Reply With Quote
By stating that you think he doesn't know what the man said, you're also stating that you do know what the man said.
Have illusions of grandeur much?
So you know what he meant, by your learned knowledge, but never meeting the man...
Have illusions of grandeur much?
By stating that you think he doesn't know what the man said, you're also stating that you do know what the man said.
Have illusions of grandeur much?
Obviously, the difference being that under a welfare program you can actually test if people require the welfare, whereas under abortion, you have no way to know (yet) if the fetus is "alive", or when that happens.
That's one way of looking at it, I guess. By property confiscation I assume you mean taxes?
Isn't it possible that welfare isn't so much an altruistic moral position but a pragmatic investment in a stronger country in the same way public education is? If people can't go to school because they need to feed themselves, they aren't necessarily going to become captains of industry or even mediocre, semi-educated citizens. Obviously the gulf between the ideal and the reality is wide, but it doesn't strike me as a inescapably moral position.
I personally don't even see welfare as a moral proposition. I even think that if as a country we can't afford it, it should be reduced or go away until we can afford it again. Then again, I can only speak for myself here.
Delusions, WC. And I don't doubt I suffer from them on this board sometimes. Even so, I don't know why being capable of following logic is proof of my delusion. It may be that Cain just mis-spoke over and over and over again, but based on what he said, LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, and that's a pretty definitive statement no matter how you try to grease it, chum.
I offered a plausible explanation. I even said:
If Cain knows the difference of not? Cannot say. Not to give a person the benefit of doubt however is a rather biased or agenda driven way to be.
Yes, he may have misspoke, maybe he didn't. Even if he clarifies, will you believe him?
Saying he values life from conception is not the same as saying he wants to make it illegal to prevent a conception from becoming a pregnancy. He didn't say he would make his view on the conception concept law. He did say or indicate abortion should be illegal, and an abortion is after one becomes pregnant. Not before. Technically, even if he misspoke, he was not in conflict.
But you can qualify without a doubt what another person inferred from those comments?
Have illusions of grandeur much?
Not necessarily (he's a politician, isn't he?) but at least I'll be able to say I understand him; considering I don't really have a dog in the race besides spreading the gospel of reproductive education, I don't know why he deserves more/less.
I don't pretend to be psychic, meaning that the only way I can make sense of someone's positions is to listen to what they say. If what they say doesn't make sense, I don't see how it is rude or uncharitable to say so, any more than it seems respectful or generous to give someone a pass for no reason.
If you say so.
A combination of the language instinct and our ability to be active for long periods is what made us such a successful species.
i thought it was tim tebow.
why haven't "Christians" freaked about the 1000s, 100,000s? "human beings" down the drain by fertility. clinics?
really bad effort, way too superficial.
anybody else?
Are you ing kidding me, jackoff? The ability to understand and communicate complex ideas is the defining trait of humanity.
This coming from WC is priceless.Not to give a person the benefit of doubt however is a rather biased or agenda driven way to be.
slightly off topic:
http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/24...in-key-states/
For one part that seems to be his stance. When he is asked about certain exceptions, he seems to be saying that it (making exceptions) is not the government's place. It appears he opposes all abortions. But he also says in another part- it's the woman's choice- which throws it all out the window.
If you believe life begins at conception, the morning-after pill can then be considered an abortion when it prevents implantation of the fertilized egg.
People need to get back on topic ... this isn't about abortion itself, it's about the superior brain of Herman Cain that allows him to defend two opposing positions at the same time.
Well, that's the gist of it. Most Republicans hate any kind of governement assistance (until they need it) but would love for anti-abortion laws to kick in. So take away abortion rights and what do you get? You sure as don't get more taxpayers in this country. You get more kids, more people in need of money to take care of those kids which means more people in poverty which means more ing from Republicans about more people being in poverty and getting government assistance. Like I said before, the right wing would love to force the woman to have the kid but if that new mother doesn't have a good support system she and that kid are on their own as far as they're concerned.
But the kid is useful to send off to die at war when he's 18.
And a demoralized, hopeless % will be good for hing and/or turning this country into a theocracy.
PS: 101 -- I've noticed you get understandably defensive when people attack Evangelical Christians, so for the record, understand this isn't directed at your peeps as much as it is towards the predatory, fascist branch of your denominational tree.
i haven't dodged the question. if you read my previous posts you'd find out my rationale that relates to the question you asked.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions