quote:

ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam
Depending on your school of belief, we are all unlikely to survive much more than a century, so no one is truly viable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

people who use obvious lies to point out their own ignorance :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam

In the man's own words, Pregnancy is a punishment, in the same breath/statement as STD's. This is Mr. Obama presenting his opinion in 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNbaig-D5pk

quote:

ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam

Which part of honesty are you concerned about. The attempt is to force the Catholic Church to not be able to stick to their anti contraception tenets. That does include protecting the child ahead of the mother. That walks a very fine line of being unconstitutional on interfering with the free exercise of religion. The hair splitting will go on to determine who is forcing this situation.
I do not wish to explain my reason behind this, (the specifics do not belong on this forum) but I am not anti abortion. I do believe that where there is life there is hope, and have all the pollyannaish things that guide my personal decisions against abortion. I do not think that the option should not exist. I get a bit strange when it is used as a contaception alternative. I have always considered that such abortions should not be government funded. Your choice is, and should be your own.
The video makes it clear that pregnancy is one potential "Punishment" for sex, as is STD, HIV and other maladies. He does not want this to happen with his daughters. What part am I misinterpreting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam

In the man's own words, Pregnancy is a punishment, in the same breath/statement as STD's. This is Mr. Obama presenting his opinion in 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNbaig-D5pk

quote:

ORIGINAL: atursvcMaam

I am a bit dense, I suppose, but when Nuance and Context become the defensive part of a political discussion it tends to remind me of Clinton, Nixon, and a few others who had a tendency to parse words, and make anyone challenging look as if they don't understand their meaning.

quote:



The more accurately one points out the meaning of their words and statements the more likely one is likely to get called stupid, vicious or racist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/07/01/texas-gop-platform/
The document (available here) has already made headlines with the portion that opposes the “teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills” and “critical thinking skills.” Although a partial retraction followed, this was in terms of the wording, not the general meaning. It appears that their fear is that these “focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.” Think about that for a moment. First off, do they really and truly believe that teachers and school boards across the State of Texas are designing curricula specifically aimed at training children to challenge their parents? Second, do you know which values and concepts are rejected in the absence of higher order and critical thinking? None! Therefore, depending on the time and place when we decide to stop challenging ideas and meekly accept what we are told, we might thereafter and forever be racists, sexists, communists, fascists, democrats, capitalists, Christians, Buddhists, Lutherans, geocentrists, pacifists, Wiccans, or whatever the prevailing views of that day were. Nothing would ever again be questioned. Were we to implement such a policy, we’d have to be certain that we had already identified the concepts and values that were “correct” (whatever that really means). Even a cursory reading of their platform makes it very clear that this is precisely what Texas Republicans believe and what those concepts and values are. This begs the question, who is really aiming to force their beliefs on our children, Texas schools or Texas Republicans? Personally, I prefer what I learned during my twelve years of Catholic school and eight years of public higher education: if a belief cannot stand up to scrutiny, then we shouldn’t believe it; and if it does, we will hold it all the more strongly for the very reason that it withstood our challenge.