Obama on both sides of an issue

[TheNextEra]

I think she has said that she would prefer to see creationism and abstinence taught in public schools.

And under a McCain administration she can push for it to happen.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Why do you feel the need to bury your head in your ass?

As for Proof:

Palin backs abstinence only education
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Palin backed abstinence education « - Blogs from CNN.com

I see your "blog" and raise you an actual news story with a Palin quote:

"In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau."

Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education - Los Angeles Times

Palin believes Creationism should be taught in school
adn.com | elections : 'Creation science' enters the race

And I will sufficiently trounce this nonsense with factcheck.org

"Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." "

FactCheck.org: Sliming Palin




"sliming Palin" how appropriate a title for what the left is doing.

 

[American]

I see your "blog" and raise you an actual news story with a Palin quote:

"In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau."

Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education - Los Angeles Times






And I will sufficiently trounce this nonsense with factcheck.org

"Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." "

FactCheck.org: Sliming Palin




"sliming Palin" how appropriate a title for what the left is doing.

Why are they bringing this junk up, it's all old news.

 

[Undisclosed]

Even if such a "right" does not exist??



This is a democracy is it not? I mean, public policy here works via a democratic process where individuals cast their votes (or vote for political candidates) to allow or prohibit things from occuring.

It seems that you're implying one of those rights doesn't exist. Which "right" doesn't exist? Abortion or same-sex marriage?


Yes, this is a democracy. People are allowed to take away or permit people to do things in the country by voting for someone who feels the same way as them about particular issues to carry out their point of view---whether a violation of human rights or not. It's a shame that people want to take away someone else's rights, but yes, anyone and everyone is allowed to do that in this country and in others.

 

[JMak]

Why do you feel the need to bury your head in your ass?

As for Proof:

Palin backs abstinence only education
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Palin backed abstinence education « - Blogs from CNN.com

I conceded that she prefers abstinence education in public schools.

However, you argued that she wants to force it on us. Your link does not confirm that.

What actions has palin taken that supports your view that she has or would force it on us?

Palin believes Creationism should be taught in school
adn.com | elections : 'Creation science' enters the race

Again, I conceded that she prefers tosee it taught in public schools. However, your argument is that she would force it on us. Your link does not support that argument.

In both instances you had to know that neither link supported your argument that she has or would force such views on us. But you posted them anyway.

Why?

And under a McCain administration she can push for it to happen.

Your argument was not that she could push for it. It was, "That's because she's stated she WANTS to see creationism taught in schools and abstinence only programs. These are things she wants to FORCE on people.

I can only conclude that you went a little out-of-control with the rhetoric about her wanting to force these views on us. You can concede to this if you'd like.

If you don't, then it's clear that you're lying.

 

[JMak]

It seems that you're implying one of those rights doesn't exist. Which "right" doesn't exist? Abortion or same-sex marriage?

Neither exists. No matter if 5 justices on the SCOTUS found such a right to privacy that extends to a right to abortion in the shadows or some such in one or more of the limits places on the federal government found in the BoR.

Yes, this is a democracy. People are allowed to take away or permit people to do things in the country by voting for someone who feels the same way as them about particular issues to carry out their point of view---whether a violation of human rights or not. It's a shame that people want to take away someone else's rights, but yes, anyone and everyone is allowed to do that in this country and in others.

You'll have to establish such a "right" exists. I mean, maybe you're one of these people like Obama who whines that the Constitution doesn't tell us what government can do. If so, then you're revealing that you're as dumb as Obama, the former con law professor, when it comes to understanding the foundation and intent of our Founding Fathers.

 

[Undisclosed]

Neither exists. No matter if 5 justices on the SCOTUS found such a right to privacy that extends to a right to abortion in the shadows or some such in one or more of the limits places on the federal government found in the BoR.



You'll have to establish such a "right" exists. I mean, maybe you're one of these people like Obama who whines that the Constitution doesn't tell us what government can do. If so, then you're revealing that you're as dumb as Obama, the former con law professor, when it comes to understanding the foundation and intent of our Founding Fathers.

I wrote up a fairly lengthy post to explain and argue about what I said, but when I re-read your digression from the argument with name dropping and calling me dumb I realized you probably could give a **** less about what I have to say and what other people have said concerning the rights you believe don't exist.

I admit, it's my fault for not being detailed enough in my last post that I gave you plenty of room to make assumptions about what I said. I'd rather not discuss this with someone who doesn't know how to have a civilized discussion and who'd rather just say "nope, no right exists, you're stupid like so and so." That isn't discussion anyways.

 

[MDM]

:lol: get some rest grumpy.

:rofl

Did you just call me "grumpy" ?

I think this thread is settled. I'm moving on.



p.s. I had some wonderful sleep, now I'm off to work..

 

[Kernel Sanders]

So the man of fairness is against gay marriage, but opposes a law that would prevent it.


which side of the issue is he on here? :lol:

I'm against abortion, but also against laws prohibiting it. There is a difference between holding a view and pushing it on others

 

[danarhea]

You mean John Murtha's constituency?

Touche, but I don't think they are Murtha's constituency. After all, they are part of the reason Murtha's fat ass is going down this year.

 

[jonnyalpha]

Thanks MDM for posting that video. My brain has grown lazy after listening to easily digestible political soundbites delivered over the last several years by lesser politicans. It's like being away from school for a long time, and then having the chance to have your intellect challenged again. It's a pleasure.

I believe the point of posting the video is to illustrate that you can hold true to a set of beliefs on personal level, while still supporting legislation that may be in conflict with those same beliefs.

That's exactly the point. And if you also read The Audacity of Hope, he writes about the exact same things.

Quote - "I am suspicious of using government to impose anybody's religious beliefs - including my own - on nonbelievers." -Barack Obama

The book is an excellent read, even if you don't agree with everything he says, or even believe him. At least you can get a little insight of the thoughts and values of the next President of the United States of America.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I'm against abortion, but also against laws prohibiting it. There is a difference between holding a view and pushing it on others

and I can clearly show where this hypocrisy fails. (no offense intended)


why are you against it?

 

[Shewter]

So Obama is against gay marriage because of his religion?


Can you back that up?

Isn't he against gay marriage but FOR Same sex partnerships being awarded the same benefits as a hederosexual marriage (legally speaking)? I think Joe Bidden has talked more about that subject than Barack Obama.

Either way, I am for gay marriage IF marriage is still able to be managed by the state and federal government. If someone is able to go to a courthouse and be wed without a priest of some sort then the religious aspect is gone. If marriage goes back to holding no grounds except for Religious reasons then I would fully support a religion to choose what rules it does and does not adhere to for it's ceremonies.

 

[Bonnie1988]

People should be honest about issues. Obama does not oppose gay marriage, but said so because he had too. McCain doesn't either, nor does Biden. All of those 3 really don't care either way. Just a political question. Palin does oppose gay "marriage," but also does not oppose equal legal rights otherwise for gay couples.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

and I can clearly show where this hypocrisy fails. (no offense intended)

How is it hypocrisy? There is a difference between holding a view and pushing it on others. Can you not see that?

I'd also like for you to clearly show me where my views fail

why are you against it?

Didn't we have this conversation like yesterday?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

How is it hypocrisy? There is a difference between holding a view and pushing it on others. Can you not see that?

It's called having no convictions.

I'd also like for you to clearly show me where my views fail

No. I would like to keep it a mystery for right now...... :mrgreen:

Didn't we have this conversation like yesterday?

Repetition is the key to remembering....




Repetition is the key to remembering....




Repetition is the key to remembering....




Repetition is the key to remembering....



Repetition is the key to remembering....




Repetition is the key to remembering....


:2wave:

 

[Kernel Sanders]

and I can clearly show where this hypocrisy fails. (no offense intended)

How is it hypocrisy? There is a difference between holding a view and pushing it on others. Can you not see that?

I'd also like for you to clearly show me where my views fail

why are you against it?

Didn't we have this conversation like yesterday?

 

[Kernel Sanders]

It's called having no convictions.

I never knew you supported radical Islam. Or maybe there are some issues where you shouldn't push your views on others.....

In any case, even if I accept your assertion, it still isn't hypocrisy

 

[Cilogy]

So the man of fairness is against gay marriage, but opposes a law that would prevent it.


which side of the issue is he on here? :lol:

Unfortunately, many conservatives don't understand this broader stance on gay marriage and thus think that liberals are on both sides of an issue.

I assume that Obama's view is similar to mine. I am against gay marriage personally, but I also believe that my views should not influence the personal/religious decisions of another person. Gay marriage of another couple does not affect me directly, so why should my views overrule the views of others when the views of others do not prevent democracy? Its like saying that "because I am a Christian, from now on only Christians can enjoy visitation rights and a legal marital status." That is not democratic.

The concept expelling gay marriage is so extremely conservative and stretches so far beyond conservatism in the U.S. that it should be considered un-American to have such a view.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I never knew you supported radical Islam. Or maybe there are some issues where you shouldn't push your views on others.....

In any case, even if I accept your assertion, it still isn't hypocrisy

I do I support it?

I think it is tyrannical and needs to be destroyed, and I am not a muslim..... YOu confuse me...... :2razz:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Unfortunately, many conservatives don't understand this broader stance on gay marriage and thus think that liberals are on both sides of an issue.

I assume that Obama's view is similar to mine. I am against gay marriage personally, but I also believe that my views should not influence the personal/religious decisions of another person. Gay marriage of another couple does not affect me directly, so why should my views overrule the views of others when the views of others do not prevent democracy? Its like saying that "because I am a Christian, from now on only Christians can enjoy visitation rights and a legal marital status." That is not democratic.

The concept expelling gay marriage is so extremely conservative and stretches so far beyond conservatism in the U.S. that it should be considered un-American to have such a view.

I believe marriage should not be a government insitution and therefore could care less who or what you marry. I am not a bigot like obama and I am a conservative.


And as a Reverend I would be happy to marry you to your goat for a reasonable fee.:mrgreen: