obama is all kinds of good

[Potter]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/ ... 9157.shtml



He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes.



banning the second amendment is freedom right?

[BigBadOrc]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/ ... 9157.shtml



He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes.



banning the second amendment is freedom right?

Hey let's read the whole article... it's actually pretty funny.. it starts with a title that criticizes Obama, but reading the entire article it seems to be pretty strongly pro-Obama.

"Obama — who joined several other Democrats in voting "present" in 2001 and "no" the next year — argued the legislation was worded in a way that unconstitutionally threatened a woman's right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child."

And while we're talking trash here's some more!

Ron Paul does not support evolution:
http://informationparadox.blogspot.com/ ... ution.html

Also Ron Paul is strongly anti abortion.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... n_rhetoric
"Paul has written not one but two books arguing for the necessity of a pro-life libertarianism: 1983's Abortion and Liberty and 1990's Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue"

btw your signature picture prompts me to login to some gay site x.x

[danc1005]

btw your signature picture prompts me to login to some gay site x.x

LMAO he's dissin on yer formz jon

[BigBadOrc]

btw your signature picture prompts me to login to some gay site x.x

LMAO he's dissin on yer formz jon

lmao lmao lmao

explain?

[Potter]

btw your signature picture prompts me to login to some gay site x.x

LMAO he's dissin on yer formz jon

lmao lmao lmao

explain?

please don't explain dan



ps: you honestly missed the entire point orc




YOUR GOD IS DEAD

[Original Sin]

but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes.

Banned weapons really have nothing to do with anything if it's on your own property. The question is really about whether the person has a right to defend themselves with lethal force. 'Banning' a type of firearm doesn't make it illegal to own the weapon if you already have it, though in the case of a handgun, it would be illegal to carry it off of your own property, (stilpulations here vary from state to state.)
Banning firearms can work in a few ways. A, they can be banned from being imported or manufactured, but firearms of this type that are already in public circulation are legal to buy/own.
B, in some cases certain kinds of guns are forbidden to sell outright, but already owning one of these weapons doesn't mean the feds are gonna come to your door and take your guns.

Besides...I haven't really heard of any 'banned' handguns. WTF's up with that. The only thing they ban are hi-cap magazines. In some states it's illegal to carry a handgun, but that doesn't mean shit on your own property.

[hascoolnickname]

Ron Paul does not support evolution:
http://informationparadox.blogspot.com/ ... ution.html

lol watch the full unedited video and read the comments

Also Ron Paul is strongly anti abortion.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... n_rhetoric
"Paul has written not one but two books arguing for the necessity of a pro-life libertarianism: 1983's Abortion and Liberty and 1990's Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue"

read the rest of the article lol

[Potter]

[danc1005]

please don't explain dan

Wasn't planning on it

[BigBadOrc]

ps: you honestly missed the entire point orc

YOUR GOD IS DEAD

um..... make less sense please? Seriously if you're going to post a forum thread on these issues then you might as well at least TRY to make a coherent point or argument or discussion or anything instead of making a few vague comments and expect everyone to know what you mean.

Ron Paul does not support evolution:
http://informationparadox.blogspot.com/ ... ution.html

lol watch the full unedited video and read the comments

Also Ron Paul is strongly anti abortion.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... n_rhetoric
"Paul has written not one but two books arguing for the necessity of a pro-life libertarianism: 1983's Abortion and Liberty and 1990's Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue"

read the rest of the article lol

i did, and i did? what's your point? which comment in particular are you referring to? the comments are basically like "he doesn't accept evolution, so what? it's a small issue"

and are you referring to this? because i'm guessing that's just the first step in what he really wants.

The Libertarian party's official position is support of repealing Roe v. Wade and leaving abortion "remanded to the states." Paul's view, it happens, is pretty much the party line: It's okay to restrict abortion at the state level, just not the federal one.

[Potter]

if you knew politics at all orc, you'd know that means hes up for letting each state make its own decision on abortion, not federally banning it. read harder

[BigBadOrc]

if you knew politics at all orc, you'd know that means hes up for letting each state make its own decision on abortion, not federally banning it. read harder

THAT'S THE FIRST STEP. His books tell what he REALLY wants =o

[hascoolnickname]

I'm sorry you're right when Dr. Paul said it's fine and that there's nothing to have an absolute answer on whether it's true or not he obviously meant that it doesn't exist and he doesn't believe in it at all. Keep in mind we're talking about the THEORY of evolution here, not evolution as a science as we know it, but the THEORY of evolution that has to be mutually exclusive to creationism and every other idea out there, unlike evolution as the mechanism for change of trait inheritance in a population.

yeah Ron Paul doesn't know anything! yea! what a buffoon!

obviously Rudy Giuliani is the only choice here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2iFhGtKO-Q

[BigBadOrc]

obviously Rudy Giuliani is the only choice here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2iFhGtKO-Q

Rudy is a freak, no one cares about him. Anyway, Ron Paul said two interesting things in the video...

"i thought it was a very inappropriate question.. for the presidency of the united states to be decided on a scientific issue"

"it's a theory and i don't accept it."

and you lost me on the difference between the theory of evolution and the science of evolution... please explain

or.. more to the point.. can i imply from your post that you are advocating intelligent design as an equally plausible alternative to the "theory of evolution" ?

[danc1005]

Just to clarify before we start throwing around the word "theory" as something unproven and not factual.
In the term "scientific theory," the word theory is not used to describe any sort of doubt or uncertainty about the factuality or verifiability of the body of facts. Evolution is a scientific theory, i.e. it provides a LOGICAL, VERIFIABLE, and PROVEN explanation for certain events. Gravity is also a scientific "theory", as are many other things people take for granted as obvious.
Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory. Intelligent design is a ploy invented a few decades ago in order to bring back Creationist, i.e. BASED IN RELIGION NOT SCIENCE, ideals back into the classroom. It is no more "science" than is, say, astrology. All defenses that the promoters of intelligent put up against evolution can be readily and simply disproven by SCIENTIFIC means. I will provide support for this if asked.

Sorry to butt in, but this is one issue I won't compromise on or listen to misinformed people talk about.