Franklin Graham peppered Obama about ties to Islam

Stephanie wrote:
I don't know about how correct you are regarding a woman's list being FUBAR over the years. Both of my aunts divorced their husbands for the same reason I divorced my first....for being lying, cheating SOB's. Not a one of them was willing to give up the mistress so we all left. My first, and one aunt's ex eventually went on to marry their lovers. My ex and his new wife divorced after about 6 years. My former "uncle" and his wife remain married but live in different states. He visits her in Maine and she visits him in RI. They spend about 2 months out of the year together. I'm not sure I'd call that much of a marriage.

I think the rise in the divorce rate has more to do with women having more choices. My grandmother remained married to her abusive husband until he died because she had 5 kids she couldn't support on her own. She had no options....women didn't have a whole lot of options back in the 40's through the 60's and even once her kids were grown I'm sure she felt trapped in that marriage after 30 years and 5 kids. From the time I was old enough to remember she had her own bedroom. As soon as one opened up she moved into it.

Hey Steph, all of the aforementioned husbands did not cast the "deciding vote" in the decision to get married, ........ it was you females that did that.

And you all did so based on the “priority numbering sequence” of each of your lists of ….. Husband Characteristics and Attributes.

One has to make a "list", ...... check it twice ........ and then stick to it.

Ya can't be changing the list around after the "game" begins unless the other player agrees to said changes ......... because the other player will more than likely become unhappy, ....... then really pissed ....... and then things start going from bad to worse really quick like.

.

How is it all the females make the "deciding vote" to get married? Did we all tie ropes around their necks and force them at gun point to say "I will" or "I do" and sign that document?

Now the way I see it is those men that asked us women-folk to marry them did so

based on the “priority numbering sequence” of each of your lists of ….. Wife Characteristics and Attributes.

Perhaps they should have made their lists and checked them twice. I promise you they all knew we weren't going to be sitting home raising their kids and washing their clothes and cooking their meals, and in one aunt's case caring for his dying father, while they were out screwing around with some other woman. If they wanted some woman who was willing to put up with that kind of behavior then I suggest they should have married them.

I have no way of knowing if my grandmother knew her husband was a selfish, mean, raging alcoholic who hated children before she began making babies with him. I find it very hard to imagine that was the case, but I've never asked.

.

.




.

Stephanie wrote:

shermangeneral wrote:Well I wont be voting for anyone who wants to occupy Iraq for another hundred years.

I don't know how hillary and Edwards compare to Obama on the issue of abortion.

You ignored the Biblical admonitions against killing the unborn.

Those really aren't admonitions, Steph. I respect your view that abortion is murder, but tradition never really bore that out.

For example, the Talmud said "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." After that, the fetus was considered subhuman.

The laws regarding one causing the death of a fetus were not as grave as the death of one who has been born.

The "leaping" in the womb....which Trimester were they in?

And one is not voting "for abortion" when selecting a candidate. One is selecting a candidate who trusts women and doctors to decide what is best for women. It is a right of women, who can choose or not choose the procedure. Now if you think woman aren't capable of deciding correctly, that's a different argument.

My daughter is now two months' and is going to the doctor today. Craig, do you favor the right of the doctor to kill my daughter if my wife makes that choice? I assume no.

Why not?

The Talmud? The Talmud says the darndest things. You can cherrypick all kinds of things from it.

And according to Democratic principles, John the Baptist, in a crisis pregnancy (Elizabeth was getting on in years), was certainly due for the beheading in the womb (why wait for Herod?).

His ability to show emotion notwithstanding.

SFCraig wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

shermangeneral wrote:Well I wont be voting for anyone who wants to occupy Iraq for another hundred years.

I don't know how hillary and Edwards compare to Obama on the issue of abortion.

You ignored the Biblical admonitions against killing the unborn.

Those really aren't admonitions, Steph. I respect your view that abortion is murder, but tradition never really bore that out.

For example, the Talmud said "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." After that, the fetus was considered subhuman.

The laws regarding one causing the death of a fetus were not as grave as the death of one who has been born.

The "leaping" in the womb....which Trimester were they in?

And one is not voting "for abortion" when selecting a candidate. One is selecting a candidate who trusts women and doctors to decide what is best for women. It is a right of women, who can choose or not choose the procedure. Now if you think woman aren't capable of deciding correctly, that's a different argument.

