Posted on 07/30/2008 4:27:52 PM PDT by rightwinghour
“McCain is at least a man who served his country in war.”
Irrelevant to his suitability as President.
The presumptive R nominee, by his voting record and worldview, is probably not fit to be serving in any branch of government.
“Most Third Party lemmings are anti war because they are not man enough to fight.”
How obtuse and juvenile.
“You may feel more at home back at DU”
I normally wouldn’t dignify such a moronic comment with a response. Let’s not forget that McCain is the one with support from Soros and co., and the socialist voting record on so many fundamental issues. The fact that you’re OK with him says a lot about YOUR compatibility with socialism and groups such as DU.
“For me, I need strong evidence to start developing a belief in such a nebulous idea as a deity”
Socialism and its variants, communism and fascism, are the political expressions of atheist and secular humanist worldviews. Your statement says a lot about your true beliefs.
Yea right. First, I'm not an atheist. Second, I'm as far from a communist and fascist as you can get. Third, making assumptions that mix politics and religion is always a dumb move. I could go on for pages about how numerous Christian faiths in the US are left-wing and actually socialist in their beliefs. The National Council of Churches is just one of many examples.
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000003620.cfm
Or the Unitarians
http://jmahoney.com/liberal_family_churches.htm
And all the rest of the MANY left-wing churches
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=492&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport
I submit that the reason that the Communists and Fascists didn't care for religion is because it organized people in groups, which could amass resistive power, rather than their tenets themselves.
You seem fairly certain that my beliefs are fantasy, when you really don't know anything about them. I think that's more consistent with an atheist than an agnostic. But, I think there are many atheists who call themselves agnostic because it sounds more intellectual.
Maybe we'll met up on a religion thread sometime, and we can hash it out. ;o)
Just because someone is not a deist does not make them a communist or a fascist. That type of attack is an example of the "intellectual laziness" that Ronaldus Magnus Reagan and I were talking about.
How is it "thinking" to vote in a way such that the Marxist Democrat is elected?
You've got people running for office, knowing that they can't win, knowing the only way they will affect the election is to take votes from the Republicans, and knowing that they will likely end up giving the election to the candidate most opposite their stated political positions.
Their purpose is not to win... their purpose is to cause the Republicans to lose, "deservedly" as you say. That is not the description of a candidate, that's the description of a saboteur.
"Thinking" is not a word I would use to describe someone who supports them. "Usefull idiot" seems far more appropriate.
The rantings of a deaf, blind fool.
In a world of revolving door courts and prisons, where the rapist/murderer of an 8 year old girl serves 5 years of a 7 year sentence, and returns to rape another child two days after his release, you make ignorant, callous hype like that?
No wonder you have such bitter vile hatred for men like Ron Paul.
Dear dense and dumb Idiot, That's 5 years that the rapist wasn't raping anymore children! HELLO? Without a police force conducting an investigation, the guy probably wouldn't have gotten caught at all! What, without a police force, are you and your friends going to examine evidence, investigate leads and interview people ON YOUR DAYS OFF FROM WORK? MAYBE SOME WEEKENDS when it's raining and you can't go fishing? Ha! Make me laugh some more. Do you have a CSI LAB in your basement to examine the evidence? I DIDN"T THINK SO!
You Paulites are a constant source of amusement with your utter lack of basic logic and common sense.
Nazi puke talk.
No, the police only arrested him reluctantly, as usual.
Have you ever tried to file a police report? Its close to impossible. Have you ever had to stand in line at the bank while the operations officer tries to get the police to come and arrest the bad check passer that they are stalling at the window? And then see the turd walk away because they failed? This is the norm these days.
No, there is a big difference and it's easily explained. I'll keep it quick and simple so as not to keep going off topic on this thread.
Atheism is the belief in nothing, no deity whatsoever. That is a religion for all intents and purposes. Atheism is clearly a religion, IMO. Agnostics come to the conclusion that we can't know if there is a deity or not, so we don't profess a belief that there is or there isn't. Dictionary definition is.."a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."
For me, it is just not logical to be an atheist. I like to say that when when a search party gets into a spaceship and explores the entire universe and then returns and reports no finding of a God, then I will be an atheist. Until then, with the evidence at hand right now, we just can't know if there is a deity or not. There very well could be, and I allow for that possibility. Atheists don't.
For the people who are absolutely convinced that there is a God, I say that the burden of proof is on you. And I havn't seen any definitive proof from them.
Now I KNOW you are an idiot. I can't imagine ANY cop who "reluctantly" arrests a child rapist. Unless perhaps the perp is a family member of the cop.
