Clinton (Religious, title, quote, Inci)

~~TheDonald~~ · 01-11-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

In situations like teenage pregnancy which are primarily in my experience where abortions happen the father usually leave.

You're speaking in complete hypotheticals. It doesn't matter what you're experience with abortion is, it matters what the truth about the matter is. Not only teens have abortions, abortions aren't only from rape victims, and not all fathers have a profound tendency to desert the mothers of their children.

Quote:

This just happened with a friend very recently in fact and you can hardly expect a rapist to stick around now can you?

Again with the rape story, do you have anything else to help prove your point Crowquill? If she doesn't want the baby, put it up for adoption. What if your mother had had you aborted. What if Bob Dylan's mother didn't want him and decided to have him aborted, or Albert Einstein's, or Nikola Tesla's? What kind of world would we live in if every woman decided to just scramble her eggs at every little wimsy? (pardon the distasteful pun)

Quote:

Also childbirth is painful not many woman want to go through with it.

Hence the 6 BILLION people on earth.....

Quote:

I repeat, childbirth is painful.

I repeat, 6 BILLION PEOPLE on earth. And with todays drugs, childbirth is hardly even felt by the mother. They block the pain sensation by temporarily damming the spinal cord.

Quote:

If it was just likeshitting out a child more people would probably go through with it and then if more people went through with it we'd start having problems housing all these children because everyone who didn't want their child would put them up for adoption.

So your excuse for abortion is that we wouldn't have enough space for all the children? That's hardly a reason to KILL THEM. Most parents just move into a larger house. If it came to me either killing my child or getting somewhere bigger to live, I think the choice would be an easy one, silly me.

Quote:

I'm not big on population control type theories, in fact I detest them, but fetuses aren't humans they could be but so could other things I won't get into that is unnecessarily vulgar yet we don't impose a ban on self-pleasure.

So youre comparing killing an unborn child to throwing away a used condom? Sperm dies within minutes of leaving the body. And unless there are some eggs in that condom which have been fertilized, there is no human or potential human in that condom. Are you going to save your used kleenexes after you sneeze, it may have your living germs in it....

Quote:

Um...most people going to abort their child usually feel pretty strongly about getting it aborted and in some cases birthing the child isn't an option for both the fetus and the mother. There would be back alley abortions and it would be a mess, it would be a very huge problem.

Stop with the "back alley abortions" theory, it's compete rubbish. You're saying that becuase people would do it anyway, we should just legalize it to save them the hassle? Hell, let's legalize meth, we know those junkies will shoot it up anyways, let's save them the hassle of jailtime. Pedophilia? Hell, give 'em a couple of 9 year olds, right? Let's save 'em the hassle.

Quote:

I realize everyone wants to believe the best for people but being optimistic and thinking everyone wants to have a child is being very naive.

I didn't say that EVERYONE wants to have a child. I said that if you birth a child and don't want it, there are other couples who would gladly take it off your hands.

Quote:

If they deserve the same rights and securities as a heterosexual couple they deserve marriage. Seeing as thats both a right and a sense of security in the relationship.

I agree that they deserve the same rights and securities, but I just cannot bring myself to label it a "marriage." It's my personal belief that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Call it a legal accord, a matrimony, whatever, just not a "marriage."

Quote:

Now theres a lot of them working, millions if you were to tell them all to go back we'd start having a lot of problems.

I realize this. Like I said, I'm not president, I don't have all the answers to fix our country. But coming here illegally is breaking the law, and crime should not be rewarded.

Quote:

Ameager US wave is much higher than a meager Mexican wage you realize that right? It's not like they're getting an extra dollar a year over here, that wouldn't be worth it. They're making much more over here.

I realize that a meager US wage is much higher than even a high Mexican wage. What I am saying is that it is still not enough. They deserve to be paid well for the work they do, the same wage as a legal american would be paid. This is not possible with them being illegal. This is why a ROAD to amnesty is needed.

Quote:

So what do you want us to do? Send them all the millions back and then face the even more serious problems we would be facing? Like what to do with all the jobs Americans won't do but need to be done?

It's complete bullsh*t to say that illegals only take the jobs that americans don't want. And we would indeed have a problem if we sent them back, that's why I said we should let them serve in the armed forces in return for their amnesty.

Quote:

I'm sorry but are you serious? I wouldn't even want to serve in the armed forces for a year let alone four and I would hardly expect anyone else to want to serve in the armed forces especially for this war that is fucked up in too many ways to get into. Also in many ways you're sending them off to their death. I don't think I need to get into the issue of racism in the army (remember all those lovely photos in certain jails a few years ago?) They wouldn't be treated fairly in the army and that war is disgusting and should never have happened. These people just want to support themselves and their family, they don't want to die for a country they may never receive citizenship for because they didn't live long enough.

You're letting your personal political agenda cloud the facts. If we did this, it would allot millions of illegals their citizenship, letting them earn fair AMERICAN wage. It would give us a strong army. I in no place said to send them over seas or in the war. Let them serve in the National Guard. We need troops here in the US just as bad as we need them overseas.

Quote:

Argh did you decide to completely ignore nearly everything I typed? Mexico DID have a thriving economy at one time. Mexico had vast oil reserves that made them a country in strong competitions with others in the oil market but as I said America started its little lending campaign and held the oil as collateral putting Mexico in somewhat of a fix. We expected them to pay off loans while taking there main source of income, which isn't a surprise we've always put oil first.

Yep, we stole all of mexico's oil. Thats why we buy most of ours from the middle east and venezuela, rather than using the mexican oil we've had in storage for 35 supposed years, makes sense.... Spend billions on oil when we already have some cooped up, free for the taking...

~~TheDonald~~ · 01-11-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Mexico's government is partly to blame for there problems but you aren't listening America can't just sit here and say "It's Mexico's problem" when it was also very much the fault of America.

Stop being so down on America. Mexico has no one else to blame for their problems. When did it become America's job to bail out every other country when they get into trouble? Ever heard of self-reliance? America is no mexico's big brother, we do not need to fight their battles, and we are not to blame for their economic down falls.

Quote:

I'm sure if the Mexican government had the ability to just magically eliminate poverty in their country they would in a second but the fact is they don't. They aren't able to offer low interest loans or create good industry wages for people at factories, it's not like they're in the situation for kicks.

Keeping the poor in poverty is the only way to keep the rich in luxury. Don't fool yourself.

Quote:

I don't think you really understand the problem with malquiladoras. These are factories set up by AMERICAN BASED COMPANIES IN MEXCIO FOR LOW WAGE LABOR. That's the key thing, people are working in conditions very similar to some asian factories.

Again, where's the problem? You're telling me that these mexicans would rather have sit at home and have NO money than have a sh*tty job and have SOME money? They're thankfun for these jobs, and it only helps to pump money into their beaten-down economy.

Quote:

The Mexican government doesn't have the ability to say no to these factories because they're owned by major American companies like walmart and if they were to say something they run the risk of finacial and diplomatic seclusion from the US in a time when aid is very much needed but we won't give it because we have no interest in serving anyone else but ourselves.

I agree, the united states SHOULD be doing more to help impoverished countries. But when their own government refuses to help, how does it become the US's problem?

Quote:

More people need to realize just how much of a pile of crap these "War on Terrorisms" and "Getting Rid of Sadams" missions are. If we really had interest in helping countries we would be in Darfur right now and we would also have been in Mexico along time ago.

Couldn't agree more.

Quote:

How do slaughter houses benefit society? By pumping up obesity and blood pressures and creating some of the most disgusting industries ever?

That's what I said, you must have confused my statements with those of TheBig3KilledMyRainDog's.

Quote:

Anyway there's a difference between animals and unborn and unthinking fetuses. I think Animal abuse and the meat industry is more akin to child abuse than abortion anyway and if we're going to continue to argue abortion we shouldn't sit here with our apples and oranges when the oranges aren't necessary.

There is a huge difference between abortion and killing animals for food. Man has domain over the animals. We're at the top of the foodchain. The fact is, there arent enough vegetable and wheat fields on the planet to feed us humans, so we must turn to eating animals to survive. It's simply the foodchain, not cold blooded murder.

~~TheDonald~~ · 01-11-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

I'd hate to further the off topic but I feel compelled to interject here and ask if you wouldn't mind clarifying what marriage is to you? I'm only assuming that it's not just about a life long commitment, but also about procreation. If I'm right, does that mean couples that can't have kids (or don't want any) shouldn't be allowed to call their union marriage either?

Marriage is a legal bond between a willing, legal man and a willing, legal woman. It has nothing to do with the ability to procreate, because un-wed couple can just as easily have children.