Is one also selecting a candidate who believes that men have no reproductive rights?

Can I infer from your statements that you believe that abortions performed after 16 weeks is murder? I felt all of my babies moving by 16 weeks.

You can call abortion a procedure all you like, it doesn't change what it is.....murder.

Well Steph those are pretty strong words given the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

I agree with you in your opposition to abortion as a belated means of birth control.

But I disagree with your pronouncement that it is prohibited by the Bible and I disagree that it is prohibited under our legal system.

I'm not alone in my "pronouncement" about the Bible. Most of the world's Christians agree with my interpretation.

Slavery was legal in this country once too. That didn't make it moral or just.

Well that is my point.

I did not say it was moral or just.

I just said it is not illegal nor is it prohibited by the Bible.

So now we are on the same page.

We personally do not support it.

No....we don't. I support criminalizing abortion in this country. I don't just "personally not support it". Can you say the same?

Nor do I agree with your position that the Bible prohibits abortion. Your interpretation of the Bible is to consider anything you disagree with to be a "parable". That's a copout I'm not going to let you just weasle word out of.

No....we don't. I support criminalizing abortion in this country. I don't just "personally not support it". Can you say the same?

But what about the Constitution?

The Constitution says people are entitled to their lives. You can't murder another person.

The Constitution made the Supreme Court the final arbiter when there is a dispute such as this.

So until a future Court decides otherwise, Abortion is not murder.

No matter what Stephanie says.

But that does not mean it is morally acceptable for everyone.

And we do not have anyone designated to be the final arbiter on religous matters.

Unless you are Catholic I guess it is the Pope.

But my final arbiter is me.

Even the Apostle Paul acknowledged that sometimes he spoke for himself as a man and did not always speak for God.

SCOTUS allowed slavery to continue in this country for almost 100 years. Was Lincoln wrong to emancipate the slaves? Did he overstep his Constitutional authority?

Stephanie wrote:SCOTUS allowed slavery to continue in this country for almost 100 years. Was Lincoln wrong to emancipate the slaves?

Morally, no. Legally, yes.

But we should remember that Lincoln proclaimed the emancipation of the slaves only in the territories that were already in rebellion. It took a Constitutional Amendment to emancipate the slaves in the "border states".

Did he overstep his Constitutional authority?

Yes. The Constitution specifically alllowed slavery.

Today Lincoln is viewed as a hero. Do you think Lincoln was a hero?

Do you think he did the "right" thing? Was that moral and just?

Racial segregation is morally repugnant. Past Supreme Courts did nothing to uphold equal rights for black citizens. Partisan Democrats, like Sherm, trash guys like Trent Lott & Strom Thurmond because their associations with racist groups. Yet here Sherm is telling me that abortion is morally wrong but candidates that associate themselves and receive funding from pro-abortion lobbies are ok to vote for? He supports Senators like Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who use abortion as a litmus test for who will and will not be confirmed to judicial appointments and that's ok......even though abortion is morally wrong.

That's a double standard, Ziggy. You keep defending Sherm's convoluted logic all you like, it doesn't change a thing.

That's a double standard, Ziggy. You keep defending Sherm's convoluted logic all you like, it doesn't change a thing.

I am not so much "defending his convoluted logic" as I am:

1- Defending his right to his logic- however "convoluted" you or anyone else think it be, and

2- Recognizing that, as a practical matter, abortion, like slavery 150 years ago- is the law of the land. We can change that via some revolution or other, either at the ballot box by supporting candidiates who would favor changing the Constitution to allow states to criminalize abortion, or by a violent rebellion similar to what we saw in the mid 1800s.

I think that merely hoping to have appointed and approved Judges that would re-interpret the Constitution to pretend that is says something it doesn't say, instead of amending the Constitution, would be to corrupt the Constitution. The debate should be about changing the Constitution- not just about hoping that the political winds will blow a different direction for a few decades.

But the political power brokers and king makers would mush prefer that abortion (and "gay rights") be available as wedge issues to divide voters and take their focus away from other public issues- issues like fiscal integrity and the security of constitutional freedoms.

Unlike slavery, abortion was not a public issue 220 years ago. The Founders did not contemplate that it would be- just as they did not contemplate a lot of what has come about since then.

