Christian Group Questions Palin's Pro-life Credentials

[DocJohnson]

You proved that untrue by your previous response.

Perhaps God will send you an angel, or a vision, to explain it to you.

Don't blame God for your inability to communicate your point. You'll find your life very lonely if your goal is getting everyone to agree with you 100%.

 

[Sozo again]

Don't blame God for your inability to communicate your point. You'll find your life very lonely if your goal is getting everyone to agree with you 100%.

See, you just proved your ignorance again. At least your intellectual capacity is up to IHOP standards. :chuckle:

Good thing you don't have a job where it's important to believe 100% in something that can actually save lives. For God's sake "Doc", never become a surgeon.

 

[Sozo again]

Hey Doc, are 100% sure you negative rep'd me, or just 99%? :chuckle:

 

[DocJohnson]

"The political and commercial morals of the United States are not merely food for laughter, they are an entire banquet."

- Mark Twain, Eruption

 

[Delmar]

Neither party has any interest in ever ending abortion. Christians have been had for decades. Some are just now starting to realize it.

That is exactly the point that ProlifeProfiles.com is trying to bring home.

 

[Delmar]

:bang:

Republicans helped get us into this mess, too. I trust none of them.

Thank you, I agree!

 

[chrysostom]

Thank you, I agree!

so how do we get out of this mess?

 

[Delmar]

reality says we will either have a republican or a democratic president

Why, it has not always been so. Why must it always be?

which one is more likely to give us conservative judges?

 

[Sozo again]

so how do we get out of this mess?

We start by doing what is right and not compromising.

 

[Ktoyou]

See, you just proved your ignorance again. At least your intellectual capacity is up to IHOP standards. :chuckle:

Good thing you don't have a job where it's important to believe 100% in something that can actually save lives. For God's sake "Doc", never become a surgeon.

You go too far. I have followed the thread and it seems to me a difference of opinion, not ignorance. You might also consider not taking God’s name in vain.

 

[Sozo again]

You go too far. I have followed the thread and it seems to me a difference of opinion, not ignorance. You might also consider not taking God’s name in vain.

Don't lecture me K, I did not take God's name in vain.

There is NO difference of opinion available. Something is either true or it isn't. You don't murder someone else because someone did evil to you.

 

[DocJohnson]

Some people simply aren't interested in making friends, even if it's for a mutual cause.

I'm off to watch football with the family.

:wave2:

 

[chrysostom]

Why, it has not always been so. Why must it always be?

it is what it is

not what you would like it to be

 

[Sozo again]

Some people simply aren't interested in making friends, even if it's for a mutual cause.

:doh:

And you claim we don't get it. :sigh:

It is NOT mutual. That's the point.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Some people simply aren't interested in making friends, even if it's for a mutual cause.

I'm off to watch football with the family.

:wave2:

Don't let it get to you. Some of these issues are uncomfortable to discuss but they need to be fleshed out.

Have fun watching football!! :up:

 

[Arthur Brain]

What does this mean?

Why not?

What good would it do to villify someone who agrees with you for the most part but has certain exceptions? You don't browbeat people into 100% agreement.

 

[Sozo again]

What good would it do to villify someone who agrees with you for the most part but has certain exceptions? You don't browbeat people into 100% agreement.

Maybe not, but you certainly can't stand with them in the "cause". You must oppose them.

 

[Delmar]

I've already answered that question.



If you've read this thread in its entirety, you would know the answer to that.

And I'm not running for office either.

OK, I have now read every word that you have said in this thread, but it is not apparent to me what you said that addresses my question. Perhaps you could give me a post number, that you feel answers it.

The truth is I don't believe ARTL has been as nasty as all that. The truth needs to be pointed out, and you have to find a way to make people see it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What good would it do to villify someone who agrees with you for the most part but has certain exceptions? You don't browbeat people into 100% agreement.

Nobody expects 100% agreement on every issue, that would be silly.

However, there are issues that are deal breakers even if that issue is the only issue you disagree with. At this point I think it's healthy to be exploring all angles of every issue. 2012 is a long way off.

 

[Ktoyou]

Nobody expects 100% agreement on every issue, that would be silly.

However, there are issues that are deal breakers even if that issue is the only issue you disagree with. At this point I think it's healthy to be exploring all angles of every issue. 2012 is a long way off.

I certainly agree that it would be good if one to be elected is 100% on the conviction, yet suppose you have a conservative who is not 100% and a liberal who is 100% in the other direction? Do you not vote for the conservative? If you do vote for the conservative you knock out one liberal vote, but if you abstain, you allow the liberal to his or her vote.

Now is you insist that our candidate is 100% this is a different issue, as you can insist on a 100% conviction, you can make it clear that you will not vote for one who is not 100%. I agree with that.

On the other hand, if you have only two choices and neither is ideal, but one far better than the other, then it makes sense to, in essence, to vote against the liberal.

Further, you can abstain and it does have merit; frankly I might do this, but in the past, I saw it more logical to choose the lesser of two evils, or is that weasels?