ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Republican should be happy Palin resigned

RomanLion

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1234

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 7:37 pm

Quote (Red_Shirt_Casualty @ July 23 2009, 8:50 am)
Actually no I didn't mean any of it as a "bad thing", that was the purpose of an ironic and gratutious statement. Or do you really not know what that means?

Here, let me help you: Irony - meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity or discordance between what one says or does and what one means or what is generally understood.

Why  I know exactly what you mean. My idiot brother blurts out the word that rhymes with "bigger" to describe Obama and then says "just kidding" when everyone's jaws drop...

He doesn't fool anyone either.

Betcha use that term a lot when you think no one is listening....


Quote
But in the end, I'm hardly going to sit here and be schooled on the topic of racism from a guy who is blatently racist in his own way, and most certainly a sexist...nice that you side stepped that issue, I guess you really didn't have anything to back that one up. It's okay for a man to put aside family for career at an early age, but ####, let's not let the women-folk think for themselves.


Didn't side step the issue at all. I'm all for a woman (or for that matter a man) deciding that career is more important than having a family. It's what I did and I have no regrets...

(Well, a few maybe, but that's another story)

But don't come back in your forties with your defective genetic material and say, "Hey, I'm gonna have this kid and I don't care if he's a complete idiot...."

SLagonia

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18170

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 7:49 pm

Quote (RomanLion @ July 19 2009, 10:30 pm)
Quote (SLagonia @ July 20 2009, 10:23 am)
First let me address the bible comment.

Exodus is laying down secular laws for the nation. ?This isn't a biblical endorsement of anything, it's a legal code. ?Most importantly, however, we must remember the time at which this law was formed. ?CHILDREN - FULLY BORN CHILDREN - WERE PROPERTY OF THEIR PARENTS. ?Any damage done to them would be paid in reperations to their parents.

You know, considering the sheer amount of times a baby is considered alive while in the womb throughout the bible, it's really strange that you would find the one verse where it seems to imply an unborn baby doesn't have the rights of a full person and parade that around as if it were the only one.

Fact is, from John The Baptist recieving the Holy Spirit while in the womb to Jesus repeatedly saying that he had known people since before they were born, the bible is full of references that contradict your one passage. ?

The only specific reference is that the soul comes into being when blood begins to flow, which happens roughly 14 days in.

Guy, there is no legal or scientific evidence a "soul" exists. Incidently, the Hebrews didn't believe in a "soul", either. They figured, you lived, you died, that was it... no mention of an afterlife. God was just some A-hole who inflicted disasters on you because you weren't kissing his ass hard enough...

The fact of the matter is there are relatively FEW bible verses supporting the position of zygotes as people... and more than a few indicating even INFANTS weren't considered people yet.

Actually there are many dozens.  The one you mentioned in fact does grant rights to the unborn, and does it with the same relative punishment as a born child.

RomanLion

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1234

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 7:51 pm

Quote (SLagonia @ July 23 2009, 7:49 pm)
Quote (RomanLion @ July 19 2009, 10:30 pm)
Quote (SLagonia @ July 20 2009, 10:23 am)
First let me address the bible comment.

Exodus is laying down secular laws for the nation. ?This isn't a biblical endorsement of anything, it's a legal code. ?Most importantly, however, we must remember the time at which this law was formed. ?CHILDREN - FULLY BORN CHILDREN - WERE PROPERTY OF THEIR PARENTS. ?Any damage done to them would be paid in reperations to their parents.

You know, considering the sheer amount of times a baby is considered alive while in the womb throughout the bible, it's really strange that you would find the one verse where it seems to imply an unborn baby doesn't have the rights of a full person and parade that around as if it were the only one.

Fact is, from John The Baptist recieving the Holy Spirit while in the womb to Jesus repeatedly saying that he had known people since before they were born, the bible is full of references that contradict your one passage. ?

The only specific reference is that the soul comes into being when blood begins to flow, which happens roughly 14 days in.

Guy, there is no legal or scientific evidence a "soul" exists. Incidently, the Hebrews didn't believe in a "soul", either. They figured, you lived, you died, that was it... no mention of an afterlife. God was just some A-hole who inflicted disasters on you because you weren't kissing his ass hard enough...

The fact of the matter is there are relatively FEW bible verses supporting the position of zygotes as people... and more than a few indicating even INFANTS weren't considered people yet.

Actually there are many dozens. ¿The one you mentioned in fact does grant rights to the unborn, and does it with the same relative punishment as a born child.

Well, when you get around to naming one... let me know...

SLagonia

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18170

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 7:58 pm

Quote (RomanLion @ July 22 2009, 10:51 pm)
Quote (SLagonia @ July 23 2009, 7:49 pm)
Quote (RomanLion @ July 19 2009, 10:30 pm)
Quote (SLagonia @ July 20 2009, 10:23 am)
First let me address the bible comment.

Exodus is laying down secular laws for the nation. ?This isn't a biblical endorsement of anything, it's a legal code. ?Most importantly, however, we must remember the time at which this law was formed. ?CHILDREN - FULLY BORN CHILDREN - WERE PROPERTY OF THEIR PARENTS. ?Any damage done to them would be paid in reperations to their parents.

You know, considering the sheer amount of times a baby is considered alive while in the womb throughout the bible, it's really strange that you would find the one verse where it seems to imply an unborn baby doesn't have the rights of a full person and parade that around as if it were the only one.

Fact is, from John The Baptist recieving the Holy Spirit while in the womb to Jesus repeatedly saying that he had known people since before they were born, the bible is full of references that contradict your one passage. ?

The only specific reference is that the soul comes into being when blood begins to flow, which happens roughly 14 days in.

Guy, there is no legal or scientific evidence a "soul" exists. Incidently, the Hebrews didn't believe in a "soul", either. They figured, you lived, you died, that was it... no mention of an afterlife. God was just some A-hole who inflicted disasters on you because you weren't kissing his ass hard enough...

The fact of the matter is there are relatively FEW bible verses supporting the position of zygotes as people... and more than a few indicating even INFANTS weren't considered people yet.

Actually there are many dozens. ?The one you mentioned in fact does grant rights to the unborn, and does it with the same relative punishment as a born child.

Well, when you get around to naming one... let me know...

I just did.  Your's.

And in fact, I named a few others earlier in the debate.

RomanLion

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1234

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 8:07 pm

Quote (SLagonia @ July 23 2009, 7:58 pm)
I just did. ¿Your's.

And in fact, I named a few others earlier in the debate.

Guy, you are just being lazy...

Exodus 21:23-24 says that the JUDGES will decide what PAYMENT is required for a lost fetus... Indicating they considered it property.

Now keep in mind, in the rest of the Torah, they were calling for stoning people for much lesser offenses- Having sex with other men, having sex with animals, working on the Sabbath, having sex with a member of an opposing tribe... Oh, yeah, and let's not forget my personal favorite, being a "witch".  

But killing a fetus? Pay a fine. No big whup.

Chapter and verse, guy, or don't waste my time.

Alisium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8705

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 8:11 pm

Quote (RomanLion @ July 23 2009, 12:07 pm)
Quote (SLagonia @ July 23 2009, 7:58 pm)
I just did. ?Your's.

And in fact, I named a few others earlier in the debate.

Guy, you are just being lazy...

Exodus 21:23-24 says that the JUDGES will decide what PAYMENT is required for a lost fetus... Indicating they considered it property.

Now keep in mind, in the rest of the Torah, they were calling for stoning people for much lesser offenses- Having sex with other men, having sex with animals, working on the Sabbath, having sex with a member of an opposing tribe... Oh, yeah, and let's not forget my personal favorite, being a "witch". ¿

But killing a fetus? Pay a fine. No big whup.

Chapter and verse, guy, or don't waste my time.

What?

Here is that scripture.

Quote
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.  

SLagonia

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18170

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 8:12 pm

Quote (RomanLion @ July 22 2009, 11:07 pm)
Quote (SLagonia @ July 23 2009, 7:58 pm)
I just did. ?Your's.

And in fact, I named a few others earlier in the debate.

Guy, you are just being lazy...

Exodus 21:23-24 says that the JUDGES will decide what PAYMENT is required for a lost fetus... Indicating they considered it property.

Now keep in mind, in the rest of the Torah, they were calling for stoning people for much lesser offenses- Having sex with other men, having sex with animals, working on the Sabbath, having sex with a member of an opposing tribe... Oh, yeah, and let's not forget my personal favorite, being a "witch". ¿

But killing a fetus? Pay a fine. No big whup.

Chapter and verse, guy, or don't waste my time.

Ahem;

A child was property of the parents.

RomanLion

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1234

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 8:14 pm

Quote (SLagonia @ July 23 2009, 8:12 pm)
Quote (RomanLion @ July 22 2009, 11:07 pm)
Quote (SLagonia @ July 23 2009, 7:58 pm)
I just did. ?Your's.

And in fact, I named a few others earlier in the debate.

Guy, you are just being lazy...

Exodus 21:23-24 says that the JUDGES will decide what PAYMENT is required for a lost fetus... Indicating they considered it property.

Now keep in mind, in the rest of the Torah, they were calling for stoning people for much lesser offenses- Having sex with other men, having sex with animals, working on the Sabbath, having sex with a member of an opposing tribe... Oh, yeah, and let's not forget my personal favorite, being a "witch". ?

But killing a fetus? Pay a fine. No big whup.

Chapter and verse, guy, or don't waste my time.

Ahem;

A child was property of the parents.

Exactly - PROPERTY. Not a person.

Alisium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8705

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 8:16 pm

Quote (RomanLion @ July 23 2009, 12:14 pm)
Quote (SLagonia @ July 23 2009, 8:12 pm)
Quote (RomanLion @ July 22 2009, 11:07 pm)
Quote (SLagonia @ July 23 2009, 7:58 pm)
I just did. ?Your's.

And in fact, I named a few others earlier in the debate.

Guy, you are just being lazy...

Exodus 21:23-24 says that the JUDGES will decide what PAYMENT is required for a lost fetus... Indicating they considered it property.

Now keep in mind, in the rest of the Torah, they were calling for stoning people for much lesser offenses- Having sex with other men, having sex with animals, working on the Sabbath, having sex with a member of an opposing tribe... Oh, yeah, and let's not forget my personal favorite, being a "witch". ?

But killing a fetus? Pay a fine. No big whup.

Chapter and verse, guy, or don't waste my time.

Ahem;

A child was property of the parents.

Exactly - PROPERTY. Not a person.

Not exactly, as that is not what the scripture says.

RomanLion

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1234

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 8:16 pm

Quote (Alisium @ July 23 2009, 8:11 pm)
Quote (RomanLion @ July 23 2009, 12:07 pm)
Quote (SLagonia @ July 23 2009, 7:58 pm)
I just did. ?Your's.

And in fact, I named a few others earlier in the debate.

Guy, you are just being lazy...

Exodus 21:23-24 says that the JUDGES will decide what PAYMENT is required for a lost fetus... Indicating they considered it property.

Now keep in mind, in the rest of the Torah, they were calling for stoning people for much lesser offenses- Having sex with other men, having sex with animals, working on the Sabbath, having sex with a member of an opposing tribe... Oh, yeah, and let's not forget my personal favorite, being a "witch". ?

But killing a fetus? Pay a fine. No big whup.

Chapter and verse, guy, or don't waste my time.

What?

Here is that scripture.

Quote
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. ¿

Off a verse...

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. Exodus 21:22-23

But there is MORE...

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14

God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by wh!!!dom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24

Red_Shirt_Casualty

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1812

Report this Jul. 24 2009, 1:42 am

Quote (RomanLion @ July 22 2009, 8:37 pm)
Quote (Red_Shirt_Casualty @ July 23 2009, 8:50 am)
Actually no I didn't mean any of it as a "bad thing", that was the purpose of an ironic and gratutious statement. Or do you really not know what that means?

Here, let me help you: Irony - meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity or discordance between what one says or does and what one means or what is generally understood.

Why ¿I know exactly what you mean. My idiot brother blurts out the word that rhymes with "bigger" to describe Obama and then says "just kidding" when everyone's jaws drop...

He doesn't fool anyone either.

Betcha use that term a lot when you think no one is listening....

No Kosh, not everyone is as a bigot like you and your brother apparently, since you seem so eager to throw him under the bus.

You really are a simple creature...

A complete idiot...but simple.

Quote
Didn't side step the issue at all.


Liar.

That's all the energy I have to muster for you today, Kosh. Sorry I don't feel well enough to verbally spar with you.

I would also normally point out the hypocrisy of someone criticizing the grammer of other people is suddenly all Gomer Pile when it comes to sentence structure. You should probably avoid that particular arguement in the future. Just FYI.

RomanLion

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1234

Report this Jul. 24 2009, 6:31 am

My sentence structure is just fine, thank you... and apparently you still can't spell argument, Archie....

Hey, I bet he was just being "ironic", too. ¿

To recap, RSC felt the need to describe Obama's racial background when describing his life as "dysfunctional". When called on it, he started whining that we just didn't understand he was being "ironic".

Frankly, I've always wondered why whenever the Retarded Flight Attendant is attacked, people feel the need to counterattack Obama. I actually WANT a candidate for the GOP who has the potential to beat Obama and run the country well.... and Palin couldn't handle Alaska... or her own family, for that matter.

Red_Shirt_Casualty

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1812

Report this Jul. 24 2009, 12:13 pm

Quote (RomanLion @ July 23 2009, 7:31 am)
My sentence structure is just fine, thank you... and apparently you still can't spell argument, Archie....

Hey, I bet he was just being "ironic", too. ?

To recap, RSC felt the need to describe Obama's racial background when describing his life as "dysfunctional". When called on it, he started whining that we just didn't understand he was being "ironic".

Frankly, I've always wondered why whenever the Retarded Flight Attendant is attacked, people feel the need to counterattack Obama. I actually WANT a candidate for the GOP who has the potential to beat Obama and run the country well.... and Palin couldn't handle Alaska... or her own family, for that matter.

Actually yes. Archie Bunker was one of the most revolutionary television shows of it's time, often tackling issues of race and other controversial subjects of the time. Often this was done by using Archie and his son-in-law as a sounding board. Or did you think putting a liberal couple with a stanch bigot conservative was just a coincidence? It's no wonder your unclear on this basic concept.

BTW: Archie Bunker is credited as being one of the greatest TV characters of all time. Do you really think it's because the show was intentionally being racist? Or do you think the show was trying to make an statement?

Yep, when you have nothing else, fall back on the classics. You're a hypocrite, Kosh. And no,
Quote
Arguement is a common misspelling of argument

Misspellings like mispellings and misspelings, are so benign that usually they serve only as a criticizing point for people who cant argue arguments, but are switching their focus to these 'fundamental' flaws in your character.


How apropos.

RomanLion

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1234

Report this Jul. 24 2009, 6:27 pm

Quote (Red_Shirt_Casualty @ July 24 2009, 12:13 pm)
Actually yes. Archie Bunker was one of the most revolutionary television shows of it's time, often tackling issues of race and other controversial subjects of the time. Often this was done by using Archie and his son-in-law as a sounding board. Or did you think putting a liberal couple with a stanch bigot conservative was just a coincidence? It's no wonder your unclear on this basic concept.

BTW: Archie Bunker is credited as being one of the greatest TV characters of all time. Do you really think it's because the show was intentionally being racist? Or do you think the show was trying to make an statement?

Yep, when you have nothing else, fall back on the classics.

Personally, I thought Norman Lear was just another Hollywood liberal mocking the very people who kept him from becoming a lampshade.  It was actually a pretty awful show, with very little to redeem it....

Being the "greatest TV character of all time" is like being the leper with the most fingers- a dubious honor at best.

Kornula

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1676

Report this Jul. 31 2010, 8:45 am

You do realize that Palin is an outright idiot who ran Alaska into the ground by pure "cronisim" politics. Cronisim of her own making. Oh such a maverick by stealing money (which she's been found GUILTY OF - then decrying "fowl" and you idiots who support this moron keep drinking her Koolaide.

This whole "lack of experience" is a non issue. You support GW who had years of experience running three major companies into the ground. Is that the kind of experience you praise?

Palin also left the town of Wasilla with a huge debt they are still paying off for an event center they really did not need. Yeah, she's financially conservative all right.. and a maverick. Whats wrong with you people? Why do you choose to blatently ignore irrefutable facts that Palin is a total moron who spews nothing but pure lies?

That is the only reason I'm terrified of that "woman", her pure ignorance and lack of intelligence... and the fucking morons who continue to make excuses for this dumb cunt.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum