mckinley: Yeah I read supplies came to be the deciding factor. I have to disagree to some degree over it being just economics and not slavery as the two were intertwined.

mckinley: "The civil war was about economics and not the immorality of slavery"

It wasn't one or the other, it was both. If slavery was not immoral, there would have been no civil war. If the souths economy was not so closely tied to slavery, there would have been little objection to obolishing slavery. It was more economical (convenient) to use slaves, if you were able to overcome or simply ignore any moral objection to enslaving people and forcing them to work.

The same kind of ideological debate is going on today in regard to abortion. It's more convenient and economically more feasible to not have a child than it is to have one. Kids are expensive and time consuming. If someone wants to fool around but not deal with needy little people (who will drain his/her finances and freedom) then they too need to either ignore objections to or to justify ending the little gubers life.

Seeing the baby makes it much more difficult for overcoming the moral objections to killing it, that's why the pro abortion crowd objects to right to life groups encouraging mothers to get sonograms.

Pro abortionists will also tell you that you can't compare abortion to slavery, because one hasn't anything to do with the other. If this is true, then why was it necessary to make blacks out to seem less than human and the fetus not at all human? The only way to overcome moral objections to killing people is to make them out to not be people. This was true with slavery then, and is true today with abortion.

mckinley: We've had two Democratic presidents in 34 years."

Doesn't matter if all or none were Democrats. There are reasons why people vote the way they do, and those reasons have little to do with how many times a Republican or Democrat has won an election.

"It isn't going to go away and there are pro choice Republicans too."

There are pro abortion Independents and pro life Democrats as well. Party affiliation is only relevant when you look at what your party as a whole favors and what it opposes. The Democratic party as a whole and Democrats in general favor abortion over the pro life position. But if you are in the minority opinion among your peers, then there is nothing unusual about that.

Take a little trip back in time, and ask yourself how many people probably believed slavery wasn't going to go away either. The legality of abortion or slavery isn't the issue. The issue should be (if you are a Christian) is it okay in the eyes of God to end the life of a child regardless of the childs stage of development.

There were Christian slaves and Christian slave owners during St Pauls life, but I seriously doubt there were any Christians who thought it was okay to kill a child.

"Do I have blood on my hands if I vote Democratic?"

If you support abortion then yes, at least indirectly if not directly, you have blood on your hands. You are not only responsible for what you do, but also responsible for what you encourage other people to do.



Being an adult sucks, doesn't it?

Iamon lyme:re : Being an adult sucks, doesn't it? "

Actually , "being an adult" is ever elusive for some .Children think they have all the answers don't they

The Col: Especially it seems when it comes to history. An old saying regarding history is that we are here because our ancestors were victors.

... ie they killed.

N' sometimes believing they were doing Gods will.

Even now there are instances of a literal evangelical style Christian belief system that teaches that children can be 'witches' that was spread in various African countries by missionaries...

http://www.christianpost.com/news/child-deaths-on-rise-in-uk-linked-to-fundamentalist-african-churches-70946/

The recent case of a couple convicted in the witchcraft-related murder of a teen girl in London sheds light on a larger problem affecting Britain and other Western countries that has its origins in fundamentalist African churches, according to observers.

Magalie Bamu, 29, and her boyfriend Eric Bikubi, 28 were found guilty of torturing Bamu's 15-year-old sister and then allowing her to drown, in an apparent attempt to rid her of the evil spirits they believed she was possessed by, The Telegraph reported. Cases like this are becoming more common in England involving immigrants from Central Africa, where children are often accused of witchcraft, are settling in and bringing such beliefs with them.

There are apparently no less than 84 child abuse cases linked to witchcraft that have been investigated in the past 10 years in the U.K., the Metropolitan Police revealed.

Witchcraft has been present in the Central African region for centuries, but it has recently been integrated with Christianity – pastors in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Nigeria often take money from parents to perform exorcism rituals which they claim will rid their children of demonic possessions. The belief that children can be possesed by spirits has its roots in traditional African practises, but many of these churches have tried to connect those traditional beliefs with passages in the Bible that say Jesus healed people posessed by demons.

According to The Telegraph's report, there are more than 20,000 children in DR Congo who are forced to live homeless on the streets of the capital Kinshasa because they have been accused of sorcery.

The Col: It's not an easy transition. Everyone likes the idea of having rights and freedoms reserved for adults, and most can't wait to be old enough to have and exercise those rights. And then (why only then?) we find out about the other side of that coin... dare I say it?


*responsibility*

The Col: Children do have all the answers. I know this because I was once a children myself. You wouldn't know it looking at me now (Don't look at me!) but it's true.

