Thanks Bob

Status
Not open for further replies.

PKevman

New member
Honestly, they are equally bad.

That is sad.

You obviously have no clue how oppressive the Chinese government really is.

Doc I like you, but I honestly think based upon this statement that you take your freedom for granted.

On its worse day, the USA is still the best country in the world to live in, despite all of its wickedness.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
:doh:

When a wicked man does something right, it should be celebrated that he finally did something right. Even if he goes out tomorrow and does something wrong.

If a killer saves the life of a child, I'm sure the child and the parents would be grateful that he didn't decide he would be a hypocrite to save the life of the child.

whats the :doh: for? You disagree?
 

S†ephen

New member
The argument has been mostly ignored, and you already answered correctly the first time, so you have only refuted your own argument. Sorry but never has our country done here to our own people what Saddam was doing to his people. You will never, ever, ever make that case! (Unless you go back to pre-Civil War and the slavery days, or how the American Indians were treated, but certainly NOT in modern times).

Still, I did answer this argument many posts ago when I asked you if a man who is a convicted murderer is out cutting his grass and sees his neighbor beating his kid to death with a baseball bat, if that man would be justified in using force to stop his neighbor from killing his kid. You never responded to this.

that is because you are comparing the us to innocent grass cutters. This is a wicked evil country that needs to fix its own problems before it fixes the problems of other countries.

the argument has absolutely nothing to stand on.
 

S†ephen

New member
If a murderer saves the life of a child who is being murdered is it a good thing? Or should he say, "I'm a murderer anyway, so what's the use," and watch the child be murdered?

Argument destroyed. Volley.

The murderer would only stop another murderer for profit.

(hint, hint.)
 

PKevman

New member
The murderer would only stop another murderer for profit.

(hint, hint.)

If that were the case would it be a good thing that he saved the life of the child being beaten to death? Even if his motives were to gain something for himself?
 

PKevman

New member
yes, but as history has proven (and is proving) he always does more damage than good.

I don't think history has proven that at all. Our country has certainly gotten worse over the years, but a World War II vet and their family would strongly disagree with you on this subject.
 

PKevman

New member
The CRTL holds the right position on abortion, and wants to right a past wrong that began in Colorado. Have you heard what they have to say on this subject Stephen Dale?
 

S†ephen

New member
I don't think history has proven that at all. Our country has certainly gotten worse over the years, but a World War II vet and their family would strongly disagree with you on this subject.

we're quickly straying from the topic here but the fact is that we've done more damage than good in Iraq. It's a known fact that they don't want us there and we are doing more harm than good. We are a sinful hypocritical nation and DO NOT MURDER is either consistent or not. They didn't harm us and it wasn't our job to help them. We murdered people who did nothing to us (however wicked they may or may not have been) and the only way this can be justified is if we do the same thing for every other evil country in the world including ours. And you and I both know we won't do that.
 

PKevman

New member
Stephen said:
we're quickly straying from the topic here

Then let's get back on topic because you and I and your dad could talk about the war in Iraq for another 80 pages and never come to an agreement.
 

PKevman

New member
I think a good thing to keep in mind is that our country has changed drastically since its beginnings. The people are FAR more wicked than they once were. So what might have worked in 1800 no longer works.

Instead of screaming for a guy like Ron Paul who would NEVER in a million years make the changes he claims he wants to make, (because the opposing parties won't let him), we need to focus on doing something right now with the political structure that is in place.

Like it or not we're stuck with it for now. The Godless Republicans and Democrats aren't going anywhere. :(

It is in the midst of this that a man of true faith has come forward proposing things that will in fact work if given a chance. Dr. Alan Keyes is that man.
 

sopwith21

New member
if a plane has TWO TARGETS to choose from, and one is 100' away, and one is 500' away and his guns are very hot, and both are EQUAL AND VIABLE targets, which shot is the wiser shot? :think:
Okay... let's chase that rabbit...

The federal strategy has had 35 years to take effect, and what is the result? Tens of millions of dead babies and nothing to show for it. The results are zero, zip, nada, nothing. Nationwide abortion is American law.

Since you are accomplishing absolutely nothing right now, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by trying to outlaw abortion on an international basis. The federal strategy has failed for 35 years... if you're going to fail, why not fail while trying something great? Why is an international strategy so bad? How can your chances get any worse than zero?

On the other hand, if anyone tries to follow the advice you gave above and take the closest possible shot by working locally at the state level, they are accused of being "pro abortion."

Judging by your own standards mentioned above, Ron Paul is taking the closest possible shot and is your best hope.
 

sopwith21

New member
Yes we should stop him. The problem with your example is Iraq wasn't a neighbor!
The example is full of problems. A more accurate analogy would be...

If someone is beating up a two year old, would you go over and stop the bad guy, then burn the two year old's house down, blow up his country, kill his parents, destroy his food and water supply and then claim to be his liberator even as he and the other neighborhood kids beg you to leave?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
If someone is beating up a two year old, would you go over and stop the bad guy, then burn the two year old's house down, blow up his country, kill his parents, destroy his food and water supply and then claim to be his liberator even as he and the other neighborhood kids beg you to leave?

As a fellow traveler once said, "if you want to make an omlette, you have to break a few eggs."

Personally, I don't agree, but a lot of people here think like that fellow.
 

sopwith21

New member
I for one believe that Saddam had enough hatred for America (he was quite open about it by the way)
Actually, Saddam was a friend to the USA so long as we kept arming him and financing him. We were the last people on earth he hated... in fact, he loved us. Its a wonder he didn't send you a birthday card.
He also had years and years to hide away, sell, or give to his allies the weapons we knew he had because we GAVE them to him!
If his weapons came from us, then we knew very well all along that he never had nukes. Yet we were lied into believing that he did.
He thumbed his nose for YEARS at the inspections.
Clinton deliberately withdrew US weapons inspectors from Iraq in December 1998. When the weapons inspections resumed, CIA intelligence agents were smuggled in as part of the "inspection" teams in order to locate targets for Operation Desert Fox, the US bombing campaign against Iraq.

In late 2001 Jose Bustani, chief of the Organization to Prevent Chemical Weapons, pushed hard to get Iraq on the Chemical Weapons Convention. As a member of the Convention, Iraq would have voluntarily submitted to weapons inspections or be forced to withdraw from the organization.

In March 2002, Bustani was forcibly removed from his office by George Bush's administration in order to prevent him from inviting Iraq into the CWC. Doing so would have removed Bush's excuse for war since Iraq was willing to accept the CWC's terms and permit weapons inspections.

In late 2002, UN weapons inspectors were, in fact, allowed into Iraq and given free reign to examine Iraqi weapons systems. Although a few minor infractions were found, nothing remotely connected to stockpiles of WMD's existed and the inspectors strongly discouraged any act of war based on that premise. In fact, Saddam Hussein permitted MORE THAN 750 inspections on Iraqi soil.

The US invaded anyway.

Here is the "PROVE IT! PROVE IT!" documentation that you always demand, but you should be embarrassed to read it. You should have done your own homework on this war six years ago, and you should not accept anything I say now or any information that I post. You have rejected every other truth that I have offered... I suggest you reject this one, too, and go do your own homework on the topic.
 

S†ephen

New member
I think a good thing to keep in mind is that our country has changed drastically since its beginnings. The people are FAR more wicked than they once were. So what might have worked in 1800 no longer works.

Are you saying you support our current system?

Instead of screaming for a guy like Ron Paul who would NEVER in a million years make the changes he claims he wants to make, (because the opposing parties won't let him), we need to focus on doing something right now with the political structure that is in place.

You have no more proof to back up your statement against Ron Paul than you do Alan Keys. And again, do you support our current political system?


Like it or not we're stuck with it for now.

And if that is our attitude we always will be.

The Godless Republicans and Democrats aren't going anywhere. :(

Alan Keys is running with the Republican party.

It is in the midst of this that a man of true faith has come forward proposing things that will in fact work if given a chance.

They have already been given a chance since the end of the Civil war when the Federal branch took total control. His strategy will work for his term(s) only and then we will have this same problem when he leaves.

Ron Paul however, presents a Constitutional strategy that will not be changed for many terms afterwards.
 

PKevman

New member
The example is full of problems. A more accurate analogy would be...

If someone is beating up a two year old, would you go over and stop the bad guy, then burn the two year old's house down, blow up his country, kill his parents, destroy his food and water supply and then claim to be his liberator even as he and the other neighborhood kids beg you to leave?

Perhaps you should see THIS

And by the way, what is the source of your information? You continue to make all of these claims but refuse to divulge where you get the information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top