Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

Gabriel_Whist · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Gabriel_Whist** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:35 am

Ghost: Obviously there are some people who are against abortion for reasons unrelated to religion, but the vast majority of people against it are indeed religious, or their hatred of it at least stems from past religious beliefs. In short, most hatred of abortion comes from religion. And I don't hate all Christians, just the bad ones.

Mel:

2.) I disagree, I think when an opinion starts hurting others, such as say rascism and bigotry, it is wrong, and I don't care if you disagree with it, but that is how I feel.
4.) There is nothing wrong with getting drunk and high, and people who take advantage of people who are are the ones who should've been aborted in the first place. Also, heard of roofies? One of the leading causes of abortion right there.
5.) No, when the baby is born, after nine months in the womb, and it opens its eyes and cries, the sperm has come to fruition. Till then its still gesticulating.
6.) That is not a flame, its a fact. Christian hatred of abortion orginates with the bible, the bible contains many things that most people would find wrong or stupid. How is that a flame? I know not. Just because you are Christian does not mean that everything I say that goes against your Judeo-Christian values should be deemed and insult and a flame.
7.) What is one of the reasons you do? In fact, what are all of the reasons you do? Even if you don't want him as president there is still no reason for you to hate him. And do you seriously want another 4-8 years of Bush's reign of idiocy?

ThatsNotPoetry · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **ThatsNotPoetry** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:43 am

Massacre wrote:The subject at hand is primarily Barack Obama supporting partial birth abortion. That is a fully formed, baby, with all it's appendages and brain intact and functional. That is why Barack Obama cannot become pregnant.

(I understand you mean "president," though that did make me giggle. x3)
Actually, I did touch on the primary subject.

ThatsNotPoetry wrote:Abortion removes a fetus that doesn't even know what death is. A fetus in the womb has not experienced life beyond the womb. It won't know sadness for its death. In an even simpler light, I hate it when people use the argument "What if YOU had been aborted, huh? HUH?" Guess what. If I was aborted, I wouldn't know it, because I wouldn't be here and therefore couldn't know pain or sadness for it.
[...] As Athias was already kind enough to point out, no one's forcing anyone to have abortions. If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

Let me press that portion in red, there. These are quotes from OnTheIssues.org.
"Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)"
"Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)"
"Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)"

Obama is not advocating the use of partial-birth abortion. He is advocating a woman's right to choose what is produced in her own body. There is a massive difference. To call a man a "baby-killer" because he wants to let people choose for themselves is like calling courts "teen-killers" for denying colleges that 18-year-old drinking age. It doesn't correlate like that. In fact, it's called libel and slander. No one's telling anyone to go out and get abortions. He may not even like the idea of partial-birth abortions. But he doesn't feel it is his right to tell a woman that she can or cannot have abortions. He wants individual states to decide their level of restrictions, and he wants to give women the right to decide for themselves.

Now, to base the 4-year-fate of an entire nation--which survives on innumerable policies and laws and cultures--on a single issue which can ultimately be decided on an individual basis by the individual... I personally just don't think that's a wise way to vote.

Unfortunately, abortion is often a very personal subject for people. It is the one political issue on which I am willing to fully understand and accept both sides. If people are going to get up in arms about something, I'd rather it be fetal death than any number of other lame subjects. But, I've already stated my opinion of it. Twice, actually. In issues like this I'm not going to tell anyone they are right or wrong; just point out the things I find important, and I want to make sure people are properly informed. :3

**Edited to bring in some quotes**
***Another edit to better explain myself. Also please note I am aware no decision has been made about the college and 18-year-olds and alcohol.. thing. xD Just an example using current events.***

Cloaked_Schemer · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Cloaked_Schemer** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:10 am

I agree that Obama should not be elected for President because of this very reason. Partial birth abortion is, in my eyes, murder. Legalized murder. Therefore, Obama supports murder. Women do have the right, sure, but they need to make up their damn minds BEFORE their pregnancy is so far in. Seriously, if you're THAT traumatized that you can't keep the baby, I'd think you'd want to get rid of it right away. There is no excuse for this at all.