Adulthood had more heachaches waiting for me than I had ever guessed. It never occurred to me that anything I did would ever come back to haunt me, until it started coming back to haunt me. The guy who wrote Amazing Grace had more coming back to haunt him than I ever did, but he turned out okay. So maybe I'll be okay too... that's the sort of thing I will invest my hope in. I won't "hope" because of some cheesy political campaign slogan, because that kind of emotional pandering is about as empty as it gets.

Iamon lyme:

> If you support abortion then yes, at least indirectly if not directly, you have blood on your hands. You are not only responsible for what you do, but also responsible for what you encourage other people to do.

Does that apply to wars too? I mean, the USA and its allies killed 300,000 people in Afghanistan; 750,000 in the Gulf War; 400,000 more in the Iraq war; 6,000,000 in Vietnam; 3,000,000 in Korea, etc.

If people voted for those governments that went to war, do those people have blood in their hands? If you are a person who supported any of these wars, do you have blood in your hands? Is believing in war different from believing in abortion?

Übergeek 바둑이: Romney protested the anti Vietnam war protests , but chose to go to Paris instead of Vietnam.That takes stones

Übergeek 바둑이: She asked me a loaded question, and probably didn't expect me to answer. I don't care if it was intended as a rhetorical question or not, liberals have their own way of showing aggression and I have my own way of dealing with it. So sue me.

Your question is even sillier than hers, but I'll answer it anyway... yes, I believe there are wars and I believe there are abortions. Hey, you asked.


I don't get to decide who is a real person and who isn't, that's for liberals to decide. Slaves weren't real people, so it was okay for biggots to have them as slaves. Jews were not real people, so it was okay for the nazis to abuse and kill them. And today (according to liberals) babies are not real people... until they manage to get outside of the womb, then they magically become real people. So the little guber better hurry to get outta there, before someone decides to kill him/her. Until he/she pops outta there, he/she is not a real person... according to liberals like you.

Iamon lyme: well said

Übergeek 바둑이: I suspect you will want to come back to complain that I didn't answer your question... here was your question:

"If you are a person who supported any of these wars, do you have blood in your hands? Is believing in war different from believing in abortion?"

If you want to draw comparisons between war and abortion you are not helping the pro abortionist argument. Wars are usually fought for one of two reasons. Depending on which side you are looking at, wars are fought to get something or to defend something. Sometimes both sides are aggressors who are out to get something, but you'll never see two defenders going at it... why would they?

If I ever support a war effort, then that support would fall to the defenders side. Anything wrong with that? If so, then according to you the little girl who killed two guys breaking into her home has blood on her hands too.

And since you are comparing abortion to war then let me ask you who you believe the aggressor is. Is it the baby, or the adult(s)? What are adults who kill babies defending, their right to not take care of a defenseless little person, or maybe the abortionist's right to earn a living?

Adults can defend themselves if they need to. Babies can't. If you can convince me that babies are not completely defenseless and have done something (anything) to deserve being killed, then you might have a valid argument.

Iamon lyme:

The reason why I drew a comparison between war and abortion is because there is an interesting thing that came to my mind.

I noticed that some of the people who detest abortion (pro-life) sometimes also defend the right to own guns, the right to fight pre-emptive wars, and the use of the death penalty. This is more prevalent among what we call the "right wing ".

By the same token, among the "left wing" you will find the "pro-choice" argument among people who want gun control, who protest against pre-emptive wars, and who want to put an end to the death penalty.

It is interesting that on both sides we see people wanting to defend life, whether it be an unborn child, victims of violent crime or both civilians and military involved in a war.

"I believe that we should protect the life of an unborn child, just as much as I believe that the constitution guarantees people's rights to own potentially lethal weapons, and that our nation has the right to fight pre-emptive wars in which thousands of people will die. Furthermore, the state has the right to put an end to the life of a dangerous criminal."

"I believe that we should limit the ownership of lethal weapons only to law enforcement agencies, I believe that we should never fight pre-emptive wars that kill thousands, I believe that it is wrong to kill a criminal regardless of his crimes; but I also believe that a woman's choice takes precendence over the life of her unborn child."

To me this is an interesting contradiction. As with many other aspects of human nature, we are riled by contradictions.

> If you want to draw comparisons between war and abortion you are not
> helping the pro abortionist argument.

Of course it does not help the argument. From my point of view, if you believe in pretecting human life, should you not protect ALL human life? Unborn children, victims of crime, victims of war, prisoners on death row, etc. The truth is tht the situation is never simple and each case is so different.

