Where's the love, where's the love?
|
Where's the love, where's the love?
Do the math, how many times does one have to explain things to you before you get it? All you do is dismiss whatever is told you, so what's the point? Maybe it's you that should give the another's beliefs deeper thought. Who made you the arbiter of truth and morality anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Ask yourself a question is ancient Joe seriously thinking he could carry the load of President. I'm as old as he is, intelligent, but seriously, health has to be a serious issue
One genuine explanation would do it. You are presently at zero.Quote:
how many times does one have to explain things to you before you get it?
Good point to consider.Quote:
Ask yourself a question is ancient Joe seriously thinking he could carry the load of President. I'm as old as he is, intelligent, but seriously, health has to be a serious issue
Is it your inability to comprehend, or the unwillingness to comprehend?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Are you just stuck in the crap of your own self appointed moral superiority, or to closed minded to take in different ideas?
Maybe we should just drop this subject as it has devolved into a futile exercise in useless proselytization.
Not with Joe, he has always been a model of good health at any age. Now the dufus, his only exercise is running his mouth about absolute nonsense and bull crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
None of the above. You have not provided, in your name calling and finger pointing, an explanation. You need to explain, as no one has done, why you think it should be legal to kill an unborn child but not legal to kill a child after birth. Perhaps your anger is a reflection of your frustration with realizing it is a valid question for which you do not have an answer. Perhaps this will become your awakening.Quote:
Is it your inability to comprehend, or the unwillingness to comprehend?
Are you just stuck in the crap of your own self appointed moral superiority, or to closed minded to take in different ideas?
Maybe we should just drop this subject as it has devolved into a futile exercise in useless proselytization.
It may be a valid question in your own closed mind but stupid as hell in mine.
I will ask again, where's the love?
Why are you so eager for us to believe that abortionist are helping women, how they have helped so many over the years. Must we remind you that someone necessarily must die in the process. "But it's legal." Sadly, legal is not always synonymous with right. In January of 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion throughout all 40 weeks of pregnancy. More than 60 million people have been aborted since then. But we have believed lies: that children are a burden—not a blessing, that when in crisis, eliminating a pregnancy will fix things.
Be a force for good. Speak for those who have no voice, show "love" to despairing women, share your resources, your home. With our words and our actions, we can refute the lie that this abortionist and our culture speaks because, ALL babies are wanted. Deadly indifference to protecting life isn't tangential to the abortion industry's barbaric practices-but at its very core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
Love for those who get abortions -- the thirteen-year-old girl whose uncle got her pregnant while sexually molesting her. Love for the young woman who was gang-raped while walking back to her college dorm after an evening class. Love for the woman on a date with a so-far wonderful man who decided he wouldn't accept her "no."
Love form the Abortionists- acting as if abortions are an act of love.
The inherent and inhumane attitude that is seemingly pervasive in the abortion industry, dehumanizing not only the preborn babies they kill, but the women who come to them for help as well. And on top of this, there is a glorification of abortion, not as a “necessary evil” but as something to be celebrated and cheered. Abortion is a violent act. In the first trimester, when new research indicates preborn babies can feel pain. Seeing these attitudes on display from abortionists, it’s not difficult to see why they receive so little respect from the medical community, and are seen as "the lowest of the low."
This is not love...trading the truth for a lie.
So if we said, "OK. We'll consent to abortions in those types of cases," would you be prepared to outlaw abortions in other cases?
I guess this is question #2.
Are you tawkin' to me, Willis?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Evidently not.
waltero was in the thread, too. Wasn't sure if you were asking him. Please address me by name if you ask me specifically. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Remember my observation? "Extraordinary evasiveness" was the actual quote. And thus we see it exhibited.
Quote:
waltero was in the thread, too. Wasn't sure if you were asking him.
What was question #1?
True Dat!Quote:
Remember my observation? "Extraordinary evasiveness" was the actual quote. And thus we see it exhibited.
Consider it's not the question we evade, but the behavior of the asker. Condescending and dismissive are not engaging qualities.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
JL's questions so far:Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
1. Is there a MORAL difference between killing an unborn child and killing a child already born? If so, what is the difference?
2. OK. We'll (i.e., JL will) consent to abortions in these types of cases: the thirteen-year-old girl whose uncle got her pregnant while sexually molesting her, the young woman who was gang-raped while walking back to her college dorm after an evening class, the woman on a date with a so-far wonderful man who decided he wouldn't accept her "no." Would you be prepared to outlaw abortions in other cases?
An Unwanted pregnancy (child) is a unwanted pregnancy? People might find having a child traumatizing, might hold true for abortions too. I'm sure they will need a lifetime of therapy regardless.Quote:
the thirteen-year-old girl whose uncle got her pregnant while sexually molesting her, the young woman who was gang-raped while walking back to her college dorm after an evening class, the woman on a date with a so-far wonderful man who decided he wouldn't accept her "no."
with all the talk about diversity ;the top 3 Dem candidates are white dudes . lol
Democrats struggle with diversity. The Dem gov of New Jersey removed the flag of Mississippi because, he said, "New Jersey is rooted in diversity, and the flag doesn't fit." Now I am not a supporter of that flag, but I wonder if it occurred to him for even a second that diversity requires that I tolerate that with which I don't necessarily agree? How can you promote diversity by narrowing the field of ideas? Now he could have said that the confederate battle emblem on the flag promotes inequality, and that would have been a reasonable objection, but "the flag doesn't fit" into diversity? Actually, that flag would promote diversity. Perhaps not in a good way, but still would promote diversity.
The reason they struggle with diversity is because they divide people into subsect and groups of interests . Eventually the rights and privileges of one minority group will run counter to the rights and privileges of another .
Would you expect the Jewish community to tolerate the Nazi swastika? Of course not, so can we apply the same standard to the symbols and statutes of the slave days? I don't think we want that kind of diversity, why would you?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Nature of the beast. Diversity is like a kitchen with many chefs, kind of messy until the it's actually presented for consumption. For sure it will be a while until the dems serve up the nominee. The process calls for consensus though and it's rather early.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
"Why would you?" If you will read my post carefully, the part that said, "Now he could have said that the confederate battle emblem on the flag promotes inequality, and that would have been a reasonable objection," then you will have your answer. But you cannot exclude something and then say you are promoting diversity unless you simply don't understand what the word "diversity" means. That is one reason that I am generally not a fan of the concept of diversity.Quote:
Would you expect the Jewish community to tolerate the Nazi swastika? Of course not, so can we apply the same standard to the symbols and statutes of the slave days? I don't think we want that kind of diversity, why would you?
What's your definition of diversity?
This is probably the modern, politically correct version: the inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, color, religion,socioeconomic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.:Quote:
What's your definition of diversity?
you seriously putting your eggs in the Trump tower meeting ? That meeting was set up by Fusion GPS .Natalya Veselnitskaya was a client of Glenn Simpson .The information she brought with her when she met Donald Trump Jr. came from research conducted by Fusion GPS .When she met with Don Jr and Kushner all she talked about was the Magnistsky act ;which was about Americans adopting Russian children.
Don Jr. did nothing wrong in setting up this meeting.No campaign in American history would pass up the opportunity of receiving dirt on their opponents.
Somebody colluded with Russia, and it wasn’t the Trump campaign .
Veselnitskaya was working to repeal the Magnitsky Act for the Kremlin
with Fusion GPS.
We differ on that because most Americans would notify the FBI about being contacted by the Russians, and wouldn't lie about it repeatedly. Clearly they didn't need a signed contract for that but two criminal enterprises often dance well together if they can profit from it, and they have. Vlad has even moved in on the Dufus's main squeeze Korean Kim and if you think that's good for America then don't bend over.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Make it worse, the dufus lied about his knowledge of the meeting. WHY THE LIES about Russian contacts and why oh why was Manaafort passing on campaign data to the Ruskies?
Naw, we got plenty of baskets and not enough eggs for them all.
https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/171/17143/1714351.gif
https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cac...78/1717852.jpg
The dems certainly look the part.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yep. Gross inefficiency based upon a numbers game. That is the democrat party. In the meantime, Trump has the economy practically better than ever.
Voting is a numbers game. That's how all those woman took the house in a very efficient way. We can debate the part about the dufus having the economy humming or not since it's been trending that way for a long time, but no doubt he benefits greatly from it in talking points. Just like all the presidents did before him when the economy was good.
The economy is good because business has confidence, it maybe that despite the obvious trump instills confidence
Business is confident, and rightfully so, since they recovered quickly from the WFC with the bailouts, and the rollbacks on consumer protections and a windfall tax cuts, without giving up any loopholes and deductions. Mainstreet though has not recovered at the same pace and wage stagnation is slowly creeping up, but prices are too, so not everybody is giddy happy, and flush with cash.
They can no longer blame Obama either, so who will the electorate blame this time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You need to explain why an unborn child who is an unbeliever will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell. Perhaps your anger is a result of your frustration. Perhaps this will become your awakening.
If I believed that, then I would need to explain it. Since I don't believe that, I don't need to. I'm not angry nor frustrated, but I am certainly open to being enlightened if you would care to answer the question I first raised several days ago which no one has addressed.Quote:
You need to explain why an unborn child who is an unbeliever will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell. Perhaps your anger is a result of your frustration. Perhaps this will become your awakening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Then you HAVE become enlightened. That's very good. Your position had been that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. I'm sincerely glad you no longer believe that.
As far as your comment re an answer to a question you first raised several days ago, I am not familiar with it since I come to this page only from time to time. My interest is primarily Trump whose lies, I noticed today, have now reached north of 10,000 since election.
A completely ridiculous analysis. To refer to unborn children as unbelievers is totally non-biblical.Quote:
Then you HAVE become enlightened. That's very good. Your position had been that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. I'm sincerely glad you no longer believe that.
Don't feel too badly about not answering the question. No one else has either, which is really disappointing. If I thought that I was possibly voting for people responsible for a million deaths a year, I would hope I would think about it a great deal.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:29 AM. |