Ziggy,

Even under the scenario that you paint as the "best way" to end the murder of unborn children in this country Sherm will not vote against the candidates that block that path. So I'm sorry but your defense of Sherm is invalid.

He can think and vote however he chooses, this is America and I would not deny him that right. However, for a man to state that he finds abortion to be personally morally wrong but morally right for others is completely meaningless. He does nothing to change things. What is Sherm doing to make abortion illegal in this country? He isn't trying becaue he is OK with it. He can't have an abortion because he can't get pregnant. He couldn't stop his daughter from aborting his grandchild and if his wife wanted to abort his children he wouldn't have a daughter to have an abortion to begin with.

Does he think it's morally acceptable that I could sneak behind my husband's back and abort his child if that's what I want to do? Does he think that taxpayers should be funding morally wrong abortions? What is he doing to reduce the number of abortions in this country? What are the politician he supports doing to end late-term abortions?

So yes, he has the right to think and vote as he chooses, but I have the right to continue to point out how hypocritical I think he, and anyone like him, is.

Well zig I would point out that I think it was Constitutional for Lincoln to take the action he did under his inherent power as Commander in Chief in time of open rebellion.

And it is clear Stephanie has no respect for anyone's opinion other than her own on this issue.

She criticizes my interpretation of Scripture and then turns around and claims inerrancy in her own interpretation even though elsewhere she denies the whole concept of Christianity.

She is an authoritarian and if you dont agree with her then watch out.

She is an authoritarian and if you dont agree with her then watch out.

Why? What did she do to you? Defend your right to speak out and vote? [shudders] Oooh. That's pretty rough. She's an authoritarian because she tries to convince you that you are wrong? And you post here for some other purpose?

Even under the scenario that you paint as the "best way" to end the murder of unborn children in this country Sherm will not vote against the candidates that block that path.

Well, if abortion were the only issue a voter should be concerned about, this would be a logical complaint.

But how many voters are single issue voters? The political king-makers would like us all to be single issue voters on certain issues, of course. That would make their jobs oh so easy- just focus on the wedge issues and not talk about nor let the voters think about anything else.

But our world is not so simple. The American public as a whole is not so obsessed with single issue political tunnel vision.

Do you think they should be?

Ziggy,

I agree that the best way to have the abortion fight is through amending the Constitution, and I also agree that those in power "like" having it a wedge issue. It makes the public somewhat complacent, as those on either side will at very least refuse to support the candidate speaking for the other (and I am one of those people).

I also agree with Stephanie that it ought to be a litmus test, or at least one of prevailing interest. If abortion is murder, then it cannot be a secondary matter. If abortion is not murder, then it is nobody's business what someone does.

shermangeneral wrote:Well zig I would point out that I think it was Constitutional for Lincoln to take the action he did under his inherent power as Commander in Chief in time of open rebellion.

And it is clear Stephanie has no respect for anyone's opinion other than her own on this issue.

She criticizes my interpretation of Scripture and then turns around and claims inerrancy in her own interpretation even though elsewhere she denies the whole concept of Christianity.

She is an authoritarian and if you dont agree with her then watch out.

What makes me authoritarian? All I have done is point out what I perceive as your hypocrisy. If that makes you uncomfortable, then I think you must at least see how others could view your stance as hypocritical.

ziggy wrote:

Even under the scenario that you paint as the "best way" to end the murder of unborn children in this country Sherm will not vote against the candidates that block that path.

Well, if abortion were the only issue a voter should be concerned about, this would be a logical complaint.

But how many voters are single issue voters? The political king-makers would like us all to be single issue voters on certain issues, of course. That would make their jobs oh so easy- just focus on the wedge issues and not talk about nor let the voters think about anything else.

But our world is not so simple. The American public as a whole is not so obsessed with single issue political tunnel vision.

Do you think they should be?

I think voters need to have priorities.

I will not vote for someone who supports the right of others to murder the most innocent and defenseless members of our society simply out of convenience and then label it "choice". Where's the baby's "choice"? Why don't father's have a "choice"? All this occurs and a tiny fraction of medical professionals in this country are making hefty profits by using their medical license as cover for murder.

It's disgusting. Why should I be quiet about it? Why shouldn't I list abortion as a top priority? Why shouldn't I demand my fellow Americans begin holding their politicians accountable for their votes and their stance on this issue?