> Wars are usually fought for one of two reasons. Depending on which side you
> are looking at, wars are fought to get something or to defend something.
> Sometimes both sides are aggressors who are out to get something, but you'll
> never see two defenders going at it... why would they?

Since our mind finds a contradiction between our beliefs and our actions, we must justify ourselves in how we act. We tell ourselves that we are defending something. I am defending an unborn child, I am defending my family from a criminal who broke into my home, I am defending my nation from hostile forces external to my nation, I am defending society from a dangerous criminal, etc. It is the only way that we can justify our actions. To me the contradiction just lies in how we defend one human life, and yet have no problem taking another (or letting somebody else take another on our behalf).

> And since you are comparing abortion to war then let me ask you who you
> believe the aggressor is. Is it the baby, or the adult(s)? What are adults who kill
> babies defending, their right to not take care of a defenseless little person, or
> maybe the abortionist's right to earn a living?

One can make the same argument about a war. When a plane drops a 2,000-pound bomb, can the people on the ground defend themselves? The military might if they have guns aimed at the planes, but what about the thousands who die under the bombs? Can civilians really defend themselves? What about a baby who dies in war because of either bombs, or the destruction of infrastructure such as hospitals, water treatment plants, etc.? In the Gulf War 500,000 civilians died, plus 250,000 Iraqi military. In the aftermath of the war the United nations estimated that a further 1,000,000 prople died because of lack of clean water, hospitals, medicines, etc. War is a terrible thing, and most of the people who die are defenseless, even when the military claims to have "smart bombs" and "satellite guided missiles". The only reason why the military always claims to try to protect civilians is because public opinion forces them to say so.

> Adults can defend themselves if they need to. Babies can't. If you can convince
> me that babies are not completely defenseless and have done something
> (anything) to deserve being killed, then you might have a valid argument.

Of course babies are defenseless, as are many vicitims of violent gun crime. At the time of execution, the prisoner is defenseless. Yes, he has committed terrible crimes and he is being executed for them, but can he really fight the lethal injection and the gas chamber? Somehow we tell ourselves that he is not defenseless and that he deserves to die.

Then does anyone really DESERVE to be killed? If that is the case, who decides? A serial killer is easy to justify. A terrorist is easy to justify so long as we ignore some of the motivations behind his actions (such as western empires invading their countries for the last 400 years.) What about a political prisoner? Is it justifiable to kill a communist? Western empries certaily thought it was justifiable during the Cold War. We all find certain forms of killing justifiable. It is human nature, and our nature is conflicted.

Something that the pro-life people sometimes forget is that the pro-choice people do not go around killing babies willy nilly. Most pro-choice people I have met actually hate abortion, but they justify it in terms of somehow saving a woman's life, and sparing an unwanted child what otherwise would be a bad life. To the pro-life people that is weak argument, but then, if society is going to ban abortion, then society has to provide every tool possible to avoid unwanted pregnancies. That means solid sexual education since childhood and easy availability of contraceptives. Will all pro-life people accept easily available contraceptives to teenagers and adults alike? Probably not.

Übergeek 바둑이: I was talking about abortion. You seem to want to lump a lot of things together and compare them to abortion, as though they are all the same things. War, guns, death penalty, self defense... you didn't bring up euthanasia, but I suspect you don't have a problem with that.

To say abortions don't just happen willy nilly is naive. Most abortions are not performed because of rape or incest or for the life of the mother, or for any other justifiable sounding reason. Those were the reasons given when pro abortion lobbyists were working to legalize abortion. They even assured everyone that those would be the only reasons someone could get an abortion, and there would be no abortions on demand.

Well what do you know, surprise surprise, the joke is on us... because everyone knows that most abortions are done simply because someone doesn't want a baby. They want to do what it takes to make a baby, but they don't want the baby. And they don't want to simply give the baby up for adoption. That would spare the life of the child, but at the same time would be a terrible inconvenience and emotionally draining.

Übergeek 바둑이: I know about the various things the "left wing" wants to accomplish. And I know how on the surface they all sound like good things, but frankly I don't believe most "left wingers" even if they are sincere have actually thought any of it through.

The reality of gun control, limiting or banning hand guns, is that you cannot count on criminals to obey any restrictions on gun ownership. Taking guns out of the hands of responsible citizens does not take guns out the hands of criminals... empowering criminals by disarming everyone else does not reduce the chance of violent crime occurring. That should be obvious, but apparently it isn't in the minds of (your words, not mine) "left wingers". What do intend to defend yourself with if confronted by an armed bandit in the middle of the night, as you are you are laying in bed in your own home? A pillow? Or perhaps the ability to talk to him using your powers of intellectual persuasion? The best you could hope for is being laughed at before he does what he came to do... and that's assuming he only came to take some of your stuff.

