Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#5,801
#5,801
glichtenwalter said:
And baby'shower heart is developed and beating as early as five or six weeks into a pregnancy. It is true that the baby could not survive outside of the mother at that point, however, a baby wouldn't survive without care outside of the mother for years after birth either.

New Health Guide - New Health Guide for Your Everyday Health.

When you check to see if a person is alive or dead you check for a pulse or heartbeat. A person isn't officially declared dead until their heart stops beating. So why is a baby not considered alive when it has a heartbeat. Then if you consider the baby alive and choose to abortion it, that is pre-meditated murder.

Also, your argument about the death penalty compared to abortion is laughable. If an adult chooses to go out, drill a hole in someone's skull, and vacuum their brain out it would be considered murder and a heinous one at that. They would be tried by a jury of their peers and could receive the death penalty. The point ispread they would be charged with murder. However, a mother can go to a clinic and request the same procedure be done on their unborn child, with a heartbeat, and others is perfectly legal.

Get rid of the death penalty for all I care. However, abortion deprives millions of children of their basic right to life that they are guaranteed by the Constitution.

As far as the financial burden. Stop giving government assistance to people who aren't responsible. There. I solved it.
Click to expand...

Outstanding post, my friend. Truth brings light.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,802
#5,802
glichtenwalter said:
And baby'shower heart is developed and beating as early as five or six weeks into a pregnancy. It is true that the baby could not survive outside of the mother at that point, however, a baby wouldn't survive without care outside of the mother for years after birth either.

New Health Guide - New Health Guide for Your Everyday Health.

When you check to see if a person is alive or dead you check for a pulse or heartbeat. A person isn't officially declared dead until their heart stops beating. So why is a baby not considered alive when it has a heartbeat. Then if you consider the baby alive and choose to abortion it, that is pre-meditated murder.

Also, your argument about the death penalty compared to abortion is laughable. If an adult chooses to go out, drill a hole in someone's skull, and vacuum their brain out it would be considered murder and a heinous one at that. They would be tried by a jury of their peers and could receive the death penalty. The point ispread they would be charged with murder. However, a mother can go to a clinic and request the same procedure be done on their unborn child, with a heartbeat, and others is perfectly legal.

Get rid of the death penalty for all I care. However, abortion deprives millions of children of their basic right to life that they are guaranteed by the Constitution.

As far as the financial burden. Stop giving government assistance to people who aren't responsible. There. I solved it.
Click to expand...

Great post! :good!:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,806
#5,806
bignewt said:
When 25% of the country's votes elect the president, its everybody's problem.
Click to expand...

Well as everyone like to say. Its a free country, they can choose to vote or not to vote. There has always been that kind of percentage that doesn't vote. but they will be the first to protest or complain when the election doesn't do they'er way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,807
#5,807
On the death penalty topic, I'll just opine based on my personal belief. Human life should be valued by EVERYONE. When you wantonly kill you abdicate your human status and revert to an animal...or for a better description, MONSTER. We destroy our monsters. That's a special classification and there's a responsibility in labeling such. We need to confirm and verify that they're monsters before we get to destroying...or we become said monsters. The death penalty should only be applied when guilt is 100% certain and sometimes that percentage is a tad short IMO. Belief in the death penalty requires faith in the justice system and is a key reason I have traditionally voted Republican...even if I don't particularly dig the candidate. I want a Supreme Court that values human life more than the rights of monsters. End spiel.
 
#5,809
#5,809
bignewt said:
When 25% of the country's votes elect the president, its everybody's problem.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree.

I think it's a problem when uninformed people vote.

I know it will never ever happen, but I wish there were a test of some kind to verify if people even have basic knowledge of the way government works and/or what each candidate's basic platform was.

And not people going to the polls (or being bussed to the polls) and voting for someone just because they have a R or a D by their name with no knowledge of.policy stances. Or voting for who they're told to vote for. Etc

People say things like : vote! People died for you to vote. Or whatever the slogan is.

But they actually died so you could have a right to vote. And that right should be taken seriously and exercised with caution and responsibility.

But anyways, that's my opinion. I think if everybody actually knew platforms and such, the liberals would lose just about every time. They depend on the "low information voter"
 
Last edited:
#5,811
#5,811
I'm glad we can have this conversation and appropriate on this day. I'm a proud veteran. It's what this country is founded upon. We have RIGHTS.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0036.jpg
    IMG_0036.jpg
    74.5 KB · Views: 0
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,813
#5,813
Bignewt I think you're a libertarian right? My views have become more and more in line with that platform but there are still some issues I have with it.

But anyways, I think many of the low information voters typically vote for bigger and broader and more powerful government. So it's a good thing they didn't vote IMO
 
#5,814
#5,814
If you had a test, a lot of people on both sides would fail. Don't act like there weren't a bunch of uninformed voters out there who voted for the guy who had a tv show.

I do agree that the uninformed or the "dummies" probably shouldn't be allowed to vote but you have to believe if everyone voted the people with a clue would outweigh the inept.

