Sounds interesting, but I don\’t get it…

Way to scrape the bottom of the barrel, Eternally September.

Krydor on October 5, 2007 at 11:36 AM

You are welcome.

You have spent possibly 100 posts trying to get me to admit to something I already agreed with, made claims you refuse to back with any documentation and have used writing practices that would make Mary Mapes and Dan Rather extremely proud.

Way to scrape the bottom of the barrel, Eternally September.

I swear, the Eternal September theory is accurate.

It takes two to tango.
.
.

Just post something that is not an intentional misquote.
Krydor on October 5, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Are you trying to tell me what to say…..

Good luck with that…….

Congress shall make no law respecting ……………….
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, if you’ll you’ll only post some kind of information regarding the LEVEL of success of the ABC program. If that is the program which you are talking about, because you have yet to confirm that is the case.

Just post something that is not an intentional misquote.

See above……And no, I wouldn’t support such a program. It flies in the face of reality.

Thanks for confirming that twice. You leave no doubt that I was right as to your biased attitude, which is the only thing I was trying to prove.

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the power of such judges.

Krydor on October 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM (revised)

See above… Is this a concession that there is no program? And no, I wouldn’t support such a program. It flies in the face of reality.

What argument do you think you are winning, here? Are you even reading responses or just finding “witty” ways of altering quotes? Abstinence only programs fail constantly.

So, there is a program that may or may not be successful and you refuse to name it. Well, based on your conduct, it wouldn’t surprised if you just made something up.

Yeesh. What an utter waste of time you’ve been.

Seeing as how you made the claim of documented success, provide said documentation.

I never said how successful any program was.
You haven’t refuted my charge, as per your attitude and bias.

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the power of such judges.

Seeing as how you made the claim of documented success, provide said documentation.

Also, cease misquoting me, as it is in poor form.

Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 12:38 PM

What program? Seriously, I only know of the “ABC” program….. Burden of proof and all that. I’ve done some looking, and can’t find any rave reviews.

I never said how successful any program was.

My implication was, is that, you wouldn’t support it, if there was one, as per your attitude and bias. And you haven’t refuted this charge.

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the power of such judges.

.

There has been success documented after Bush’s program was enacted……you’re the one disputing it, therefore it is your job to disprove it…

What program? Seriously, I only know of the “ABC” program. If this is the case, then perhaps you can provide a link backing your assertion that it is working. Burden of proof and all that. I’ve done some looking, and can’t find any rave reviews.

What I said, is that, you wouldn’t support it, if there was one, as per your attitude and biased opinion.

See above… Is this a concession that there is no program? And no, I wouldn’t support such a program. It flies in the face of reality.

Also, a quick question: Why are you intentionally misquoting me?

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the pervue of such judges.

Never wrote this, so please stop pretending I did.

Once again, what is the name of this “abstinence only” program you are raving about?
So, name the program. The amount of sexual activity hasn’t dropped by any significant level, as far as I’m aware.

I didn’t say there is a successful program at the moment….
What I said, is that, you wouldn’t support it, if there was one, as per your attitude and biased opinion.
.

I don’t see abortion as birth control per se, I see it as an avenue of last resort.

And this last resort is not necessary as birth control.

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the pervue of such judges.

Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 9:52 AM

That just proves my point about you Rudy shill’s being so transparent.

Once again, what is the name of this “abstinence only” program you are raving about? I know about the 3 step ABC program, which most educators have changed around to CBA, but I don’t know of any other government initiative. So, name the program. The amount of sexual activity hasn’t dropped by any significant level, as far as I’m aware.

Imagine not having this opportunity to live X 40 million conceptions.

This argument is essentially the same one used by the people who didn’t want condoms sold in the USA around the turn of the century. It isn’t like women are sitting around, having a nice cup of tea or whatever and musing to themselves, “you know what would be a fun time? An abortion! I’ll make a day of it and buy a hat afterwards! I’ll get Sue-Anne and the girls over, and we’ll all get abortions!”

And having so much better birth control as an option these days, makes it all the more ludricous to legalize abortion.

I don’t see abortion as birth control per se, I see it as an avenue of last resort.

Krydor on October 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM

Krydor on October 3, 2007 at 10:39 PM

because I have no idea where to start looking for (abstinence only program).

Bush’s program hasn’t shown real results. So of course you wouldn’t be willing to try something like an accidental-pregnancy-responsibility program, or anything of the sort, since of course you are biased in your opinion.

That just proves my point about you Rudy shill’s being so transparent.
.

I was what you might like to call a PLANNED kid.

Imagine not having this opportunity to live X 40 million conceptions.

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the pervue of any elected governing body.

And having so much better birth control as an option these days, makes it all the more ludricous to legalize abortion.

Um, where can I find this documentation? There’s a successful “abstinence only” sex ed program funded by the federal government? I know there’s the ABC plan, but beyond that I’m drawing a blank. You named this phantom program, provide some documentation, because I have no idea where to start looking.

Isn’t that what the minimum wage laws are for?

Wow, did you ever miss the point. The people that cross the border illegally work for less than minimum wage, and that wouldn’t stop regardless of the abortion rate.

Exit question: Are you happy with your life, Krydor? Are you glad that you were born and able to enjoy the life that you are living?

Why, yes I am. Thank you for asking! I have two wonderful parents, a rotten older brother, a wife who I would kill for and children I would die for. My car is new, my Hi Def TV is a Samsung, and I work in an industry I love.