Iamon lyme: stop talking sense

Übergeek 바둑이: If you think sex education is a way to make sex safer for kids then you should talk to their parents, but in my experience the parents are the last people "left wingers" want to talk to. They have to talk to them, but they would prefer only talking to their kids. Kids are the same way... they prefer talking to one another than to adults.

You know what sex education actually does? It encourages kids who are already thinking about sex to go do it, and how many horny teenage boys do you think have the self restraint to stop and put on a condom? Kids are not adults, and you can't expect them to think or act like responsible adults. Unless those adults are "left wingers", then life can be a never ending party as far as those kids are concerned.

Übergeek 바둑이: Oh yeah, I almost forgot... abortion is also now seen as a safety net for teenagers who want to have sex, but for some unexplainable reason the contraception didn't work. So there's another "good" reason abortion should be legal and stay that way. Only a "right winger" would want to take away anyone's safety net.

My wife and I both used contraceptives after we were married, so I have no idea except in your own imagination where you get the idea that "right wingers" are against contraception. I remember joking to my wife that we could have named the first three of our kids after the contraception that didn't work. If we had done that then the first one's name would have been The Sponge. The only method that DID work was when we were going at it during that short period of time when she wasn't fertile. So in other words, we could have called our fifth child The Rhythm Method. And YOU want to encourage kids to use birth control?

Hey, Ubber intellect, wake up!!! You're dreaming!!!

mckinley: That's a strawman argument.

mckinley: you were talking about people on the right. I'm pointing out that it's people on the left who are the hypocrites.

mckinley: "I still haven't decided who I want for president."..."I said that back in July. Do you have that post saved or something? I had to do a word search. What I meant is self explanatory"

I remembered it was the first thing you said, so I did a search to make sure I wasn't mistaken. The reason I remember it is because to me it means you either voted for Obama four years ago, or four years ago you were not yet old enough to vote. All I know about you is you are old enough to drive and are from the south.

I'm not sure if you are aware of just how self explanatory that statement was. If I had said I don't know who I'll be voting for until I mark the ballot this November, then that too would be self explanatory.

mckinley: [ Should I be flattered or scared? ;) ]

I wouldn't know.

"Chipping away" at you? Okay then, next time you say something like the south didn't lose because of morality, they lost because they ran out supplies, instead of trying to get you to clarify I'll just offer my heartfelt condolences and say something like...

"Well darn it, if you didn't run out of supplies then maybe you could of won that war. It's darn shame, especially since you had to give up using a cost efficient and hard working work force, people who worked for practically nothin' whether they wanted to or not."


By the way, you don't don't need to feel flattered or scared. I'm not the sort of riff raff you need to be at all concerned about, one way or the other.

mckinley: [ You can remember a post from July but not September. ]

If I didn't remember the post from September, then I wouldn't have asked what you meant.

[ I said people weren't fighting because slavery was immoral. ]

Yep, that's what I remember you saying.

[ I don't think I'm vague. ]

Nope, that was clear enough.

[ I thought I was respecting ppl's intelligence. ]

So why not respect mine? All I wanted to know was if the war was not about morality, and slavery not an issue, why was there a war to begin with?

When Ubber compared abortion to war and guns, I explained why I believe those are different issues. And I explained to you my own limited understanding of why there was a war between the North and South. I respected your intelligence by explaining my position, so why can't you respect my intelligence by answering one simple question?

Iamon lyme: Because no-one on this board is obliged to answer any question if they choose not to.

The moderators say that is everyone's right... something like freedom or some weird concept like it!!

(V): Sometimes you have to just let it go.I never got a response from "uber" when I asked him if he still felt our Prime Minister was an idiot for closing the embassy in Iran shortly before the American embassy attack in Libya.

The Col: To coin a phrase.. If I had a dime for every question that others have not answered on this board... I'd have a lot of dimes... or 5p's.. which people generally do find anyway as they are so small... but I'd I loads

(V): Iamon lyme: [ Because no-one on this board is obliged to answer any question if they choose not to. ]

Have you read any of your own past posts? I distinctly remember you demanding Dan and I to answer you, and we weren't even involved in the discussion. It was about abortion. I answered you, not because I had to but because I wanted to, and then you chose to ignore the answer. Of course people have the right to respond or to not respond, so other than proving how transparently hypocritical you can be, you have made no other point here.

