|
|
Post by Margot on Mar 12, 2009 7:35:36 GMT -8
Robin,
I'm going way, way out on a limb here, but I'm thinking you wanted John McCain to be president, not Barack Obama.
Trouble is, whoever did, (or didn't,) vote, and however they did, (or didn't,) vote-- John McCain is not president. Obama is president.
I'm curious about why you feel it's important to go back and talk about whether people were right or wrong in voting when it's already a done deal. Unless, of course, you want to add him on to the Hit 'Em List... Speaking of which, if there's going to be any hitting around here, I also cast my vote for a quick swat to the stepfather----a man who, I would venture to guess, has already had plenty of experience with hitting and sexual abuse, hm?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 12, 2009 9:32:22 GMT -8
Margot wrote:
Margot, isn't that a big part of what the discipline of history is all about- looking back and making value judgments on the past?
|
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Mar 12, 2009 22:05:59 GMT -8
Margot wrote: Margot, isn't that a big part of what the discipline of history is all about- looking back and making value judgments on the past? Do you think so? I always think of it more like making observations than making value judgements. Also, it seems there is a difference between making observations/judgements about what happened and pointing out if/why people have been wrong. I guess I just assume that people will figure out soon enough if they were wrong or right and they are not going to need me to dredge it up. I don't think of myself as "the decider" (Sorry! Couldn't resist!  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 13, 2009 6:53:30 GMT -8
Some people are never going to admit they were wrong, or at least what they did, unless forced to.
Didn't the Holocaust need some "deciders"? How about the Trail of Tears?
Those are more extreme examples, I realize, just to cement the point. But still, I think it is one job of historians to analyze what went wrong and why and you can't avoid asking the "who" questions as well.
Of course, historians can admit that people aren't perfect and make genuine mistakes.
Historians should also admit that deciding blame for things like a financial crisis is a very complex enterprise and will probably always need to remain less than concrete.
Case in point- historians and economists still argue about the causes of the Great Depression. But, they still think it's an important topic and have found some general agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 13, 2009 6:54:34 GMT -8
Whoops- I temporarily forgot that this thread wasn't on the economy- it's on abortion.
Well, I guess my holocaust analogy is more on the mark after all!
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 13, 2009 10:29:39 GMT -8
Robin, I'm going way, way out on a limb here, but I'm thinking you wanted John McCain to be president, not Barack Obama. Trouble is, whoever did, (or didn't,) vote, and however they did, (or didn't,) vote-- John McCain is not president. Obama is president. I'm curious about why you feel it's important to go back and talk about whether people were right or wrong in voting when it's already a done deal. Unless, of course, you want to add him on to the Hit 'Em List... Speaking of which, if there's going to be any hitting around here, I also cast my vote for a quick swat to the stepfather----a man who, I would venture to guess, has already had plenty of experience with hitting and sexual abuse, hm? Once again, I'm utterly confused.  When did I ever talk about punching or hitting someone? And who is this stepfather that you speak of? Did I miss something? And since when is critiquing a politician, or those who support that politician, out of bounds? Many have questioned my support of President Bush, and I never cried fowl. I just defended my position. Unfortunately, when it comes to Obama, he seems to be untouchable in the eyes of his followers, I mean supporters. I should caution you to not be so sensitive. More will come. Obama's approvals numbers are dropping like a rock. They are lower that Bush's were at this point in his presidency. People are very uncomfortable with Obama's political strategy thus far. Which includes breaking promise after promise in order to advance his socialist/Marxist agenda. But let me ask you directly. Since you voted for him, are you happy with Obama's broken promises, and leadership so far?For example; he said that no lobbyists would be in his administration, and yet he has appointed over 1/2 dozen to cabinet level positions. He said he would implement pay as you go, and yet his spending thus far has out paced all other presidents in the history of the United States even accounting for inflation, thus driving up the defecate to unprecedented levels. He said he would eliminate earmarks and go "line by line" through the budget to see that wasteful earmarks and spending are done away with. This week he signed a budget with more that 8,500 earmarks, and he signed it behind closed doors. Perhaps he does have some shame. Is this the "change" that you hoped for? I realize that is is way off topic, and if Josh feels it is appropriate to move this post else where, feel welcome to. In the future I will work to keep this thread focused on the topic of abortion and politics. Robin, |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 13, 2009 14:35:16 GMT -8
Sorry, Mo:
So, here's the news:
President Obama has recently lifted federal funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Under Bush the government wouldn't fund such morally questionable science.
Regarding abortion, likewise he has recently repealed of the ban on U.S. funding for foreign family-planning aid groups that offer abortion services.
This will greatly increase US funded abortions, not lower them as he said was part of his agenda. I guess he prefers aborting non-Americans? Where's that devious smiley? Gotta add that one.
I think you and I are defining black and white thinking differently.
I would agree that if her life is threatened, it's life and against life, and when deciding between an adult mother's life and the life of a fetus, the best decision is to side with the mother's for a myriad of reasons.
But in the case of rape you are pitting the right to life against the right to not suffer the consequences of someone's evil violation of someone else. Of course we don't want the innocent to suffer emotionally, but it's more important that someone not die because of the violation than that someone be emotionally damaged. Besides, most of the damage of a rape comes from the rape itself, not the bringing of a baby to full term, wouldn't you say? (in our humble opinion, which is all we've got going for us).
Anyway, it's very clear to me that life is priority #1, mental well-being priority #2.
Why?
Ok, I'll be back with that when I have some more time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Mar 15, 2009 20:23:36 GMT -8
Once again, I'm utterly confused. When did I ever talk about punching or hitting someone? And who is this stepfather that you speak of? Did I miss something? ........But let me ask you directly. Since you voted for him, are you happy with Obama's broken promises, and leadership so far?, Whoa! So many questions! Could it be possible that I have only been gone having fun for a day and a half?! ;D Robin, sorry if I was obscure....let me be as direct as I can be: I never said you suggested hitting anyone (!) I was making a reference to the fact that people were saying that the rape of the young girl ex-communicated from the Catholic Church made them want to "hit someone." Mo suggested starting with the girl's stepfather, and I agreed. See what I mean? Am I "happy with Obama's broken promises and leadership so far?" ...Interesting way to phrase it... I would say there are many things I appreciate about Obama's leadership style. I like the way he talks to the people like peers and partners. (One of my principal discomforts with both Bush administrations was that I felt I was constantly being scolded like "the bad child.") The jury is still out for me on how much he has, or is going to achieve with his plans. But, then, I felt like that before I voted. In the same way, Josh, I hear your comments about "being a historian," but I would have to wait much longer to see how things pan out before I swoop in with the critique. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 16, 2009 13:18:06 GMT -8
Hi Margot, The way in which you avoided answering my question leads me to think that perhaps you should consider a career in politics. Quite impressive! Robin |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 16, 2009 13:42:49 GMT -8
Well, that the "jury should still be out" after only a couple months in office seems reasonable to me.
And yeah, I think we have to let the dust settle before we provide a polished critique.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 17, 2009 11:40:47 GMT -8
Well, that the "jury should still be out" after only a couple months in office seems reasonable to me. And yeah, I think we have to let the dust settle before we provide a polished critique. Should the jury be out for those who say "he is doing a good job?" I have heard plenty of this from the left. So the feeling I get is that we have seen enough for his supporters to say that he has been doing a good job, and those who oppose him should give him more time before forming negative opinions. Does that seem consistent to anyone? As for me, I don't need to be told that I should give him more time. I prefer to think for myself, and from what I've seen from Obama, I don't need any more time to see that he is incompetent, and dangerous. By the way, according to liberals and democrats, my criticism of the president is patriotic. (at least that is what they said for the 8 years Bush was in office) Robin |
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Mar 17, 2009 15:53:45 GMT -8
Hi Margot, The way in which you avoided answering my question leads me to think that perhaps you should consider a career in politics. Quite impressive! Robin Is that a compliment? If so, thank you  I only write what I really feel. At least, that is what I am striving to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 17, 2009 19:42:30 GMT -8
CALGARY, Alberta - Former President George W. Bush said on Tuesday that he won't criticize Barack Obama because the new U.S. president "deserves my silence," and said he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office.
Bush declined to critique the Obama administration in his first speech since leaving office in January. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has said that Obama's decisions threatened America's safety.
"I'm not going to spend my time criticizing him. There are plenty of critics in the arena," Bush said. "He deserves my silence." And now, back to the abortion topic, how's this for a segue: Let's get back to a discussion about the millions of innocent babies that definitely don't deserve our silence. 
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jul 20, 2009 8:25:06 GMT -8
For those Obama supporters who believed him when he said that his goal was to reduce the number of abortions, you may be interested in knowing this. Included in his health care reform bill, there will be a minimum standard set for all health insurance policies, including the "public option", to include a mandate that requires insurance companies pay for abortions. If they choose not to cover abortions, they will receive a tax penalty of 8% on the premium of the plan (this will damage Christian organizations like Providence, which is Catholic). This means that anyone who pays taxes will pay paying for abortions. Is there anyone out there who actually believes that this will reduce the number of abortions?
This just goes to show that:
1. The election of a president does directly impact the abortion issue. (McCain would never require this or sign such a bill)
2. Obama was willing to say anything in order to get elected, and appear mainstream.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 20, 2009 20:05:07 GMT -8
For our dispy friends, I heard a funny phrase the other day. Obama nation of desolation. (say really fast and you'll get it)
Matt 24:15-18
15 "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes.
NKJV
I actually know people who think Obama is the anti-christ. Anyone up for fleeing to the mountains? ;D |
|
ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Jul 20, 2009 22:01:23 GMT -8
I think abortion is the idol worship of today as in the Old Testament when they offerred up their babies to the god Molech.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jul 21, 2009 7:30:19 GMT -8
I think abortion is the idol worship of today as in the Old Testament when they offerred up their babies to the god Molech. I agree. For our dispy friends, I heard a funny phrase the other day. Was Obama born in the region of the old Roman Empire? Maybe that is why Obama is hiding his birth certificate. |
|
)
I only write what I really feel. At least, that is what I am striving to do.