Because if pro-choice was the law around your birthday, there is a good chance that you wouldn’t have been born.

Really? Were you talking to Mom and Dad? How did you get their phone number? Perhaps you have secret mind reading powers? Do these powers extend into foretelling the future, and if so, what are the Powerball numbers?

I was what you might like to call a PLANNED kid. By that, I mean, my parents used birth control and waited until they wanted children, had two and that was that. Strangely, my wife and I did exactly the same thing.

Guess you’ll have to make up some other imaginary things about my life and build some more straw men.

Anyway, seeing as how you brought up the success of abstinence programs, you want to name a couple?

There has been success documented after Bush’s program was enacted……you’re the one disputing it, therefore it is your job to disprove it…
Which I’m suspect that you could do, even with the cold hard facts in front of your nose. How long of a time period would it take, of cold hard facts to prove to you that abstinence works?
.

Um, ok. If not for all those abortions, Americans would be nannies to New York socialities, Gardeners, and basic labourers for about half the minimum wage?

Isn’t that what the minimum wage laws are for?
.

See, I just don’t buy into that. You’ve take two distinct topics and smooshed them together for some point that makes no sense.

It does makes sense if the laws (immigration, etc.) of this country had been enforced and not hijacked by Roe v. Wade/liberal judges.
You knew that, unless of course you really don’t care about the rule of law.
.
.

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the pervue of any elected governing body.

Krydor on October 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM

.
.

Exit question: Are you happy with your life, Krydor? Are you glad that you were born and able to enjoy the life that you are living?

Because if pro-choice was the law around your birthday, there is a good chance that you wouldn’t have been born.

I will only vote for someone I believe in, that is as, or more perfect than Ronald Reagan.

If Hillary gets elected as a result, I can live with that.

Redhead Infidel on October 3, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Are you that dishonest, or are you just that ignorant about the candidate you support so fervently?

Hollowpoint on October 3, 2007 at 8:46 PM

He’s that dishonest, we have been over all of this before, he just keeps repeating the same lies.

Fred actually lobbied for people to be able to commit what he claims to think is murder.

Still dishonest I see. He briefly lobbied on funding issue for clinics that provide abortion, not to expand or legalize abortion… partially because it already was legal. I’m also unaware where he stated that abortion is murder, though (unlike Rudy) he’s always said that he’d like to see Roe v Wade overturned.

A firm that he is associated with may have helpped the Saudis, but he has never lobbied for anyone. Rudy has never been a lobbyist. Fred is the lobbyist. Anyway, the Saudis are are friends, aren’t they?

tommylotto on October 3, 2007 at 8:16 PM

A firm that he is “associated with”??? You mean the Bracewell & Giuliani law firm, a well known and powerful lobbying firm?

Are you that dishonest, or are you just that ignorant about the candidate you support so fervently?

RUDY DONATED TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD SO HE LOVES ABORTION!

Rudy admits that he ultimately supports a woman’s right to choose. So this is no suprise. It is a suprise to many social conservatives that contributions such as those were paid to Fred so that Fred would throw his political weight around to help an abortion group get legislation passed!!! Fred actually lobbied for people to be able to commit what he claims to think is murder. Fred is not being honest about his position. Now or then.

RUDY DEFENDED A MURDERER SO HE’S SOFT ON CRIME!

I was not aware that Rudy was ever a criminal defense lawyer, but even if he was we know that he has a very long and proven track record of being the greatest crime fighter of the 20th century. He broke the back of the Five Families for petesake. Everyone knows that charge is false and whether he defended someone accused of murder would not change that perception

RUDY LOBBIED FOR THE SAUDIS SO HE’S IN THE POCKET OF THE ISLAMICISTS!

A firm that he is associated with may have helpped the Saudis, but he has never lobbied for anyone. Rudy has never been a lobbyist. Fred is the lobbyist. Anyway, the Saudis are are friends, aren’t they?

Only a lawyer can be that dishonest, and yes tommylotto I mean you, not Fred.

doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM

If you are going to call me a liar you need to do your homework and tell me how I’m wrong. Then of course you need to show that I knew I was wrong when I said it to make it a lie. I wasn’t wrong, so you cannot even get past step one.

The cucifixion was a problem, but with the resurrection he had the opportunity to run it himself for a long time, presumably to get the Gospels in order and develop the core dogma. Obviously, that didn’t happen.

The contention of the Catholics is that Christ did intend to found a church and did that by appointing Peter as the rock upon which he would build his church. Through that church the believers are able to receive the sacraments from God through an anointed priest.

I’ve read somewhat about the corruption of the Catholic Church and think there were good reasons for the Protestant Reformation. To accept it though, it would seem that Christ’s mission was more narrowly scoped (though still praise-worthy) than the Catholics believe and that we are left a little more on our own to sift through historical documents and make sense of what Christ taught.

To be more succinct and more on the Rudy/Dobson topic (since this isn’t a religion site). For someone like James Dobson to claim a special insight into the word of God, he may be right but he is also presupposing that God allowed it to get off to a bumpy start for 1500 years after he was incarnated as Christ.

dedalus on October 1, 2007 at

IDIOT! This was the PLAN from the fall of man forward! Read the Scriptures before you make a fool out of yourself! You don’t understand what you are talking about and know nothing about the doctrines of Law and Gospel!