Apparently I'm taking unfair advantage by remembering what some of you have said. So I appologize for disrespectively taking the time to think about what you've said, instead of simply reacting like a barking dog...

woof woof, what's that? what's that over there? Oh, gotta pee! what's that woof woof, what's that over there, what's that, gotta pee, sniff sniff, hey man that's good stuff, what's that over there? woof woof sniff sniff gotta pee again what's that over there?

Iamon lyme: Not really, it's been a long time problem with conservatives not answering.. So if you have the right not to, then others do as well.

Not unless you want unequal rights.

(V): I really don't care what you do or don't do, so your complaint has no merit. You can continue tossing out fake bombs and straw man dolls as your answers, and at the same time demand reasonable responses to anything conservatives say. Does that make you a hypocrite? Of course not! You have the right to not say anything sensible when you have nothing sensible to say, so why would anyone complain about that?

Iamon lyme: wow.. you sure are complaining.

"You have the right to not say anything sensible when you have nothing sensible to say, so why would anyone complain about that?"

So apparently do you. As well as Art in his Big Brother style version of history.

Iamon lyme: You and I are so much alike it's scary!

Artful Dodger: "You and I are so much alike it's scary!"

You know what I think is scary? I used to wonder why you got frustrated so easily and called people idiots and morons... now I'm getting frustrated and wanting to do the same.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's because they are stupid. I think the intellectual baby talk and moronic reasoning is just a cover for intellectual dishonesty... because who in their right mind actually thinks saving babies is the same as 'saving' soldiers?

Saving soldiers from what, from being ripped from their mothers wombs? Or how about this, saving babies by not giving them guns and sending them into war before they are born...???

Oh wait, I get it now! Of course! Saving soldiers from being arbitrarily aborted. How could I have missed the connection... woof woof sniff sniff lick lick woof bark sniff lick.

Iamon lyme: intellectual dishonesty runs rampant with the liberals on here. Case in point is the obvious willingness to exploit racism demonstrated in their feigned disgust of my use of the N word. They don't really find disgust in the use of that word. They simply want to use the use of that word as a hammer - but only for political reasons. If the use of the word really mattered, they'd focus on the source. I've quoted LBJ before (un edited) and I always get the same phony response. Such is the racism on the left. They are willing to exploit race to gain politically.

Not ONE of these idiots have ever responded to those that authored the words. That it's the democratic party that originated the word, oppressed blacks, lynched them, segregated them, and when it was politically expedient, fooled them into voting for their party (through pandering and promises of "Hey, let us white guys take care of you! Vote for us and we'll give you money.") That's the democratic party. Blacks have voted democratic for years and what have they to show for it? Not much.

mckinley: Not true. It's still a big deal. You should see my twitter feed. The black conservatives I follow are called all sorts of names by liberals who say they are betraying their race. I see it all the time. Even the media shows it's racism on how they treat the black conservative message. Racism is alive and well and it's in the democratic party. It always has been. Once it was overt but now it's covert. But it's still there strong as ever.

Artful Dodger: So there are no white folk calling fellow white folk traitors for voting for Obama.. not forgetting it's against God.

Artful Dodger: time. "Racism is alive and well and it's in the democratic party. It always has been. Once it was overt but now it's covert. But it's still there strong as ever."

mckinley: They were rude to her and all they could do was the typical liberal crap: yell and swear. Ann is absolutely right in her assertions but those morons didn't want to hear her explain her positions.

It's a total lie that the Republican party is racist bu the left keeps saying it. It's completely true that the Democratic party is the party of racism. They are the ones that fought against civil rights. MLK was a Republican as were many prominent blacks.

It's a myth that the "Southern Democrats" transferred to the Republican party. The lying left tries to paint the Republicans as racists but the truth is that they were and still are the party of racists.

If you are a conservative black you will be vilified by the left. You will be called names and the left will marginalize you. It's the same with conservative women. The left hates them too.

The girls on the view are all idiots and Ann was classy to sit their as they all raised their feathers and squawked like a bunch of frightened chickens.

BTW, there were likely many factors for the civil war but the main goal was to preserve the Union. That was the umbrella and all other factors are under that umbrella.

Artful Dodger: ... you are trying to rewrite recorded history. While it might be true to say at a local level many democrats still were voted in, AT A NATIONAL LEVEL a switch was made due to the civil rights laws.. where the people had voted NATIONALLY for Democrats, they switched and voted for the Republicans as they then were without any real voter base and used the vacuum, by becoming aligned with the POLICIES AT A NATIONAL LEVEL the voters wanted.