Have you ever tried to file a police report? Its close to impossible. Have you ever had to stand in line at the bank while the operations officer tries to get the police to come and arrest the bad check passer that they are stalling at the window? And then see the turd walk away because they failed? This is the norm these days.
That's the extent of your retort? That's it? That's all you got in this debate? Babbling about filing police reports and waiting in line at a bank for a police response for check fraud? And your better idea is, what? Calling your buddies on your cell phone, hoping they can take off from work and come down to the bank and help you manhandle the perp yourselves, instead of a police force? What happens if a liquor store is getting robbed at the same time a few blocks away? You and your buddies going to somehow take care of that one too? How about if another serious crime is also taking place at the same time on the other side of town? You and you buddies can do a Star Trek transport ("Beam me up, editor-surveyor") to that location as well? Hey, with all this crime, I guess you and your buddies might have to get more guys and form...wait for it...A POLICE FORCE!
BWAHAAAAHAAAHAAA, make me laugh while you make yourself look like a fool at the same time. Come back and see me when you get educated in elementary reasoning and logic, not to mention common sense.
It would be a waste of time these days.
As the saying goes: Dial 911 and Die!
"How about if another serious crime is also taking place at the same time on the other side of town?"
I'll go that one better. - In 1976, I used to allow the sherriff deputys to use my office when I was out in the field, because the cheepie city wouldn't give the guys an office of their own to make their calls from. One day one of them got a call on their WT to respond to an armed robery at a Wells Fargo bank that was about 200-300 feet away. We had been sitting there exchanging jokes at the time. He just sat there and lit up a cigarette, and didn't respond to the dispatcher. I needled him about it, and he laughed it off. I went out to my car and called his dispatcher on my radio and explained what was going down. After six months of fiddling, he was reduced in rank, but not fired. I gave up on them at that point.
McCain won’t get my vote, and he never had it. I don’t want him elected President.
Obama won’t get my vote, and he never had it. I don’t want him elected President.
The people who vote for Obama will be responsible for electing him.
My support goes to someone (Baldwin) who, if elected, won’t destroy the Republic, the Constitution and the conservative movement. Just because many Republicans want to compromise their core principles - before, during and after these election campaigns - doesn’t mean that those of us who want to stick to ours assume the responsibility for the failure of rotten candidates. McCain is your candidate, not mine.
For me, it is just not logical to be an atheist. I like to say that when when a search party gets into a spaceship and explores the entire universe and then returns and reports no finding of a God, then I will be an atheist. Until then, with the evidence at hand right now, we just can't know if there is a deity or not. There very well could be, and I allow for that possibility. Atheists don't.
For the people who are absolutely convinced that there is a God, I say that the burden of proof is on you.
You assume/presume that there is no God. I have been persuaded otherwise. Both are beliefs, which by your own clarification is the primary differnce between atheists and agnostics.
I did respond to your last post to me, but it was never posted. I got the "thank you for your contribution, it will be posted shortly" message. I also posted a reply to Ohelix that day and it never got posted either. I also sent you a private message telling you that your style of debate was terribly dishonest, and since I never heard back from you, I have to assume it wasn't sent either. If you'd like me to respond to your post again, I'll be glad to do so. I just hate for you to make a fool of yourself for thinking you won a debate.
What was dishonest about it? I successfully refuted every one of your points and made a great factual and logical case for invading Iraq. You can't argue with my facts, because, well, they are facts!
This was just another case of a total Paulite smackdown because you Paulites refuse to do any fact-finding and refuse to employ logical reasoning. I think it is just as easy to win a debate against you cower-and-hide pacifistic fools as it is debating the loony left liberals.
I'll take this one in two parts. The first part being free trade. Dictators love money; we all know this. And since you mentioned Cuba I'll use it as an example here. The reason you don't see European or Canadian trade toward Cuba is because of the Helms-Burton act of 1996, which said any non-US company that deals economically with Cuba can be subjected to legal action and that company's leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Plus, sanctions could be applied against any country who went against the act. This act was condemned just about worldwide. It cut off about $700 million bucks worth of business that Cuba was enjoying with the European Union, Britain, Mexico, Argentina, and Canada. So it's not a dictator's fault that they aren't trading partners with other countries, it is our fault for imposing increasingly stringent sanctions on them since the early 60's. Cuba wants our money, and the rest of the world's money, and they want it bad. But we have stood in the way all this time.
The second part of this is the part you mostly dropped from your response. I had stated that a policy of non interventionism would accomplish trade relations without killing hundreds of thousands of people and causing the world to look at us as a bully. The focus of your response was simply this: "No, it wouldn't. Not even close". So is it your opinion that hundreds of thousands of people have to die and the world must view us as a bully in order for trade relations to exist?
Didn't Congress authorize the use of force against Iraq? Yes, they did, and that is quite different from declaring war. Oh, now we see you are equivocating and getting ridiculously technical. Your demolishment continues.
Technical? Perhaps you simply don't know the difference between declaring war and authorizing force, otherwise you wouldn't make such a statement. A declaration of war is, for one thing, Constitutional. Secondly, it is very precise in its objectives. It states when, where, why, and how the war is to be fought, and the goals for victory are clear. In contrast, an authorization of force is where a cowardly Congress passes its authority to declare wars on to the executive branch. It allows the President to decide when, where, why, and how the "war" is to be fought. This is exactly the kind of thing the Framers were afraid of, and is why they gave Congress the power to declare war. They had just come from a form of government in which one man had to power to drag the whole nation into war, and they didn't want a repeat of that. Perhaps now you understand the difference between the two, and maybe you will drop the preposterous notion that I am equivocating.
Really? Name some! Vietnam doesn't count because we were hamstrung by the weenie Democrats who pulled the plug and defunded the war, hence our retreat.
I'm sorry, but Vietnam does count. It goes to the very issue we are discussing, which is the failure of authorizations of force. In addition to Vietnam, add Korea and Iraq.
Total Bullcrap. Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War, so in actuality, this second Iraq war was a resumption of hostilities of the first Iraq war. That's a fact. Besides, Saddam shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone was an act of war in and of itself.
It's funny that you mention the no fly zones. The no fly zones were established by the US, UK, and France, and cover about half of Iraq and of course Iraqi aircraft are not allowed to fly in them. They cited UN Resolution 688 as their authority to establish the no fly zones, but it says nothing about them, and the UN Secretary General declared them illegal. So what you have here are illegally enforced no fly zones over a sovereign country, and you are telling me that Saddam was the aggressor here? We bombed Iraq pretty much constantly for twelve years, flew some 40,000 sorties, and Saddam is to blame for firing at (and missing every time) our fighter planes?
There you go equivocating again! You have evaded my point. Whether or not is was the sovereign government or an occupational one is besides the point of a victorious resistance movement that you foolishly assume is so capable of victory.
I actually have not evaded anything. You're trying to say the French resistance during WWII is the same as the resistance that resulted in the American Revolution, all the while ignoring the very nature of and motivations for the two. And furthermore, I never said resistance movements are "so capable of victory". This is just one example of your dishonest tactics. It's called a straw man argument and you make liberal use of them. I said if enough people want change and they want it bad enough, they will make the change happen, and that is a completely true statement. Your argument is simply that they don't have enough guns, but even that doesn't invalidate my argument. If enough people want to overthrow their dictator, they will overwhelm any dictatorial force in front of them. Does this happen all the time? No, and I never said it did.
And there are many, many more examples of resistance movements in history that were crushed. History says your position of a successful resistance movement is a longshot.
There's that straw man again. It seems you really pulled this out of thin air. Where did you get the idea that I believe all resistance movements can be successful? Because that seems to be what you're saying here. What I did say is that if the people want it bad enough, they will take care of business. And the people wanting it bad enough means enough of them are mobilized to do it. I used the example of the American Revolution as an example because such a low percentage of our population actually got involved and we still succeeded. Perhaps that is why you drew the conclusion that I believe all resistance movements can be successful. Quite a jump in logic, but based on the rest of your argumentation, it seems like the norm.
With your logic, we don't need a local police force anywhere in the USA because the people should defend themselves against criminals.
You are absolutely right for once. I open carry in the small town where I live. When I go to the bigger town about half an hour down the road, I conceal carry. I am always armed wherever I go, because the police inherently are not everywhere I go, so it is my responsibility to protect myself, and if necessary protect others. Since this nation has been effectively disarmed through "gun control" laws, a very low percentage of the population are armed and instead rely on a police force that cannot possibly be everywhere at once to protect everybody. I don't deny that police presence does deter some amount of crime, but the fact is that if the citizenry were armed, criminals would think twice before assaulting someone. And you still didn't answer my question: Where do you get these ideas?
Oh..my..God! This is unreal. Boy you are dense...at least our citizenry and communities are not put in dangerous risk by taking the fight to them (with heavily armed US soldiers) instead of waiting for them to come here and nuke our cities with biological, chemical or nuclear weaponry. Demolishment continues.
I'm sorry, perhaps I missed the part where you presented evidence showing that the third world country known as Iraq, who couldn't shoot down a single one of our planes over the no fly zone, had the intent and capability to come over here (undetected, mind you) and shoot nukes of some type at us. Methinks I am not the dense one here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.