magekillr

What I don't understand is that if the baby gets a "soul" at conception of the sperm and the egg, God must sure like to kill a lot of them. Many of the eggs that were fertilized don't make it to the uterus and are just spewed out later. So, essentially to the pro-life people that believe life begins at conception, the mother commits involuntary man-slaughter for half of the eggs that were conceived.

It is life, just not a human "life", yet.

How does being for lower taxes mean I don't care about children? I don't want to force anybody to raise any child. Just not let them kill it. anyone can walk in into a fire station, police station, or hospital and just dump any unwanted kid no questions asked. With that I see no reason for killing the baby. Where are you getting the money to care for these children, Jack? You want lower taxes, low spending...but won't let women make a choice concerning their bodies. So you're either a.) Forcing young women to carry children that they don't want, and that isn't even a child during the time that she would get the abortion, and then forcing her to raise the child, or b.) Forcing young women to carry the child and then leave them to a hospital to be cared for by foster care where the child doesn't receive the nurturing care that it needs, and effectively costs our nation out of house and home. I mean, which is it? Raise taxes exponentially to pump into foster care, and centers that help teenage mothers/poor mothers...or force them to have the child and tell them that they're on their own? If it's the latter, then you're exactly what I said: someone that's pro-life that doesn't care what happens to the child once it's born.

It wasn't made up lol, and if it is she hasn't addressed it. How is that playing the race card? He said "He has a funny name, he's a muslim." How on earth is that the race card?

The same people that are "pro-life" are also the ones that are "anti-tax" and "anti-programs" to help single women and struggling families to raise the child that they're forcing the person to raise. Once the child is born, you don't give a damn what happens to it.

I didn't call Republicans any names, just Sarah Palin. Rightfully so, if I may say. NAFTA...? Comon... How so?

I welcome this, Republicans. So rather than figuring out what's wrong with your party, you pick a moron, idiot, nutjob. Nice.

Obama was ahead of McCain by double digits, and then after the RNC convention he was 3 points ahead. McCain lost this election a long time ago, and he needed a hail mary. Either Palin would have won him the election, or she would have made it easier for Obama. He had no other options; he knew he was sunk. That's why he kept gambling the entire time. Suspending his campaign, Sarah Palin, and he did something else before those two events that showed he was a gambler, too. The fact is, McCain ran a disorganized campaign with no ground team, while Obama's was extremely organized, made it easy to volunteer, and had infiltrated every red state he could. THAT is what won the election, and THAT is what wins elections. As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that he totally faked McCain out in Pennsylvania. Ed Rendell came out making a statement that he was "Worried about Pennsylvania for Obama." Polls had Obama ahead there by 9-14 points, but Rendell said he was worried about it. An "insider" in the Obama camp said they were ahead by 2 points. After those statements wee made, McCain pulled out of Colorado, and moved everything to Pennsylvania. Low and behold, PA was a landslide win for Obama as far as swing states go. Obama faked McCain out, and made him dump all of his resources in an "unwinnable" state.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081106/ap_ ... east_obama Don't let the world down, President-elect Obama. We can combat terror without might!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/07 ... ref=slogin Somehow, social conservatives still manage to hurt our economy, even when their political views about things like marriage technically have nothing to do with economic political ideology.

So then sex should only be for people who want to(and have the ability) to bear children and everyone else shouldn't? No, but have you ever seen a homosexual monkey or other humanoid? No, because their goal is to procreate, that goal can't be made with homosexuality, thus they only have heterosexuality. Don't get me wrong, I don't think homosexuals are like, freaks of nature, but I do think they shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's just one step too far... Yes, yes I have:

Works the other way around with the Electoral College; States with very small populations are over represented. Right, but at least these people are not forgotten about. They have to campaign everywhere now.

Problems with using popular vote: states with smaller populations would be completely ignored, while California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida would be the sole areas that they'd campaign in.

Melissa, you tell them! You are a citizen and deserve the same rights that I do. You're paying your entry fee, now sock it to 'em! Although, you probably will be arrested :(

The controversy obviously arrives from two stems, at least two stems that I can muster up. The first being that there are links to autism. Now, most scientists in the scientific community have established that vaccinations are not the cause of autism, and that there are many other factors in play. The second being that people want control over their own bodies, and they do not want the government saying what they can inject into you for the public good. The counter argument to this is that diseases are currently kept at a level of control, and when people start to develop the mentality to not get vaccinations en masse as opposed to a few disgruntled folks, they could start being more widespread. The reason some people want to make vaccinations mandatory is because it IS a public health issue. So, do you support mandatory vaccinations, or not? I am on the fence because I don't quite know where the line should be drawn to helping the public good with their health, and their freedom.

The American Dream is rubbish. The American Dream believes that America is superior to other countries and that our greatness should be spread--even if it means by force. The American Dream is just the dream to be free, and do whatever you want in life. That still holds true in America. And no, we don't try to force it down people. Of course we wish everyone was just like America, but we don't force anyone to be like us. Ok, sure there is Iraq, which imo was handled rather poorly, and we did to an extent try to force that dream upon the people, but do they hate it? I doubt it. Not saying I agree with how we went through with it, at all, just saying. And even if the Dream bleieves America is superior, who cares -.-? You're getting all fired up over a dream. Because that dream has resonated in our foreign and domestic policy for far too long.

The American Dream is rubbish. The American Dream believes that America is superior to other countries and that our greatness should be spread--even if it means by force.

Of course not...after all, research shows that family has the largest impact on political views; teachers are second, and peers are third. However, my point is that these kids are doing it on their own free will, not because their parents told them to volunteer/hold a sign. I do know what you mean though about some kids waving American flags/holding signs. I don't particularly know why it's a big deal as long as you're not using the kid as a political prop, or using them to send a political message.

You'd be surprised... Isaiah is 12. Isaiah made more calls than many of our adult volunteers, and he came in the office without a parent. I have a lot of pictures of young children coming in without their parents on my phone, but they're on my phone haha. This one girl Gracey, age 9, made more phone calls, and knocked on more doors than I did. She was a trooper. Her dad was always at work, and she came in on her own free-will.

Awesome picture:

Please, you know as well as I do that he meant 47 states, not 57. Stfu. She legitimately didn't know Africa was a continent. Lol'd. He knew he had no shot, and that's why he picked her. She would have either given him a chance, or killed his campaign. She did the latter. Someone else wouldn't have been able to give him a chance, but they would have been able to salvage a few states.

In a 2 party system, 6 points is a landslide victory. Not to mention that all absentees have not been counted, a majority of which will be from college students. And, unfortunately for your assessment, popular vote doesn't matter.

Disagree. Without the help of Sarah Palin, we would not have had the landslide victory that we had. We would have lost North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri wouldn't have been as close. Ohio would have been closer without her, and the same goes for Florida. She was a terrible choice all around, and McCain advisers couldn't stand her. They're releasing things that happened during the campaign, like that she wanted to make a concession speech but the campaign wouldn't let her. She didn't know Africa was a continent, or the countries that were involved in NAFTA.

Don't they have people write their speeches or something though? Sometimes. Obama writes a lot of his own speeches.

I can address this: If you study Arabia during the time that Islam was spreading, you might have a better understanding of the origins of Islam, and what it is actually about, and at the most important timetime of its revelation, its purest form. Looking at radical Islam today (which is essentially a bastardization of the religion), and tying it to the religion of Islam is mistaking the driver for the car. Its trying to understand a holy book from the 7th Century, by taking the word of strict constructionists who have nothing in common with the religions values or teachings, and also reading the context of when it was written to apply to modern situations and political problems. The pre-Islamic period in Arabia was known as jahiliyyah (translated as time of ignorance or time of irascibility which refers to the need of Arabians to retaliate and violence against enemies and non-enemies alike. This was ingrained in their culture, even new converts to Islam could not shed this psyche immediately. It is probably for this reason that the Quran emphasizes the concept of hilmto remain calm in the most difficult of circumstances, to not hit back when suffering injury, etc. This virtue also inspired the newly converted Muslims to take positive action: feed the hungry, liberate slaves, look after each other, etc. The point of all this is to understand that the psyche of Muslims was to counter-act the type of aggressive and violent practices that were present in pre-Islamic Arabia, not to promote them. With respect to specific verses in the Quran, that at first glance, may seem anti-Semitic, one has to do three things, have a good translation, and understand the context and the great implications of the specific passage, and most importantly understand that in order to be a Muslim, it is imperative that you revere Moses and Jesus and have a pluralistic understanding of all 3 Abrahamic messengers. First, a good translation is necessary because the Quran is not a text that can be read one verse at a time, translated literally, with the expectation that the translation will give a rigid law that must be followed (just like the you cant do with the Bible). It is like a poem, and literally means recitation and was meant to be recited aloud, so the symbolism and allegory could be appreciated. This is often lost in translation. Second, context is important because revealed passages often referred to events taking place in a very unstable Arabia, with tribes fighting wars against each other. Context is also important because in the verses where the Quran is speaking about the Jews, it is referring not to the Jewish faith, or Jews forever on Earth, but tribes of Jews who had gone against the word of God, and who were not even true their own faith, or as people of the Book, because of political and tribal strife. Also, the Quran criticizes the Jews who specifically attacked Muslims in Arabia, mocked their faith, and were spiteful and abusive to new Muslims. Thus, criticism was directed against a specific group of people for their specific actions. Also, you should also note that criticism of Jews is also frequent in the Bible, for similar reasons. Egs. *The Hebrew Bible, particularly Micah (Chapter 3:1-12) and Hosea (Chapter 8:1-14), in which these prophets condemned the Jews who abhor justice and pervert all equity and who build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with wrong. These prophets cursed Israel as a useless vessel among nations, and called for the curse of God to send a fire upon [Judahs] cities and to make Jerusalem a heap of ruins. *Similarly, in the Book of Deuteronomy (Verses 16-68), Moses warns the Jews that God will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me (28:20). *In Matthew (Chapter 23:13-39), Jesus repeatedly admonishes the Jews for their hypocrisy and injustice, and condemns them for the killing of past prophets. Jesus says, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. Third, very few people know these days that Quran is simply a confirmation of previous scriptures. The messages originates with Abraham to Ishmael and Isaac to Moses and so on: Verily, those who have attained to faith [in the divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Sabians, and the Christiansall who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deedsno fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve. (Quran 5:69). So, to point blank claim that the Quran is radical is ridiculous. I can give many other examples of pluralism in the Quran and how the religion wasnt originally founded as an antithesis to the previous 2 monotheistic faiths, but a continuation of their basic message.