening breezes, for the trade winds which drove world commerce for centuries, for the prevailing winds which prevent the continents from being total deserts -- not to mention Hadley Cells and Ferrel Cells and all the other aspects of global circulation which make the temperate regions temperate -- indeed, at all habitable -- instead of eternal battlegrounds between fire and ice? -- cary Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor dianaiad Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Romney Says Nigger Sharpton is a Nappy-Haired Bigot Ho On May 14, 9:07 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote: Quote: On May 14, 10:49 am, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote: "dianaiad" <diana...@msn.com> wrote in message However, I do not think I should have to defend beliefs I don't actually hold, and so far, Krause hasn't given us a single one we DO hold. He's an atheist. To him, because you're not you're automatically retarded. He doesn't understand that belief in the unproven is all equal. He is as much a Believer as you are, or I am, he just doesn't accept that fact. Oh well. Actually, I'm Jewish. Very Jewish. And Jews accept me as such. Atheists see me as some kind of religious fundamentalist because I see no evidence that God doesn't exist. Ah, a 'weak' atheist. YOU guys I respect. It is the 'strong' atheist who has as much faith that God does NOT exist as I do that He does that drive me nuts. They don't seem to see the irony in their stance. There is a huge difference between "I don't believe in God" and "I believe that there is no God." Quote: Judaism doesn't really accept anything on faith, if you look closely, and "God" is simply the verb "to be" in the first person singular -- in other words, God is undefinable. To seek God, is to seek the undefinable, to introspect, to seek a kind of oneness with the Cosmos. None of this telegraphing to the big guy in the sky for favors, so popular with the American Bible belt Christians. Well, to me prayer is more about listening than asking, but hey.... Quote: I think people are retarded who oversimplify. The Book of Mormon oversimplifies. Abridgments generally do. Though I have never found that the Book of Mormon is that simplistic. Quote: Atheists oversimplify. Bible belt Christians oversimplify. It is a good read, though. I'd recommend it. Very entertaining. (grin) I am glad. I have to admit, though, that it took me several years to get past "I, Nephi, being born of goodly parents..." (the first line in the book...) Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Zeligg Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: How do gay marriages affect anyone else's marriages? On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:28:19 GMT, "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@onehandclapping.com> wrote: Quote: "Zeligg" <zeligg@guessagain.com> wrote in message news:ek5943dto2p6i35dg5nsv7sk68gm32nuhm@4ax.com... On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:41:13 -0400, Zeligg <zeligg@guessagain.com wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2007 03:04:11 GMT, leroyblue@pillinor.net wrote: On Mon, 07 May 2007 13:50:46 -0400, Zeligg <zeligg@guessagain.com wrote: On Sat, 05 May 2007 07:45:47 GMT, leroyblue@pillinor.net wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:54:48 -0400, Zeligg <zeligg@guessagain.com wrote: On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:46:34 GMT, leroyblue@pillinor.net wrote: On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:04:41 -0400, Zeligg <zeligg@guessagain.com wrote: I keep hearing about how gay marriage is going to destroy marriage and life in general as we know it, yet no-ones' been able to explain to me yet why their marriage is so weak that it would be affected by what two other people are doing. Anyone? Anyone? Cujo? Look at the results of homosexual marriage on the society in the country that has allowed it for the longest period of time. Do let us know what you conclude, won't you.... Zeligg Larry Flynt Instead of making me do all this guess work, how about you tell me how YOU think gay marriage has affected them? What evils do you think it has wrought. Gay marriages\civil unions have caused no great distress here in the US that I can see, but perhaps your view is different. Canada seems to be doing ok as well. So unless you're just trolling by doing a hit and run, why not clarify your question a bit? "Look at the results of homosexual marriage on the society in the country that has allowed it for the longest period of time. Do let us know what you conclude, won't you..." NETHERLANDS! Hurry back. I'm back. After googling, I've found no dire results that homosexual marriage has had on the netherlands. Most likely, there's something that you don't particularly like, but has no relevance to folks in the Netherlands. If you feel like you have something, by all means, post it. If not, then let's just assume you're either wrong, trolling, or trolling wrongly. "Convince the public that marriage is not about parenthood, and increasingly parents simply stop getting married." Convince me, with facts and valid data, that marriage is ONLY about parenthood. Apparently all you appear to be able to do is belch ASSertions. I'm sure you realize this, but I didn't write that. it appears you "accidentally made it appear that the person you are replying to is me. Another typical noob. L2P Zeligg "You are megalomaniac, the worst kind, because you're a monstrous and perverted idiot." Oz' love letter to Zeligg Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor dianaiad Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Romney Says Nigger Sharpton is a Nappy-Haired Bigot Ho On May 14, 8:49 am, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote: Quote: "dianaiad" <diana...@msn.com> wrote in message snip to Quote: Maybe a better way would be to say everything after Episcopalians is a cult.... Why? What definition, what authority, are you basing this definition on, and, more importantly, why should I accept your definition? You don't have to accept any definition. Its just my opinion. You are expecting me to accept it, sir. Quote: Or, based on my observations, since God has had zero interaction with humans since Jesus maybe everything after that should be a cult? Well, that does beg a question. If God has had zero interaction with humans since Jesus, we are going to have to throw out the NT, aren't we? ALL of that was written 'since Jesus." Up to 70 years after His death, amof. A large portion of it is written about Jesus so that's almost relevant. A 'large portion' of it was not. Only the four gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. The rest of the NT is about what happened after His death and resurrection...and even the gospels are that, as soon as the narrative reaches the crucifixion, everything after that point becomes God having interaction with humans. Quote: Unfortunately, it seems Jesus didn't know how to write so we don't have anything He actually wrote... He knew how to write. He had to; He read in the synagogues. However, it is true that He did NOT write anything personally for us to read, which follows the tradition, actually. God didn't write the OT, either. Everything we have of scripture comes through prophets. Quote: Why do you think they keep rewriting their Bible? They're trying to get it right. They haven't so far. I didn't know they were STILL rewriting their Bible. I really don't pay any attention to them... The KJV stopped getting 'rewritten' in King Jame's time. Hello? I know Christians have rewritten the Bible since KJ. Not that it matters... It does, actually, since you have accused the Mormons of 'rewriting their bible' as a fault, Actually that was Kraus who did that. You are correct. Sorry... No sweat. He's an atheist and will enjoy giving you a hard time. S'ok, I can handle it...as long as I can keep everybody straight, that is. Quote: and then, when it is pointed out that we use the KJV, come back with 'Christians have rewritten the Bible since KJ' You truly do need to make up your mind here. Go here to find recent Bible rewrites:http://bibleresources.bible.com/bible_read.php Is rewriting the Bible a good thing or a bad one? Who even knows? If good, then it is silly to accuse us of doing so in order to discredit us. I'm not trying to discredit you. Believe anything you want, I honestly don't care. Nice of you. Ha! ;-) Quote: If bad, then you really shouldn't point out that Christians have done so. So yeah, it does matter, actually. The Bible is essentially useless. Did God write ANY portion of the Bible? No, Actually. He did not. Well, except for, maybe, the ten commandments... We don't know that. The person who wrote that said that Moses said that God had these Ten Commandments. The idea is that God wrote those on the tablets Himself. Of course, then Moses broke them in a fit of temper and had to go back up for a rewrite... Quote: Look at the Ten Commandments and tell me what you see more of: human men or God Himself: 1. Thou shall have no other gods before me Why would God need to say that? I think that this golden calf thing Moses found when he got back to camp explains that one. Quote: 2. Thou shall not make for yourself an idol Why would God need to say that? Because his people were making a bunch of 'em? Quote: 3. Thou shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God Why would God need to say that? Because He is probably rather tired of seeing people making promises in His name, and then blithely breaking them, I should imagine. Quote: 4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy Why would God need to say that? Because if He didn't, we wouldn't ever get a weekend? Quote: 5. Honor your parents Ok. Makes sense. 6. Thou shall not murder Ok. Makes great sense. 7. Thou shall not commit adultery Ok. Makes sense. 8. Thou shall not steal Ok. Makes sense. 9. Thou shall not bear false witness Ok. Makes sense. 10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's. Obviously written by a MAN who didn't want people oogling his wife and stealing his stuff. So, basically, a woman can covet the neighbor's husband but no sex with him... Or it could be that the language is gender neutral...we seem to forget, in these politically correct days, that "mankind" includes women, and that when writing about another person who could be either male or female, the proper way to refer to him or her is "he," referring to 'mankind' containing both. In other words, "she" meant female, "he" could be either. Nobody had a problem with this...English is considerably more 'politically correct' intrinsically than any of the "Romance" languages...until quite recently. Now it is very awkward. And silly. On the other hand, it would be nice to think I can covet a little....even if my poor husband could not. A little payback, for the delivery room, perhaps? Quote: The hand of man is all over the Ten Commandments. More likely #1, #2 and #3 was God getting Moses' attention. #4 was Moses thinking "Shit! We need a whole damn day every week to work on this!" #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9 were more likely God giving Moses a bunch of shit for screwing up so Moses made a mental note of it and got it carved real quick. #10 is OBVIOUSLY added later, probably by the underpaid stonecarver who was busy carving all this stuff while his asshole neighbor's were eyeing up his wife, borrowing his tools and not returning them and stealing his patio furniture. Interesting view. But...what makes you think that the Ten commandments were, ANY of them, for GOD'S benefit? They aren't. They are for ours. I don't suppose it matters one whit to God's present or future whether any of us bow to Baal. But it certainly matters to us. Quote: I'm not actually making fun of the Bible or Christianity, I'm just saying that it would REALLY have been helpful if God actually wrote