In this day in age however idiocracy has set in and I may very well be wrong. I do however think the truly intellectual realize that the libertarian platform is the most pragmatic but anyway, that's my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,816
#5,816
bignewt said:
If you had a test, a lot of people on both sides would fail. Don't act like there weren't a bunch of uninformed voters out there who voted for the guy who had a tv show.

I do agree that the uninformed or the "dummies" probably shouldn't be allowed to vote but you have to believe if everyone voted the people with a clue would outweigh the inept.

In this day in age however idiocracy has set in and I may very well be wrong. I do however think the truly intellectual realize that the libertarian platform is the most pragmatic but anyway, that's my opinion.
Click to expand...


No doubt that there are uninformed people are on both sides. I just think they're much more on the liberal side.

As I said above I have become more libertarian recently.
 
#5,819
#5,819
...or more people should vote third party!

...or maybe both parties should have had candidates that didn't score well over 50% in unlikeability, lying, cheating and stealing?
 
#5,820
#5,820
bignewt said:
...or more people should vote third party!

...or maybe both parties should have had candidates that didn't score well over 50% in unlikeability, lying, cheating and stealing?
Click to expand...


I wish we could have people run without parties.

I wish I could have voted for Johnson. But I had at least a couple issues with him :
- not prolife
- in the debate, he said he thought a bakery should be forced to bake cakes for same sex weddings. How is that a libertarian stance? A government forcing people to violate their conscience and religious beliefs? Is that not an oppressive government rather than a limited one?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,821
#5,821
volatil said:
I'm glad we can have this conversation and appropriate on this day. I'm a proud veteran. It's what this country is founded upon. We have RIGHTS.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your service, sir. 100% agree. Proud son of a WW II Naval Air Force veteran of the Japan/China theater. Proud son-in-law of a WW II Army veteran and POW in Germany; who was held for 15 months in a Nazi prison camp before liberation by the Russians. Both have left this world and are now in the presence and protection of the Lord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,823
#5,823
volssam said:
I wish we could have people run without parties.

I wish I could have voted for Johnson. But I had at least a couple issues with him :
- not prolife
- in the debate, he said he thought a bakery should be forced to bake cakes for same sex weddings. How is that a libertarian stance? A government forcing people to violate their conscience and religious beliefs? Is that not an oppressive.government?
Click to expand...

Sam, reading your posts, I can tell that you and I line up politically, religiously and philosophically pretty well.

On the cake thing....I have two points on that...

If you bake cakes, then bake the cake. You aren't being asked to minister the wedding. Just bake the stupid cake. You chose to be a baker.

That said, I don't see how you force someone to make a cake if they don't want to. If the baker doesn't want to bake your lesbian wedding cake, go find someone who does.
 
#5,824
#5,824
BigZiti09 said:
Sam, reading your posts, I can tell that you and I line up politically, religiously and philosophically pretty well.

On the cake thing....I have two points on that...

If you bake cakes, then bake the cake. You aren't being asked to minister the wedding. Just bake the stupid cake. You chose to be a baker.

That said, I don't see how you force someone to make a cake if they don't want to. If the baker doesn't want to bake your lesbian wedding cake, go find someone who does.
Click to expand...


On the second point, exactly ! Is this not the basis of a FREE country ? People should be free to choose, choose if they wanna bake a cake or not. No matter the reason. No matter the reason whatsoever. If people don't like It, then they can "protest" by taking their business somewhere else and in this day and age, by writing a review, which hurts that business.

On the first point, I strongly but respectfully disagree. If you read.Romans 1 and also the book of Jude, people can interpret that to be giving approval to and/or "bidding godspeed" to sin.

And my points I made when discussing this with someone months ago, why force the bakeries? The LGBT lobby won. The supreme Court gave them their victory in legalizing same sex marriage. So why can't they just take that and let it be? Why do.they feel like they have to try to force others to agree with them ? Why can't they accept.this compromise ? They have their freedom. Why crush other's freedom?

Its different than baking a cake just to bake a cake. Most religious people see a wedding as a religious ceremony before God. And that's what it's about. From my understanding, it's not about homosexually in and of itself, as the bakers make cakes for gay people, in normal everyday business. So it's not homophobia or discrimination against a lifestyle.

But when it comes to the religious expression of a marriage ceremony , they don't want to participate in that in any way because they feel it would violate their faith and conscience.

It seems so logical to me. The LGBT community should take.their victory given to them.by the supreme Court and be content. Let people be free to.run their businesses as they see fit. But oh well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,825
#5,825
volssam said:
I wish we could have people run without parties.

I wish I could have voted for Johnson. But I had at least a couple issues with him :
- not prolife
- in the debate, he said he thought a bakery should be forced to bake cakes for same sex weddings. How is that a libertarian stance? A government forcing people to violate their conscience and religious beliefs? Is that not an oppressive government rather than a limited one?
Click to expand...

I agree and didn't hear him say that. It should be a free market economy, if you don't want to make a cake for a customer don't, that customer is free to find someone who does. However if you keep refusing to make cakes you may soon be out of business. I think he may be touching on the idea of inclusion but probably didn't elucidate it very well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top