Secondly, while I do understand why one would want an abortion, I am against it. If you don't want the kid, put it up for adoption. I don't care if you were raped by your freaking father and you're carrying his child, it is not that child's fault and it most definitely should not be denied a life for it. Abortion is a selfish and horrible thing to do. You have so many options; why would you choose THAT one?
On the other hand, I do have to say that women have certain rights, no matter how screwed up they may seem. I believe that abortion shouldn't be illegalized, but that women should just oversee their other options and hopefully make the right choice.

ThatsNotPoetry · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **ThatsNotPoetry** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:18 am

Cloaked_Schemer wrote:I agree that Obama should not be elected for President because of this very reason. [...]
I believe that abortion shouldn't be illegalized, but that women should just oversee their other options and hopefully make the right choice.

So you hate him for wanting to let women keep their rights and keep it legal, while simultaneously believing that it should indeed be kept legal. ...That really, really makes me sad. And possibly confused.

Just gonna quote myself since it has everything to do with this.

ThatsNotPoetry wrote:Now, to base the 4-year-fate of an entire nation--which survives on innumerable policies and laws and cultures--on a single issue which can ultimately be decided on an individual basis by the individual... I personally just don't think that's a wise way to vote.

He's not saying abortion is the desired outcome. He's merely saying that he's going to let women make their own choices. He's not telling them to have abortions. In even the simplest of ways, he's only agreeing with you.

Cloaked_Schemer · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Cloaked_Schemer** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:24 am

ThatsNotPoetry wrote:So you hate him for wanting to let women keep their rights and keep it legal, while simultaneously believing that it should indeed be kept legal. ...That really, really makes me sad. And possibly confused.

No. I only said regular abortion should be kept legal, when it is done about 4-8 or so weeks into the pregnancy. Even though I don't agree with it, that should be a woman's choice regardless.

However, partial birth abortions should not be legal due to the fact that the fetus is quite a bit more developed than it would be if it were 4-8 weeks in.

And, I know that he isn't telling women to have abortions, nor did I say he was. Just the fact that he wants it to be legal is enough to dissuade me from voting for him.

ThatsNotPoetry · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **ThatsNotPoetry** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:32 am

Cloaked_Schemer wrote:
ThatsNotPoetry wrote:So you hate him for wanting to let women keep their rights and keep it legal, while simultaneously believing that it should indeed be kept legal. ...That really, really makes me sad. And possibly confused.

No. I only said regular abortion should be kept legal, when it is done about 4-8 or so weeks into the pregnancy. Even though I don't agree with it, that should be a woman's choice regardless.

However, partial birth abortions should not be legal due to the fact that the fetus is quite a bit more developed than it would be if it were 4-8 weeks in.

And, I know that he isn't telling women to have abortions, nor did I say he was. Just the fact that he wants it to be legal is enough to dissuade me from voting for him.

Okay that de-confuses me xD thank you. I don't agree with you, but I understand now :3

Ghost_x1000 · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Ghost_x1000** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:48 am

This topic is really not about abortion. It is about Barack Obama, and why not to vote for him.
However, inevitably, it has the hidden issue of abortion. It is an issue that is well worth debating and discussing, but not here.

So, if you want to debate the issue of whether barack obama should be president or not based upon his position on the issues, the please go right ahead. However, if you want to debate and discuss abortion, and all the things that go along with that, please take it to abortion. This is really not the place.

Ryand-Smith · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Ryand-Smith** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:51 am

I feel that Barack should be a president for the reasons that he outlined in his speech. I do not want US Troops in Iraq, ass I feel that Sadam was a BAD MAN, but we have sponsored much more worse bastards in our history. Have any of you heard of the School of the Americas?

On September 20, 1996, the Pentagon released seven training manuals prepared by the U.S. military and used between 1987 and 1991 in Latin America and in intelligence training courses at the U.S. School of the Americas (SOA). The manuals were based in part on lesson plans used by the school as far back as 1982 and, in turn, based in part on older material from Project X.[2] According to Lisa Haugaard of School of the Americas Watch, these manuals taught repressive techniques and promoted the violation of human rights throughout Latin America and around the globe.[12] The manuals contain instructions in motivation by fear, bounties for enemy dead, false imprisonment, torture, execution, and kidnapping a target's family members. Joseph Kennedy said "These manuals taught tactics that come right out of a Soviet gulag and have no place in civilized society." The Pentagon admitted that these manuals were a "mistake

Its the little things that McCain says he supports (Ironic, as the man was a POW in VietNam, that concern me. As a Christian, this is the antisis of what our LORD said to do. Would one want to be tortured? NO. We must not do that. We must take the higher ground. We are not the barbaric peoples, but we act like it. We must show our true faces and morals.

"President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice." -Ronny Reagan

LF is mostly children so you probably don't remember this shit but US-backed counterinsurgency forces in Guatemala were responsible for the vast majority of human rights abuses during the 36-year long war.

quote:

In April 1981, a secret CIA cable described a massacre at Cocob, near Nebaj in the Ixil Indian territory. On April 17, 1981, government troops attacked the area believed to support leftist guerrillas, the cable said. According to a CIA source, "the social population appeared to fully support the guerrillas" and "the soldiers were forced to fire at anything that moved." The CIA cable added that "the Guatemalan authorities admitted that 'many civilians' were killed in Cocob, many of whom undoubtedly were non-combatants."

Despite the CIA account and other similar reports, Reagan permitted Guatemala's army to buy $3.2 million in military trucks and jeeps in June 1981. To permit the sale, Reagan removed the vehicles from a list of military equipment that was covered by the human rights embargo.

The Guatemalans took so well to our training by top CIA and DoD officials that they decided to spread the love to the rest of the continent. In 1962 Kennedy sent General Willaim Yarborough to Colombia (the father of the US Army Special Forces, oh and one of the key players in COINTELPRO in the 60s) to train government-funded death squads. Latin America will probably take another 5 decades to recover from the systematic rape, torture and murder from U.S.-backed paramilitary forces.

More fun my Regan, the Beloved of the Republican Party and McCain

Circ · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Circ** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 1:17 pm

Barack Obama claims he doesn't support partial-birth abortions. He claims to believe it is a state's rights issue.

Barack Obama wrote:On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barac ... ortion.htm

However, he voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion: same source, "In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion. "

To me, that is just another instance of him being inconsistent on important social issues by trying to cater to everyone. If you read over the linked page, you'll see tons of examples just on the issue of abortion.

On a side note, I have renamed this thread to something less in line with character assassination.

Edit: Ryand, can you supply a source for McCain claiming to support systemic torture, false imprisonment, and other fear-monger tactics to keep a region from progressing socially?

Ryand-Smith · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Ryand-Smith** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:16 pm

SURE!

n February 2008 he voted against HR 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which included provisions that would have prevented the CIA from waterboarding prisoners.96 97 The bill in question contained other provisions to which McCain objected, and his spokesman stated: "This wasn't a vote on waterboarding. This was a vote on applying the standards of the [Army] field manual to CIA personnel."98

See, I find it funny, he says the US Army can't waterboard, what makes the CIA exempt. Note, the School of the Americas was a CIA function. They still run this as of now, and they teach others how to use Torture, cruelty, and naziesque methods on how to run a country!

He Also supported the Military Commissions Act Which, the Supreme Court of the United States declared Unconstitutional. It did

ACLU wrote:Habeas corpus isn't a fancy legal term. It's the freedom from being thrown in prison illegally, with no help and no end in sight. No president should ever be given the power to call someone an enemy, wave his hand, and lock them away indefinitely. The Founders made the president subject to the rule of law. They rejected dungeons and chose due process.

We all know the difference between fairness and persecution. If we do not act immediately to fix the Military Commissions Act and restore our constitutional rights, basic protections like habeas corpus could be lost forever, and our country would become unrecognizable.

The MCA eliminates the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. It allows our government to continue to hold hundreds of prisoners for more than five years without charges.

It also gives any president the power to declare — on his or her own — who is an enemy combatant, decide who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and define what is — and what is not — torture and abuse.

Circ · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Circ** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:32 pm

Based on that, I imagine you feel that the right's of citizens should also extend to those who become prisoners of the United States?

Massacre · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Massacre** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:04 pm

Women have the right to choose? Especially though they're emotionally traumatized, are they qualified to make choices (especially ones such as that?) It's rather obvious that somebody who is emotionally traumatized has a high possibility of making a radical decision.

Contraceptives failing is a known risk, thus when a woman get's pregnant due to contraceptives failing, it's still her fault. Condoms are known to only have a 96% success rate (or somewhere around there) of preventing pregnancy.

The fact of the matter is, coupled with knowledge, alternatives, and rationality, abortion is not a logical decision under any circumstance. So giving women the right to choose is still wrong. They should still have a choice without abortion being an option. Those choices are to keep the child yourself, or put it up for adoption. Adoption provides the same desired effect of abortion, you wont have to deal with your own responsibility or the crimes of others.

If this seems unfair, ask the child when he is old enough to become self-aware.

Also, the last time I checked, a doctors purpose was to save lives and not take them.

Regardless, this is a very important issue, which Obama also tried to shun away from during his speech in the DNC.

As somebody mentioned earlier, a woman most certainly shouldn't have the choice of partial birth abortion. If they couldn't decide earlier, they're obviously desperate for an answer at that point. Desperate people make desperate decision.

It's still my opinion that the father should have a say, especially if he is willing to take of the child himself.

papolatte · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **papolatte** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:23 pm

Oh I like what Massacre just said. I agree, if they are so emotionally traumatized, then how are they able to make the right decision for themselves?

My main thought is though, if they want to have an abortion, then they need to make that decision EARLY on.

Waiting til the last minute, rediculous. The sperm does come to fruition when the baby starts developing obviously, saying that it isn't, is like saying a seedling isn't alive, even though it is growing. If it wasn't alive, then it WOULDN't be growing.

Plus babies kick inside the womb, and have heart beats inside the womb. So proove to me that a baby with a heart beat, and the ability to kick in the womb, means that they aren't alive, and I'll go ahead and personally vote for Obama.

By the way, I'm dead set on the belief that anything with a heart beat is alive.

I'm all for women's choice, but yeah, some of you should think your moralities through a bit.

7achary · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **7achary** on Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:53 pm

Heh. First off, Ryand, they're not Americans- I'm not trying to sound brutal, but sometimes things need to be done that will keep you behind your computer screen, happy, healthy, and enjoying your God given rights. You take your privileges for granted. The fact that you're ab;e to "discuss" these issues at all shows what a great country this is.

Secondly, abortion is WRONG. Don't try and excuse it, or pander words to make it sound "not as bad." And don't discount spirituality as a counter argument. This country was founded on that spirituality you so lightly discount.

Personally, the reason I'm not voting for the Messiah(Obama) is that he wants to take even more of my hard earned money and put it into the hands of the "less fortunate." Charity, as I like to call Welfare and similiar socialist programs, is the duty of the church or the perogative of the individual. Get a second job, quit eating out so much, invest your money, or any number of things. I'm not cold hearted, I've lived in some of the worst scenarios possible in America. I've lived in two homeless shelters as a child. I know how hard it is. Use these things to get back up on your feet, don't turn it into a life style.

He wants to take away our missle defense system. Am I the only one that noticed the Russian/Georgian conflict? Russia INVADED another country. INVADED. Some of you may say,"Well, we invaded Iraq." Yes, after we were attacked by terrorist who had backers in the country's government. After years of the Iraqi people being oppressed and subjugated by a dictator, yes we invaded. Others of you may retort, "It's all about oil!" Really? Are you aware that most of our oil is imported from Canada and Mexico? Here's a chart.

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jun-08 May-08 YTD 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANADA 1,883 1,840 1,888
SAUDI ARABIA 1,479 1,579 1,523
MEXICO 1,124 1,116 1,193
VENEZUELA 1,085 1,030 1,012
NIGERIA 946 851 1,036
IRAQ 693 583 674
ANGOLA 636 464 496
BRAZIL 280 318 221
ALGERIA 269 440 319
RUSSIA 228 119 109
KUWAIT 179 263 219
ECUADOR 178 162 192
COLOMBIA 177 245 182
CHAD 107 57 101
LIBYA 89 96

Not to mention his dealing with known terrorist, slum lords, and other unsavory characters. The President of the United States of America is meant to be virtuous and dependable, Obama is none of these.

McCain's runningmate seems like a great choice, I really wish he would step down and offer her the job.

I'm not a McCain supporter- the lesser of two evils.

Massacre · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Massacre** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:05 am

Yet more reasons Obama shouldn't be elected.

One another topic, the surge, which Obama claims to have failed. Then, further he had the audacity to claim McCain to be wrong about Iraq. How was McCain wrong about Iraq? If I remember correctly McCain's words were something along the lines of "As long as it takes, if it takes 100 years, then it will take 100 years." He never claimed he wanted to keep us here longer than needed.

Obama stated that he would impose a troop withdrawal in no later than 16 months after he is elected (regardless of the situation) then later rescinded his offer. He then claimed he wanted to see the condition in Iraq. Coincidentally Iraq wanted a time line for troop withdrawal after Obama's public announcement.

It sounds to me that Obama was in fact wrong about Iraq, as when he arrived, he was able to see the success of The Surge that liberals attempted to smear.

Yet, Obama still has the balls to slander the work of President Bush. Despite the fact that it was reported to President Bush that there was evidence in records that ex-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. On top of trying to smear The Surge, liberals have successfully smeared the war in Iraq without even remotely understanding the operations occurring here.

They don't understand how peaceful it is here now, our BDE had had no casualties in months, on top of no Mortar attacks, or IED blasts. Zero IED blasts! People are returning to Iraq in floods, and the peace is still great. There is no possible way The Surge didn't accomplish it's goal.

Anybody who claims that The Surge failed, is disrespecting the soldiers who fought and died, who were wounded, and lost friends. Anybody who still claims that the surge was unsuccessful might as well strip the soldiers of their awards. Iraq is a success, we succeeded here, and Iraq will continue to succeed when they take over their own security operations.

It's funny seeing the media in the rear, and how they cover the war in Iraq. "Suicide bomber, so many dead, the horror, the failure." Then you see a soldier ran newspaper, or even Stars and Stripes. "An Iraqi soldier sacrificed his life to stop a suicide bomber, Iraqi soldiers successfully stop VBIED, record number of caches discovered, soldiers give out medical care, and supplies to the children of Iraq." I rather read about the news of success, rather than the liberal news of loss and defeat, a defeat that hasn't happened.

Yet, Barack Obama wants to become pregnant despite the fact that he dares to tear down the wall that soldiers built with their blood and their lives (I guess marines too) claiming that nothing came out of the war in Iraqi, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, or Operation Enduring Freedom.

I think the liberal media needs to cease it's ways too, by heavily SUPPORTING the insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, with it's negative news reports. Liberal media is worst than any Al-Qaeda video of a soldier's decapitation or an EFP blowing through an M-RAP, or a deep buried IED flipping a Bradley. This is who Barack Obama supports every time he claims America failed in Iraq. Not you, not the soldiers and marines and their sacrifices, but the terrorists and the insurgents.

Ryand-Smith · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Ryand-Smith** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 1:04 pm

We signed global treaties, called the Geneva Conventions, to agree to treat captured enemy soliders with fair and moral care. If we say "but Al-Qudea has no global army" then as Civilians, we must treat them with fair and moral care under our own internal military rules. Eit her way, we had sworn that we must treat captured enemies with moral care, and I feel that Human Rights are key, as a Christan, our LORD demanded we treat the poor, the enemy, the infirm, as we would oursleves. "What you have done for the least of my brothers, you have done for me", sort of thinking. I say that if we are not trusted to behave with our own treaties, we should not be respected.

On the point about Russia, I have to say that Russia was defending its citizens, who were just doing the same thing we as Americans are proud of, shaking off the shackles of an oppressive Motherland. If you dissagree, you are an Anti-American, as the Glorious United States of America was founded on the principal of sucession.

On Sadam. Saddam Hated Al-Qudea, as their brand of Islamic Fundementalism threatened his vision of a Socialist Pan-Arabic Nation under the leadership of Iraq. Sadam hated Islam fundementalism, as he had banned several Suni and Shiha rituals which he thought were too "Islamic" for his tastes. I personally feel that Invading Iraq gave Al Qudea a giant traning base, because with Iran hating Al-Qudea due to the diffrence in their islam, and the Saudis funding them, we had bigger threats to our Glorious United States than some madman who we had given WMD to (look up the Iran-Iraq war child, learn some things). I come from the point of view which states that a Republican goverment would lead to less funding for things which affect me, such as Finincal Aid to colleges, Mass Transist, and eco-friendly projects. The LORD gave us one Earth, and we must keep it in good shape, lest when he comes again in HIS glory, he punish us by the lake of fire.

7achary · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **7achary** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:13 pm

It's all well and good for you to say that from behind a computer, Ryand. War is war, get over it. People die, sometimes in horrific ways. Do you think our troops, your neighbors and family, should have stood by and let the "civilians" do as they please while torturing and beheading our brothers?

So you agree that Russia attacking Georgia- which has been recognised as a soveriegn state by Russian itself- was merely a country protecting it's citizens? Yu have no idea what life in the U.S.S.R. was like. My family came to America during the Cold War. Russia is not protecting it's citizens, it is pressing onto soveriegn nations with imperial intent. DON'T YOU DARE CALL ME UN-AMERICAN! I have been polite and concise up to this point, don't resort to insults because your argument is a failure.

The Lord cares more about your PERSONAL decisions than anything else. He gave us the trees and the animals to use as we see fit, hopefully in His service. Read Genesis, it spells out clearly the Lord's original plan and how we having failed that must constantly be at war with ourselves until Judgement Day. God cares more for human life, we ARE created in His image, than he cares for all the other creations put together. Everything the Lord created, though wonderous and great, was put here as tools for our survival as we sought him. The planet isn't going to die before he gets here.

Ryand-Smith · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Ryand-Smith** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:37 pm

But, the Lord said that He cares more of the Spirit of the Law rather than the Word of the law, my fellow follower of Christ. My Family is more American than yours then, as we came before yours, by force. Anyway, you failed to answer my points on Saddam Hussien, which means I accept your concession on them.

The Georgia Point I have invaldidated, as the South Odessians were citizens of Russia, and therefore, Georgia was committing crimes against another nation. Would you stand still if lets say, Mexico was to commit crimes against US Citizens in South Texas? No, and so the same principal stands.

War is war, get over it. People die, sometimes in horrific ways. Do you think our troops, your neighbors and family, should have stood by and let the "civilians" do as they please while torturing and beheading our brothers?

We are meant to Emulate the Lord, not the Eternal Devil Satan, who would undergo barbaric activites like this. Your argument is also wrong, as it assumes that the US should be the "World Police". Explain why we did not interviene in Sudan(Darfur), in Rwanda, but why Iraq. See, your argument assumes America can be this great light to the world, or a badass mavverick who doesn't play by the rules (in which case we can't condem anyone). We can't have it both ways, my silly friend.

Circ · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Circ** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:44 pm

Ryand-Smith wrote:My Family is more American than yours then, as we came before yours, by force..

Ryand, that type of rhetoric crosses a line that I don't think is acceptable. Please leave off on it. And 7achery, refrain from responding to it.

papolatte · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **papolatte** on Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:04 pm

Thank you moderators.

Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Re: Barack Obama: The baby killing lifesaver?

Re: Barack Obama: The baby killing lifesaver?

Re: Barack Obama: The baby killing lifesaver?

Re: Barack Obama: The baby killing lifesaver?

Re: Barack Obama: The baby killing lifesaver?

Re: Barack Obama: The baby killing lifesaver?

Re: Barack Obama: The baby killing lifesaver?

Re: Barack Obama: The baby killing lifesaver?

Re: Barack Obama: The baby killing lifesaver?

Re: Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

Re: Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

Re: Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

Re: Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

Re: Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

Re: Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

Re: Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

Re: Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

Re: Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

Re: Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

Re: Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online