anything, Jesus too. Yeah, it would. But They didn't....or rather, they did, sorta. And still do, sorta. Or at least, they communicate. The problem is, people seem to have this "prophet" thing backwards. They seem to think that a prophet writes scripture. That's not quite right...it is actually "A man who writes scripture is a prophet." That's what MAKES him one. Therefore, any man who has a revelation from God and then writes scripture is a prophet--so anyone who gets a communication from God is a prophet, by definition. Quote: No. Did Jesus write ANY portion of the Bible? No. The entire Bible is secondhand at best. Indeed. The bible, indeed, all scripture, is written by people, men who claim to have received revelation from God about this or that thing. That revelation is what makes them prophets, and scripture is written by them. Men. Fallible, flawed, men---who happen to be prophets. Fine. I personally discount them ALL. Except Jesus. Problem with that, of course, is that the people who wrote about Him are prophets. You find yourself in a bit of a circular problem there. Quote: If you like it then please enjoy it. If you like one version or translation then please enjoy that one. I've read KJV a couple of times and I liked some it as a historical reference, and I especially liked parts of the NT that are secondhand (at best) accounts of Jesus. But unlike many people I'm not particularly moved by the Bible. What are you 'moved' by? Figuring things out for myself by myself. I was raised Christian. Later in life I put that aside and tried to see if there was a way to approach God with NO history or scripture or anything. I succeeded, and for me that's movingly significant. We are all, I believe, capable of this to some extent or other. That is, after all, what the prophets who wrote scripture did in the first place, isn't it? Quote: However, I think I will let you off the hook. Sorta. I believe that when you accuse us of 'Rewriting [our] bible' you are making two mistakes, rather important ones; first, you are assuming that we don't think that the Bible is scripture, and don't use it. We do, both things. Second, you are charging us with using the Book of Mormon instead of the bible. We don't, any more than any other Christian uses the Book of Mark *instead of* the Book of Matthew, or Romans *instead of* Ephesians. I don't know squat about Mormons. Kraus was making noise like he knew something about Mormons. Maybe he does, since I don't I wouldn't know if he does or not. Trust me. He doesn't. He knows zip. (shrug) I didn't want to say that myself..... ;) Well, you couldn't. (grin) But I'm the expert on Mormonism, (in here, right now, at least..) so I can. Quote: We do indeed have beliefs that are outside the mainstream Christian faith, and I am not ashamed of any of those beliefs. You shouldn't be, you have no reason to be. However, I do not think I should have to defend beliefs I don't actually hold, and so far, Krause hasn't given us a single one we DO hold. He's an atheist. To him, because you're not you're automatically retarded. That sounds like a particularly religious attitude to me. ;-) Quote: He doesn't understand that belief in the unproven is all equal. He is as much a Believer as you are, or I am, he just doesn't accept that fact. Quite a number of atheists have more faith in their own opinions than theists have in their God, I have found...and it is the same sort of faith. ;-) Quote: Oh well. Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor M_P Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Fetal life (was: Could your candidate do this?) On May 12, 9:17 am, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote: Quote: M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote innews:1178905653.191448.240980@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: On May 10, 6:15 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote: M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote innews:1178820222.072923.267220@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: On May 9, 3:19 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote: M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote innews:1178645593.518360.200670@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: Gene wrote: M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote in news:1178310736.256259.249660@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: On May 3, 4:17 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote: M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote innews:1178229313.421927.177070@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: On May 3, 1:08 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote: M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote innews:1178213788.805524.141880@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.co m: On May 2, 4:45 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote: M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote innews:1178126215.735631.269440@n59g2000hsh.googlegroup s.c om: On May 1, 12:46 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote: M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote innews:1178044297.274284.326430@q75g2000hsh.googlegr oup s.c om: On Apr 24, 12:39 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote: M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote innews:1177435818.760137.316880@o40g2000prh.googl egr oup s.c om: On Apr 23, 5:54 pm, Gene <W...@Me.com> wrote: M_P <m...@rocketmail.com> wrote innews:1177354326.928690.291920@e65g2000hsc.go ogl egr oup s.c om: I respect your opinion and your right to worship anyway you want but in America you must accord me the same rights. [...] Red herring; my pro-life argument is a nonreligious one. What a laugh - Tell me what is your non-religious prolife arguement. I'm glad you asked: In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to life---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism is to START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality (such as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. But we can't stop there, because this group does not include infants, who have almost without exception in Western history been regarded as persons. The extension of "all who possess reasoning free-willed individuality" to include infants seems clear: they have the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality. So all who possess, or have the potential to get, reasoning free-willed individuality are persons. This definition of "person" clearly includes all unborn humans, from conception till birth. What a laugh - the same crap the church has been teaching as their answer to abortion for a years. Where is your evidence for the claim that any church teaches this? The church - not any church. That would be the catholic church. Go read their talking points. YOU made the claim so the burden is on YOU to quote or link to their "talking points." I'm not doing your homework for you. The only difference is that the Church says the soul is there at conception which is hand and hand with your 'potential person' crap. 100% wrong ... the Church's statement is about actuality (of the alleged possession of a soul) whereas mine is about potentiality. It's pathetic how eager you are to change my argument into some completely different argument because you can't rebut mine. Your's is neither fact nor theory backed by science instead it is your opinion. I don't need to disprove what hasn't been proved. I only need to disagree. I made a reasoned argument, so the burden is on you to show why I haven't proved my conclusion. And while you are free to settle for disagreeing, you are certainly not free to pretend that my argument is actually some completely different argument ... for you to do so is just plain dishonest. 'Potential people' Straw man. I have not used that term or concept. is not 'reasoned' [...] The potential of unborn humans is well established in reason by the simple observation that every reasoning free-willed individual was once unborn. What a laugh. What is the difference between a potential people and "The potential of unborn humans " to be people? Let me explain this to you yet again: I have made no reference to the potential of unborn humans to be people; I have made reference only to the potential of newborn and unborn humans to be reasoning free-willed individuals, and have from that potential concluded that they are ALREADY people. What a laugh, so you start with potential people Still telling that lie about my argument? For shame. Quote: I call a fetus and on that shakey ground you build a bridge to potential people you call reasoning free willed individuals. As I stated from the beginning, reasoning free willed individuals are actual people. Can you not even read? Quote: And does any statement made by a church thereby become "religious"? If a pastor says that the sun rises in the east, does that become a "religious" position? Keep hiding behind that beanpole. Your clumsy evasion is duly noted. (I could stop right there, except that "potential" needs to be more sharply specified. One could argue that a human gamete---sperm or egg---has the potential to develop reasoning free-willed individuality by first fusing with a complementary gamete. This is true in a certain sense of "potential"---but that is a vastly different sense than applies to zygotes. A zygote has the DNA of one particular human individual; a gamete has an incomprehensibly larger range of possibilities---namely, the possibility to fuse with any one of the incomprehensibly large number of possible complementary gametes---and thus has a vastly different potential to achieve any one of those possibilities.) Potentially, given enough time, enough typewriters and enough monkeys the y will eventually type out the complete works of William Shakespeare. If zygotes becoming newborns was as rare as that, there'd be no human race. Try saying something relevant. What a laugh - you first. Bush has potential WMD's, you have potential persons and I have a potential million dollar lottery ticket. I'll sell that potential fortune to you for a hunderd bucks now. If zygotes becoming newborns was as rare as that, there'd be no human race. You're STILL not saying anything relevant. It doesn't matter that an acorn will be an oak 100% of the time. It's an Acorn until it becomes an Oak. I never said nor implied otherwise. When I note that a newborn has the potential for reasoning free-willed individuality, I am obviously NOT claiming that she has reasoning free-willed individuality. What a laugh - of course you can't and that is why your 'potential person' is laughable. My argument has nothing to do with "potential persons." Go re-read it ... or ask a grownup to help you. Instead you are arguing the Terry Shivo case all over again only this time your 'client' has never been a person and never had a thought. Unlike Terri Schiavo, tens of billions of entities just like my 'client' have gone on to become reasoning free-willed individuals. And tens of millions have died and tens of millions have killed tens of millions. How is that in any way relevant to my argument? It's relivant in that no woman needs to screw up her life because you have decided that every fetus is potentially a reasoning free willed individual. How do you read that meaning into "tens of millions have died and tens of millions have killed tens of millions"? Are you off your meds? What are the chances of your potential person becoming a Pol Pot, an Adolf Hitler or even worse a Republican like Bush or a fundimentalist like Ted Haggard? Apparently around 50%. So a woman choosing an abortion may be 'potentially' saving many lives by taking one. [...] Potential to be something (such as a reasoning free-willed individual) is quite different from potential to do something (kill many people), the latter but not the former being a choice. Quote: So she should avoid screwing up her life; there are many ways to have pleasure and fun that have 0% risk of pregnancy. Who are you to decide her choice? The same citizen who has the right to call for and vote in favor of protecting the lives of innocent born persons. Quote: Who are you to decide she is not allowed to exercise her free will and be judged by God for her choice instead of being judged by you [...] It's not an issue of "judging" but of protecting the lives of innocent persons. Quote: Free will - what a laugh. That is free will only as long as you nitwits agree with the choice. I oppose the "choice" to kill born humans, too ... is that also a violation of free will? If the laws of man say it is allowed then yes it is left for God to decide [...] So if the laws of man say killing born humans is allowed, my calling for a change in those laws is a violation of free will? If you really believe that, you're a loon. Quote: "Che Sara, Sara" is not a philosophy it is a faith. "Que sera, sera" (whatever will be, will be) is a tautology and thus guaranteed to be true. Your babbling is becoming more pathetic than comical. And My God's only commandment. How dare you insult my religion. (Your God can't spell?) What a laugh, I don't use a spell checker and never found the need to type but if you want to play spelling bee I'd suggest you try alt.juvenile.games I've let many of your misspellings slide without comment, but it's surprising to me that you can't even spell your God's only commandment. Quote: How does that commandment lead to the conclusion that abortion should be legal? Because apparently several other folks decided to exercise their free will and decide it is legal under certain conditions. Can you provide evidence that those other folks did so based on "Que sera, sera"? If not, your comment doesn't answer the question. Quote: Abortion is not dangerous to another person because the law says it's not a person or a potential person. It's ethically a person, as I have shown. No you have supposed. You have opined. You have not come close to fact or even theory. I have presented a logical argument, in rebuttal of which you've presented only bluster. No you assume and based on that assumption you argue. [...] Now you're getting within spitting distance of an actual rebuttal. What is it I've supposedly assumed? The word potential alone is an assumption. No, it's a word. Are you saying that there is no such thing as potential? Sure there is a word as is assumption a word. Are you saying that there is nothing in reality to which the word "potential" refers? Sure it refers to potentialities, it refers to events and things that are not yet. There are potential murderers - do you propose arresting them today? [...] No, nor do I propose treating potential reasoning free-willed individuals (unborn and newborn humans) identically with actual reasoning free-willed individuals (adult humans) ... just recognizing that the same rational basis for recognizing newborns' right to life also applies to the unborn. Quote: Or that unborn humans have no potential? I'm saying it's the womans choice to decide what the potential of her eggs are [...] Is it up to me to decide whether the carbon-14 atoms in my body have the potential to undergo radioactive decay? You could just as well argued for 'assumed persons'. That answers my question. Babble on, loon ... I'll check in from time to time and throw a peanut at you. What a laugh. "Potential people" [...] Still telling that lie about my argument? For shame. Fetus is potentially a person [...] That's not my argument and I've never said it. Learn to read. Quote: Oops, the court just said no. Don't make me laugh. You are just another religious busibody Liar. Perfect fanatical response. Weak defense of your lie. You offer no proof at all of your views on religion What would you accept as "proof"? You've already said you're prepared to label my posted answer as a lie. Preponderance of medical science says it's a person at conception. [...] Personhood is not in the mandate of medical science ... it's intrinsically a matter for ethical philosophy. Sure it is science. [...] Provide evidence for your claim: quote a scientist making a statement about personhood that he or she presents as a scientific statement. Medical science the court used to decide Roe. [non-science snipped] "...the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." [non-science snipped] No quotation from a scientist there ... nor any indication that any physician or scientist rendered a professional opinion about personhood. "Interest" and "focus" do not equal statements about personhood. Quote: trying to make a secular argument for banning abortion and it mirrors every web site that tries to do the same thing. BS. Post a URL. No URL, ergo another BS claim from you. You really do think you've come up with an original thought - wow - that is really seriously funny. You're the author - finding out if it is indeed original would be the authors responsibility. LOL! So before your every post you Google your words to make sure your ideas (to use the term loosely) are original? As I said, YOU made the claim so the burden is on YOU to support it. There is no reason for me to prove what has not been proven - [...] Yet another red herring from you. There *is* a reason for you to support *your* claims ... and for you to fail to do so will expose you as an ignorant blowhard. What a laugh - full circle. You can't offer proof I made no claims about my argument vis-a-vis the church's argument ... YOU did that. You do it just by arguing it. I argue MY argument ... it's merely your STILL-unsupported claim that my argument is the same as the church's argument. Your potential person Still telling that lie about my argument? For shame. Quote: becoame potential at conception and you use this potential person to argue that a person exists at conception. That's also not my argument ... so I suppose it's a moot