Total posts: 334
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not making him run in the first place, because if Obama had done a good job he wouldn't have run.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You know just as well as I do that The Washington Post's "fact checker" is bias. They interpret quotes in a way that fits their narrative, it's not straight reporting. Have they done these constant "fact checks" with democrats? You know they would be much more lenient with Biden's quotes than they would with Trump's. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that they are "reliable" and report factually, but the way in which they interpret those facts, twist it with their own political opinions, and present it to the public is clearly anti-Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
There are almost no mainstream moderate news sources, but every media bias checker has the Washington post at least left-center(I prefer mediabiasfactcheck.com, because all the the other supposed bias checkers are biased in themselves, lol). If we're going for fair reporting but still a slight bias to the left, I'd say The Hill. If we're going for the same thing but to the right, I'd say the New York Post(keep in mind i'm talking only about news, not any editorials for all of these). If we're trying to go for closest to the center on either side, I'd say the Wall Street Journal(and I'd definitely consider The Hill). Media sources who are pretty much completely neutral and pretty much just says what happens and let's the people decide how to interpret it are Real Clear Politics and C-Span.
Edit: I'd actually say the Hill is neutral as well, just as much as the Wall Street Journal.
So The Hill, The Wall Street Journal, Real Clear Politics, and C-Span. There's 4 for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
lol, pretty amazing you can't even see your own bias. "objective data" in which it wasn't even objective in the first place, and furthermore you interpret it to fit your narrative. Don't lie to yourself and say the washington post is "objective." Give me a break.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'm sorry, but that post just reads as an "I hate Trump" op-ed. You can have your personal opinions of whether Trump's policies have helped the black community and be entitled to trust a leftist fact-checking website, I'm just asking for a fair assessment of what different president's have done for blacks. I don't think you answered the question, you kinda mentioned Obama, this was just a rant against Trump and conflating different political issues and opinions into a simple question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
But you think that warrants the title of best president for blacks since Lincoln?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Can you explain what Nixon did for blacks, and how it was better than what Trump has done?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
@zedvictor4
@SirAnonymous
Interesting answers, obviously this is all subjective and up to interpretation in terms of you would measure success.
You make an interesting point about forgetting zed, I believe your point is that we have to wait and see what blacks think of it. Although I don't think whether they believe it or not measures how actually successful it was. You mention people were inspired by Obama, I see how you can think of that as something being done, but I'm gearing this more policy wise.
Danielle, you make a good point about JFK and how his speech could have changed the course of history.
SirAnonymous, your right about that policy, but bearing down on the KKK seemed more of an anti-violence thing and this is what white people are doing thing, than a policy specifically focused on the black community. I agree it helped, but I just wouldn't put him at the top of the list.
Created:
Posted in:
People always brush it off when Trump says it as "absurd" among other things, but can you name a president who has done more? Most people only say LBJ because he passed the civil rights act; however, he was a proud racist who frequently used the N-word and voted against any civil rights legislation in the senate before he was president. The only reason he signed it into law was because he was pressured by everyone to do so, and it would have been very bad politically if he hadn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you going to respond to my answers? If you need a clarification, just ask lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
At what point does a live cease to be innocent?
When due justice is served, perhaps in the case of a violent criminal.
Well, super-contradiction, given the content of your previous posts. But did you not just also precede this statement with one that differentiated life on the grounds of presumed or assumed innocence?
Correction: *Innocent life.* I'm sure you could have figured that out on your own.
As a true human Pro-lifer, will you now put your hand on your heart and condemn all U.S. military intervention in overseas sovereign territories, that is unavoidable resultant in extensive collateral damage?
I am heavily against war in most cases. However, sometimes it is necessary to achieve the greater good. I am against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Unfortunately that is what the unbelievers think. Us believers know God personally and have had supernatural experiences with him. We know he is real with 100% certainty. It is up to you to find God and open your heart up to him. We are not losing anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
God is the creator of good and evil. He is goodness himself. He is just and mercy themselves. Anything he does is right. He is perfect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I'd rather not talk to stupid people. Our discussion here is done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Morality comes from social norms and the way our brains are wired. There are certain things we naturally know are wrong. As to where it stems from, that would be God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Do you wanna site your post with sir anonymous?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
No! You and anyone who supports the American war on terror.
That would be Barack Obama and the democratic party lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
As long as you don't try to force people to abide by your opinions
Yay! We're in agreement!
That is what the debate is on.And who are you to claim that your morality is superior to mine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Do you wanna site your post with sir anonymous?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Walrus
1) Why are you bringing religion up
2) Where in the Bible does it say that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Do you wanna site your post with sir anonymous?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Guess you are against free speech.
Where did you even get that from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I am not cherry picking. I am against any type of taking innocent lives. All life is inherent and matters the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Where the past you talk about scientists?
Try a coherent sentence.
Thank you for telling me you support having the right of opinion while also realizing it led to a ton of Jews dead.
What does this have to do with anything? It is actually the complete opposite, taking a stand against the murder of 50 million innocent unborn lives.
The thing is, you fascists support opinions but just not the ones you disagree with and deem as hurtful and offensive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Then everyone is pro-choice. If you don't support the war on terror, then you are letting terrorists also kill countless of innocent people.
Can we stick to abortion? Like, I'm pro car so I'm pro-choice. People drive cars into crowds of innocent people. It's just a pointless argument that serves no point to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Scientists should only condemn past theories instead of what is generally accepted.
Generally accepted? https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
People who are pro-life and pro-choice are a 50-50 split. That is not "generally accepted." Even if it was, that is an argument from authority. Just because it is popular doesn't mean you can't have a say on what is morally right. This involves the killing of an unborn baby, it is not just any medical practice.
I put more blame on the scientist for stating his moral position than a Youtuber.
He is an outspoken pro-lifer who wants to educate people on abortion and explain why he is pro-life. He is using his platform of a former abortionist to reach many people. And where did it even say he was a "scientist.?" It does not matter what he is, there is nothing wrong with giving people your own story and personal opinion.
By him saying it is wrong he is condemning a practice and people are going to see this as see! even a scientist disagrees with it.
And? Is there something wrong with condemning a morally wrong practice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
When a blastocyst is removed what tests are performed to determine if is still alive or if it ever was alive?
Lol, its called science. What happened to all you climate change believers that are now suddenly denying science? Life begins from conception through meiosis. It marks the start of growth of a human life. All of its characteristics are determined. It has completely separate and unique DNA from the mother. If you don't understand this, you should probably go back to Freshman Biology.
Cite where I have called it a tumor?
Do you wanna site your post with sir anonymous? You have called it a tumor multiple times. Ex: Post #338, #157, #167
You should probably learn about abortion before you make baseless assumptions. It is very evident that you are uneducated on what abortion is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
No. Again, I'm always open to new suggestions on how we can fight terror. Of course I don't want innocent lives taken over this war. I'm not very educated on the war on terror, but I know we should do something about terror instead of letting it go on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Why don't any of these many programs take these discarded humans with them when they are discarded?
Because they have already been murdered and are dead. https://illinoisrighttolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/aborted-baby-later-term.jpg
These groups attempt to convince the women to keep the baby so they can take care of it.
A blastocyst is a 5 day embryo. It is simply a stage of human life. It is a human life. An unborn baby. You don't even know what the words you use mean. You just call it a tumor when you have no idea what it actually means. Unfortunate you probably get indoctrinated by schools into thinking that this is not a human life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I only believe human beings can be killed if it is a threat to another one's life. I don't think humans can be murdered, against their will, because of someone else's reasons that doesn't threaten their right to live. Why can humans be murdered for a women's reasons? Why does their right to health or whatever the reason may be outweigh another's right to live? In other words, why is her life more important than another human being's life? They are both human lives, so why can one human be killed but not the other?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Human beings have a moral right to live. Again, if you can't agree on this then why are you going through 19 pages of thread just for you to say humans can be murdered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Your video is too lighthearted. I want people to see the gruesome truth of what happens in abortions. Even my video was animated. It was after he explained abortion that he said he was pro-life. What is wrong with a personal opinion from someone who performed 1,200 abortions? It is still an educational video. I'm not quite sure why you want to silence opinions of which you disagree with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Because human beings are intrinsically valuable. If you can't agree with that then I don't know what you are doing on this forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm open to any suggestions on how we should combat terror.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The war on terror is pro-life. It is a mission to stop terrorism, isis, etc. These organizations kill many innocent people, so it is completely moral to combat that. What are you gonna do, just not fight and let terrorism happen?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Um, because you are forcing your will against another human being that has a whole live ahead of them and has the right ti live. Why should women have the right to murder other human beings? Why is there health or whatever more important than another human life? Where do you draw the line?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Blastocysts are a stage if human life. You keep using fancy words to distract from the scientific fact this is a human life. Like I said, there are many programs that are more than willing to look after babies if the mother can not do so herself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
There are many programs and churches who will either adopt women's babies if they can't keep them, or will financially aid and help the women in raising the child.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that it would be far more productive if gods rather than animals were removed from the discussion.
How about we remove both! Problem solved. Now we can start talking about human life.
Yes.And furthermore, can you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that you regard all human lives with equal measure?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Unless a women's life is in danger, they should not have the right to kill another human being. Again, where do you draw the line?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So what? He explained what happened during abortion. That's what I want people to see. He can have an opinion if he wants. Why is it a waste of time to be educated on the torture of babies in the womb?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
However in the context of describing why it is permissible from a legal and moral perspective, the fetus is not relevant.
A human being getting murdered is not relevant. Got it. Well, you have not changed my mind since you think it should not be illegal to murder human beings. Thank you for your time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
God designed life for humans. If you hold that position, then you don't know very much about Christianity. I guess we just hold different values for different types of life, so we can't have a discussion unless we are going to start talking about human beings and get the animal stuff out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What does the video have to do with your comment? He simply explained what happens during abortion. There was nothing about what is morally right in there. Also, that is the argument from authority. You don't have to be a philosopher or have a PhD to determine what is morally right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
If you are going to be that intellectually dishonest in claiming miscarriages are the same as abortions, then I will not engage. That is actually stupidity, and very offensive to mother's that desperately wanted their child but they had a miscarriage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though I suspect that you are also selectively moral in regard to the value of human life
I am not. I believe all human life, no matter at what stage, has the same value as another human at another stage. In other words, the value of human life is inherent.
Again, animal life is a whole other issue. I'd rather stay on topic and talk about human rights, things get off topic when we talk about animal lives. I believe humans get food from animals so we can eat, and that humans have souls given to us by God. Therefore, while animal life is valuable, human life is much more valuable, as designed by God. I don't bring religion into politics, but I definitely separate human rights and animal rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
In abortion, it is deemed improper for the state to tell a woman what she may or may not do with her body.
But it's not her body. It is the babies body inside of her. Even as you devalue motherhood and claim pregnancy can impact her life negatively, what right does she have to murder another human being?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would love to discuss, the problem is I don't know what you are trying to say. All I want for you to do is simplify what you mean so I don't have to try and decode it and misrepresent your position.
Created: