What do Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden have in common?

Pseudonym · Post by **Pseudonym** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:19 am

Stubborn wrote:Lemme tell you. I'm glad my mom thought I was alive enough not to abort me while I was in her tummy.

I'm not.

Just kidding! Just kidding! *flees*

Stubborn · Post by **Stubborn** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:24 am

*seriously considers editing Pseudo's post* *refrains*

Pseudonym · Post by **Pseudonym** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:28 am

Stubborn wrote:*seriously considers editing Pseudo's post* *refrains*

I love you too. $\:D/$

Stubborn · Post by **Stubborn** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:29 am

No, Pseudo. You love Angel. Not me. $\:D/$

Post by **StrongNChrist** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:56 am

any mother who has ever carried a baby full term can tell you that the baby is alive. They can feel the baby in them. You can actually see the baby before he or she is born and can see them sleep, kick, eat, and do every day normal things of life. If they weren't alive they wouldn't be able to do that. And people are finding that even babies born earlier and earlier can live with help - unlike years ago.
So what's the difference between killing that baby and killing a month old baby?

The Top Crusader · Post by **The Top Crusader** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:29 pm

I'll even be generous and say that while I disagree, I can even understand the argument of very early abortions where there isn't necessarily brain or a heartbeat yet. But yeah... once it is viable outside the womb especially I think its pretty clearly alive. Whether its in a womb or not shouldn't have any bearing.

Post by **StrongNChrist** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:33 pm

out of curiosity, what do you disagree with?

Stubborn · Post by **Stubborn** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:52 pm

StrongNChrist wrote:out of curiosity, what do you disagree with?

I think what he's saying is that, while he disagrees with the statement, he can see why people would think it.

Or some such.

Post by **StrongNChrist** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:55 pm

Stubborn wrote:
StrongNChrist wrote:out of curiosity, what do you disagree with?
I think what he's saying is that, while he disagrees with the statement, he can see why people would think it.

Or some such.

Actually I'm starting to get confused because different people were talking about different posts so I was wondering if he was talking about my post or someone else's post

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:46 pm

Hannahjiejie wrote:Ok, so you have the "Obama Crimes" web adress, but of course the Obama - Fight the Smears website tells differently.

What can you believe? The Obama site even has a pic of his birth certificate.

It's not a birth certificate. It's a "certification of live birth." And it's a forgery.

Hannahjiejie wrote:Also, don't you think that if he was unable to be president as of the 15th (which your site seems to say) that we would have heard about it by now?

It doesn't say that the court has decided that. The plaintiff is asserting that, legally, Obama has "admitted" all charges since there was no response to the charges within 30 days.

Hannahjiejie wrote:I'm not saying that the media would jump at the chance to say some thing derogative about Obama - I doubt they would, but if the DNC needed a new candidate...

*sighs* when I first heard about the possibility of a scandal, I though it was too good to be true, if it was true

Listen to Michael Savage's interview with Philip Berg (the guy who's suing) from yesterday: http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php? ... ageId=2240

BTW, Berg is a lifelong Democrat attorney who is the former deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania.

(Also, even Rush Limbaugh finally mentioned this yesterday: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ ... guest.html)

Jeremy

Dr. Watson · Post by **Dr. Watson** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:14 pm

JED wrote:Yes I am removing the Bible. Pretend I don't believe in the Bible. Since I don't believe in the bible than I don't see it as a possible reference.

Tough beans, bud. You or any other hypothetical atheist is going to have to be a lot more philosophically competent than merely proclaiming "I don't allow the Bible!"

Uh..so? Give me good reasons why the Bible shouldn't be allowed. By acceding to an atheists' demand to leave Scripture from an argument, you are allowing them to get away with philosophical robbery. No, I refuse to leave the Bible out of the argument, because the atheist hasn't provided any reason to leave it out, other than, "I don't believe in it."

I respond, "Well I don't believe in atheism, so you can't use your atheistic worldview."

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:42 pm

For anyone who's interested in the Philip Berg lawsuit against Obama, you can watch a good, short summary of the case in an interview with Berg here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs (notice that it already has over 3 million views in 2 weeks!)

Jeremy

DrummerChick · Post by **DrummerChick** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:02 pm

JED wrote:Barack Obama does not support killing of babies. As he has said he suports the CHOICE. He has said this before he is pro choice instead of pro abortion. He focuses on PREVENTING dangerous sex and sex before marriage instead of outlawing abortions.

But is a person decision and okay anyone that says oh i am okay with it shouldnt be our president. And even though I am not for abortion i see it this way if it will harm the baby and ten mother at the same time like the baby will be dead and could kill the mother then i think it is okay. Sry if I am saying the same thing again idr what i wrote.

The Top Crusader · Post by **The Top Crusader** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:20 am

Another thing they both have in common (going back to the topic title)... they are both endorsed by Andy Griffith.

Or at least one of them is. Guess which! $\:D/$

Guess Who! · Post by **Guess Who!** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:29 pm

Pseudonym wrote:
Hannahjiejie wrote:
Pseudonym wrote: It'd be easier to debate if he's not a member.
Not really. There will be no one to disagree with, or at least one fewer person. There are two sides to a debate.
Yeah, but then we wouldn't even HAVE to debate! $\:D/$

we already HAVE debated this in CCDS. A lot. And there is no lack of people to argue either side of the issue.

I also admit I find claims that a fetus "eats" and "breaths" while in the womb quite amusing. Apparently redefining words is fun. Let's make a list: Eat, Breath, Murder, I'm sure I missed some.

I also want to note that the opposite of the anti-abortion crowd is not the pro-choice crowd. And neither is the pro-choice crowd "pro-abortion" as so many of you have put it, they think of abortion as an unfortunate, but possibly least bad, course of action. The opposite of anti-abortion would be forced abortions. The fact is that very few people in this country actually support this practice. But it's often forgotten on this forum that it is the pro-choice movement that is the moderate one, between two much more extreme posistions.