point that you also have failed to show that it's the church's argument. Quote: yet you want me to rebut your opinion. Pay attention for once. The claim under discussion here is your claim that my "secular argument for banning abortion [...] mirrors every web site that tries to do the same thing." Have any evidence for your claim? Fetus are not people - you say they are because they will potentially be people. Still telling that lie about my argument? For shame. Religious folks say a fetus is a person because it's human life and all human life must be protected. They say it is life because they know it will be life, potentially. If a fetus came out as a egg and had to be fertilized they would still argue that it's potential is still there. Provide a direct quotation in support of your claim that this is what "religious folks" say. I don't have to I was raised a Catholic and I know what the Church's stance is. What you claim to know and what you can support are two completely separate things. Argument by authority is bogus to begin with ... and being raised a Catholic doesn't come close to making you an authority anyway. Quote: Now you go find out if I'm wrong. YOU made the claim so the burden of proof is on YOU. I'm not doing your homework for you. Quote: Then answer the question you dodged before: Does any statement made by "religious folks" thereby become "religious"? If "religious folks" say that the sun rises in the east, does that become a "religious" position? Still no answer, loon? Quote: What is your faith? Already addressed above. Already dodged above. No, YOU dodged this: "Why [should I answer your question], when you've declared your readiness to claim (with no evidence) that my answer is a lie?" Will you answer this time or dodge it again? You seem to think your faith is independant of your beliefs [...] Straw man ... nothing I've posted says or implies that. My question stands. Will you answer this time or dodge it yet again? Quote: It's not a lie - it's an unsupported opinion. The only lie would be if you claimed it to be a fact or even a theory. Pay attention: the question at issue here is your "What is your faith?" When you asked that you added, "'m guessing you will see the ends more important than the means and lie." Sure and you did - the lie of omission. I was right. No, declining to answer a question is not a lie of omission. Would you be lying if I asked you for your bank account number and you declined to answer? Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Frank Pittel Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: The future of the GOP in America In alt.politics.usa.republican SyVyN11 <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote: : "ThePhisherKIng" <Locker@BusStation> wrote in message : news:Xns992FEEEF73067Gilliam@38.119.97.2... : > "SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in : > news:f28ghn$6j6$1@news.albasani.net: : > : >> : >> "Mitchell Holman" <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote in message : >> news:Xns992FD5CF76442ta2eene2@216.196.97.131... : >>> Some dumb guy <abc@xyz.com> wrote in : >>> news:jeP1i.2800$LR5.2177@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net: : >>> : >>>> The future of the GOP in America can be read in the history of the : >>>> leading GOP office holder in America. : >>>> : >>>> http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/graphic-approval_files/pollka : >>>> tzma inGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif : >>>> : >>> : >>> : >>> Don't prod Bush too much - he is likely to invade yet : >>> another country just to get his numbers back up. : >> : >> Or he might suspend the constitution and name himself president for : >> life. I hope he does, just to piss you libs off, because it's all : >> about YOU! : >> : >>> : >>> : >>> : >> : >> : > AaaaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa! His own military inner circle would arrest him or : > see that he had an "accident". They love him about as much as the real : > American Public does. Not the namby pamby right wingers. : the concept was called SARCASM!!! Look it up! : libs are stupid. That's by definition. -- ------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Dan Kimmel Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Bush vetoed emergency Katrina aid. Why does Bush HATE AM "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:WYY1i.66924$Ae.12983@trnddc07... Quote: "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message news:v8WdnZ8NPNkFwdrbnZ2dnUVZ_rSjnZ2d@rcn.net... You can believe what you wish. Congress has laid down the law to Bush, who realizes that if he wants Congress to approve his funding he better deal with them. He doesn't have to so he didn't. In fact he does, or he doesn't get the money he wants, and so he is. Quote: The empty "benchmarks" we already have are worthless, since there's no teeth to them. You foreigners will never understand our gov't. Foriegners? What strawman are you fighting now? I'm American, born and bred. Why don't you go back where you came from, kid? Quote: Benchmarks don't have teeth. Its the REVIEW of them when teeth are applied. Just like the difference Congressional oversight and spending. It was precisely that oversight to which Bush objected, and saw his public approval plummet even further as a result. Quote: Even General Petraeus is noting that making the Iraqis sit up and realize the end of US involvement is near is a good thing. Nobody questions that. Dick Cheney does. You shouldn't debate current affairs with grownups when you're so uninformed. Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor the_blogologist Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: A Lonely Inept Republican President SilentOtto <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote: Quote: On May 14, 6:23 am, nob...@nowheres.com (the_blogologist) wrote: When we had the troops Bush Jr. was critisied for not having :-/ The coalition would have fallen apart had we invaded Iraq. Once again the U.S. would have had to go it alone. Speculation. Quote: We'd have been in the same boat we're in now. Before the Gulf War Saddam kept his small arms and munitions in various military instillations. After the Gulf War he moved many of them into various cashes in the cities just so he could support an insurgency. He also spent a lot of money hiding things from weapons inspectors. Quote: Bush Sr. understood what a mess trying to occupy Iraq would be. Too bad he couldn't teach his bullheaded kid. Bush Sr. suggested we finish the job and he was immediately met with threats of impeachment from a democrat controlled congress. Quote: We won the Cold War which democrats like to down play. That's such bullshit that it's not even worth commenting on... THEN SHUT THE HELL UP!!! Lol... Fuck yoiu asshole. Make me. Now democrats are trying to make us lose in Iraq by encouring the enemy by letting them know they just need to keep sending soldiers home in body bags to make us leave. Listen up, rightard.. We aren't "losing" in Iraq. We've already "lost" in Iraq. How so? Insurgent groups are now so well established and enjoy such a large degree of support that they are beyond our ability to destroy. They are coming from countries surrounding Iraq. Quote: The government is weak and divided and paralized. Both the Iraqi police and the Army have been infiltrated and co-opted by extremists. Need I go on? It would be much easier to set up a dictatorship, just kill off anybody who offers any resistance whatsoever. Quote: By any objective measure things are going from bad to worse. Really? By what measure? Start with this one. http://icasualties.org/oif/ WAR!! WAR!! DEMOCRATS AND WAAAAR!!!! (the DRAFT included!!) World War I - 1917 - 116,708 KIA - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat World War II - 1941 - 408,306 -KIA Franklin D. Roosevelt - Democrat Korean War - 1950 - 54,246 KIA - Harry S. Truman - Democrat Vietnam War - 1965 - 58,159 KIA - Lyndon B. Johnson - Democrat http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6545/vietnamwarstats8zn.jpg Quote: The problem now is how to get out of the mess "W" got us into. Carter got us into this mess by screwing up Iran. More juvenial bullshit. http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3699/carterlegacy1uh.jpg Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor John Fraser Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: all the VA Computer systems are being replaced with Comp Good afternoon Joseph; <Joseph> wrote in message news:Rpidncw_l-eHC9XbnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@comcast.com... Quote: That looks like a yes to me, why do you have to ask again? In service of God and Country Because your reply was vague and verbose. The way I see it, we're either there to help our leadership or we're against them. We can't be both. Cheers, John Quote: Joseph "John Fraser" <jfraser@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:464878a2$0$4059$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net... Is that Yes or No? Cheers, John Joseph> wrote in message news:b72dnS0nTLWKzdXbnZ2dnUVZ_qmpnZ2d@comcast.com... "John Fraser" <jfraser@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:46484970$0$4045$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net... Good morning Joseph; Joseph> wrote in message news:0Lqdndg1NYWk3dXbnZ2dnUVZ_sGqnZ2d@comcast.com... "John Fraser" <jfraser@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:4648367b$0$4033$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net... Good morning Joseph; Joseph> wrote in message news:qf6dnYbjz84MWdrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com... The US Government is replacing all the VA Computer systems with Computers made by Companies in or owned by Asia, because US Manufactures cannot compete with Computers made in Socialist Asia whom do not use Mandatory Environmental Regulations but require us to have them so that they may out produce the US and destroy our economy. Besides making Computers is just another job that Americans will not do. Do you mean like GM in Mexico? Gee, the workers in Detroit earned $17/hr while their Mexican colleague earned $5/hr to produce the same vehicle. The American company Tandy has been building computers for years in Korea. It's all about money, my friend. Otherwise, change your medication. When Americans as a rule complain about their Constitution, it's usually because they can't get their way and they need someone or something to blame. BTW, you need to correct two newsgroups: alt.politics.republican should be alt.politics.republicans, and alt.religion.christian.catholic should be alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic. Cheers, John Well, that is part of what I am talking about. Just like these same people set up Global Business so that they could collapse the Soviet Union's economy, now the same people running out of victims with money in Eastern Europe to fill their pockets from, the US Middle class and US poor have become their next targets for robbery. And as far as the Constitution, what Constitution? We only operate on whatever agenda the Lobbyists pay the Politicians and Medias brainwash the people to do, unfortunately most of the Lobbyists that own our Politicians and Medias have been Communists since FDR, that is why we have no Constitution left. In service of God and Country Joseph In the service of God would mean that you pray for your leaders. Do you pray for your leaders? Cheers, John No doubt, because they cannot tell the difference between acts of Nature, and acts of Nature's God. Like "The Devil was a murder from the beginning..." The devil is the prince of the power of the air that now works in the children of disobedience, and they falsely claim that it was God that destroyed the former heavens and earth and murdered all that dwell therein, before God created Adam and told him to replenish