I hate to be close-minded or offensive, but I can't help but to put my foot down in this matter. Like I said, give homoesxuals all of the same rights as a married couple. Tax write-offs, whatever. Call it a legal bond, accord, have them be seen as a legal couple in the eyes of the law. Just don't label it a "marriage". It can be the exact same thing as a marriage, but I reserve that term for a man and a woman.

Like I said, I hate to be close-minded or offensive, but this is my personal belief on the subject.

adidasss · 01-11-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDonald

Marriage is a legal bond between a willing, legal man and a willing, legal woman. I hate to be close-minded or offensive, but I can't help but to put my foot down in this matter. Like I said, give homoesxuals all of the same rights as a married couple. Tax write-offs, whatever. Call it a legal bond, accord, have them be seen as a legal couple in the eyes of the law. Just don't label it a "marriage". It can be the exact same thing as a marriage, but I reserve that term for a man and a woman.

Like I said, I hate to be close-minded or offensive, but this is my personal belief on the subject.

Why would you hate being closed minded when that's exactly what you are? No offense or anything...

I don't really give a shit, I think you give too much meaning to a simple word...Besides, whatever you call it legally, colloquially it's gonna be called marriage whether you like it or not...:\

~~TheDonald~~ · 01-11-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

Why would you hate being closed minded when that's exactly what you are? No offense or anything...

I'm not being sarcastuc here, it's honestly not my goal to offend anyone.

Quote:

I don't really give a shit, I think you give too much meaning to a simple word...Besides, whatever you call it legally, colloquially it's gonna be called marriage whether you like it or not...:\

I may be putting too much emphasis on a simple word, but that's just how it's gonna be. I just can't bring myself to call a relation between 2 men or 2 women a "marriage."

~~TheDonald~~ · 01-11-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungolowbill357

How is he being close minded? You just want to pull that out, to make him look bad, and make yourself look like a poor persecuted homosexual. Bull****.

He's right, I am being close-minded. But it's a personal belief and I stand by it.

~~TheDonald~~ · 01-11-2008, 03:42 PM

I don't know if there are any homosexuals here, but I have a question. If homosexuals got all the same rights and securities as a married couple, just w/o the title of "marriage", would they honestly complain about it?

~~TheDonald~~ · 01-11-2008, 03:47 PM

If they would complain about it, that seems a little close-minded as well.

~~TheDonald~~ · 01-11-2008, 04:00 PM

Question for Adidasss:

If you were on the brink of starvation, and someone offered you 2 slices of bread with some turkey inbetween, but told you that you can't call it a sandwhich, would you take it and eat it, or tell them to f*ck off and then starve to death?

Mockingbird! · 01-11-2008, 04:09 PM

huh, this argument will go on for a whille, but honestly, i dont see how you can say it is fair to discriminate against homosexuals and not allow them to have a marrrige like any normal man and woman would have. i just basiclly dont see whats is wrong with them being allowed to get married, thats all

01-11-2008, 04:09 PM	#60 (permalink)
Mockingbird! Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 58	huh, this argument will go on for a whille, but honestly, i dont see how you can say it is fair to discriminate against homosexuals and not allow them to have a marrrige like any normal man and woman would have. i just basiclly dont see whats is wrong with them being allowed to get married, thats all __________________ Is it cruel or kind Not too speak my mind And to lie to you Rather than hurt you? For after several large gins He'll confess all of his sins But still he'll hide from you Hide what's inside from you

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-11-2008, 03:42 PM	#57 (permalink)
~~TheDonald~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: The 3rd plateau of my mind Posts: 41	I don't know if there are any homosexuals here, but I have a question. If homosexuals got all the same rights and securities as a married couple, just w/o the title of "marriage", would they honestly complain about it?

01-11-2008, 03:47 PM	#58 (permalink)
~~TheDonald~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: The 3rd plateau of my mind Posts: 41	If they would complain about it, that seems a little close-minded as well.

01-11-2008, 04:00 PM	#59 (permalink)
~~TheDonald~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: The 3rd plateau of my mind Posts: 41	Question for Adidasss: If you were on the brink of starvation, and someone offered you 2 slices of bread with some turkey inbetween, but told you that you can't call it a sandwhich, would you take it and eat it, or tell them to f*ck off and then starve to death?