the earth, but the scriptures clearly blame the devil for their deaths in his attempt to overthrow the Most High God. They falsely blame God for all the temptations and suffering and death, while clearly the scriptures say that God cannot be tempted and neither does he tempt any man, but every man is tempted when his lust draws his heart away from God, and then the devil the tempter tempts them, and God crowns every man that overcomes the temptations with a crown of life. Blessed is Jehovah the Most High God and Father of the promised salvation from loins of Judah the Adown Jesus within the promised heir by birthright of the house of Israel, hear O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah! He says that you are Gods, sons of the Most High, serve no other God before him! Blessed is his uniquely begotten son Jesus our promised salvation belonging unto the Jews, my cup, my silver cup, whereby I drink and divine, as he has become the commonwealth of all the house of Israel. Shared with the gentiles by Paul the tribe of Benjamin the fellowheir of the Inheritance of the heir by birthright of the house of Israel, Joseph. In service of God and Country Joseph Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Jim C. Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Affirmative Action, Immigration, Curing America Of White <lorad474@cs.com> wrote in message news:1179122417.869988.175350@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... Quote: You need one to cure you of your foreign criminal psychopathy. Maybe two. Dude, help out here and stop replying to ramon, he's just trolling and no mater how you argue the point he won't be serious enough to admit when he loses. You are wasting time on him. just kill file the fool. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: the United States is NOT the world's only superpower Patriot Games wrote: Quote: abuse@192.168.1.1> wrote in message news:134f950b8rgmt65@corp.supernews.com... Patriot Games wrote: "captain." <spammersmustdie@now.net> wrote in message news:R6t1i.13071$g63.10121@edtnps82... "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:SAo1i.14120$b67.2701@trnddc06... "Admin" <admin@192.168.1.1> wrote in message news:134btu62492ffdb@corp.supernews.com... AirRaid wrote: Russia is the other superpower, don't ever fucking forget that. World Wide Military Expenditures Country Military expenditures - dollar figure Budget Period United States $466 billion FY04 actual [see Note 6] China $65.0 billion 2004 [see Note 1] Russia $50.0 billion [see Note 5] France $45.0 billion 2005 United Kingdom $42.8 billion 2005 est. source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm $50 billion (Russia) vs. $466 billion (USA) Is Russia really a rival? Yeah, they're a Crock (of shit) Pot.... what you 'necks should be concerned with is why so much money is being spent and if world peace would be better served with a more balanced approach as opposed to wasting billions on yet more weapons systems. You're confused. World peace is not our problem. Our defense is our problem. And our ability to kick someone's ass, anyone's ass, anywhere in the world is out problem. If the world wants peace then they should start acting peaceful. When they do we'll stop spending so much on defense. But not until. A chicken hawk. Spoken like a thumbsucking coward. What are you doing here in the States? Iraq needs a lot more troops. You and all other chicken hawks get in line to join the military. With all your tough talking crap, you shouldn't have any trouble being tough where it counts -- on the battle field. Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor 9 Trillion Dollar Republi Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Why I Voted for John Kerry On May 14, 12:55 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote: Quote: "9 Trillion Dollar Republican National Debt" <icadse...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178999833.733382.289970@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... On May 12, 3:42 pm, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote: "9 Trillion Dollar Republican National Debt" <icadse...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178985388.671653.103330@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... and why I would vote for him again given the opportunity.. http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm = You won't get that opportunity because we permanently trashed him. = Good riddance Hanoi John. naaaaaa, the only reason Bush won.... = Bullshit excuses... Bush won. Kerry got spanked. End of story. Reality is, Bush got spanked by Kerry, and everyone knows that. Bush was forced to stay on as a war President to finish the "job" in Iraq, of course he hasn't because he never does anything right, just look at his appalling history of bankruptcy and ruin. Everything Bush touches turns to shit. Back to top   Ads Advertising Sponsor Patriot Games Guest Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:06 pm    Post subject: Re: FUCK IRAQ... IT'S AFGHANISTAN STUPID... "KODIAK" <dx@dgd.net> wrote in message news:p6_1i.4427$UU.1687@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... Quote: So why aren't you left-nutted loons pissing and moaning over Afghanistan? Afterall, we're killin' one-legged Taliban leaders now and that just ain't fair, god damnit! He was shot in the back. Twice. Then he was shot in the head. I'm guessing that the one-legged fuck wasn't getting too far too fast hopping along so somebody dropped him. Then walked up and finished up. Quote: Iraq will be done one day... but the ragheads in this country will be skimming the U.S. tax coffers from now till the fucking goats come home. This god forsaken place will never stand on its own unless the market for rocks and disease-ridden cadavers explodes. I say we annex this shithole and resume nuclear testing (strictly for energy purposes of course... heh heh). Sounds good to me! Back to top