What was the difference?

[Goodwill]

, I have come to the conclusion that the United States and Hitler can be used in the same breath

Hey slamtheman--I'll pay for the Uhaul get the **** out if you think this country is that bad.

[LionPride]

[quote="fleaflicker";p="98579"]In many cases, I would say the Democrats have the edge in the morality category. [/quote]

Naw that's funny right thar, I don't ker who ya'are........

Let's see, the party of DEATH is more moral, huh?

The Dems rallying CRY..........
1. Abortions - hell you don't care if the kid can live outside the womb or not. If mama doesn't want to deal with a kid the rest of her life, abort it anytime, even if it means turning the baby breech, deliever the baby except the head, shove a needle into the back of the baby's skull and suck the brains out.

Yeah, you guys are moral alright :roll:

2. Choose death over life except when it involves a muderer, rapist, child molester.

Let's kill all the babies, elderly, and the weak, but let anyone else who decided to take a life, or ruin a life, walk free after they've been rehabilitated (only to see them do it again). Maybe you guys like that because you're hoping they'll kill more babies and the elderly.

Democratics more moral - what a joke :roll:

[once a runner]

LP, as I'm sure you are aware that making blanket statements about a party is not always accurate. You know full well that not all Democrats favor abortion and there are Republicans are who are not in favor or overturning Roe v. Wade.

There is more to morality than abortion.

[fleaflicker]

Hey LP, I said in certain cases, and I gave two examples. So, why don't you answer those examples? Heck, I'll ask them again...

First question: Which is more moral, disposing of embroyos in a fertility clinic (disposing, unless I am missing something, means to get rid of, thus ending their potential to further develop and become a human) or using those embroyos to benefit mankind (through stem cell research)?

Second question: Which is more immoral, lying about the reasoning behind sending 100,000+ men to war (and ending up with about 1800 of them dead), or lying about some girl giving you a blow job?

Answer if you dare.

Oh, and as I said, you are free to move to South Carolina. I'm sure they're looking for strict conservatives such as you in that community.
http://www.christianexodus.org

[TheAnalyst]

I dare. I figured since I provided proof for Pale on the Karl Rove issue, I'd take a shot at this one.

Question 1) As with abortion, the moral dilemma is about when life begins, not on whether healing people is a good thing. Is an embryo life? Some believe so while others do not. Can you have life without an embryo? For me, that answers the question. It's not like all of a sudden, bam, you have a baby. Life begins long before that.

And it is ok in this country to perform stem cell research. The only argument is whether the federal govt should fund it, and with taxes paid by people who do not believe in it.

So if you found a dead baby lying along the road, which is the moral thing to do: give it a proper burial or cut it up for research?

This web page seems to explain both sides. Look at the "Catholic case against embryo use" link to see a detailed explanation.

Stem Cell Debate

Question 2) Prove that President Bush lied when he sent the troops to Iraq. Is freeing millions of people from an evil person immoral (even though that is not why we went there)? If you can provide irrefutable evidence that Bush knew Iraq had no WMD's, and Iraq had no intention of attacking the US in some form, or that Iraq supported terrorists, at the time we attacked them, then I will concede this point. But I feel certain you cannot provide this proof.

I still find it amazing that people don't believe that a President lying UNDER OATH is not that big a deal. It's not that he lied. Politicians do it every day. He did it while testifying. Does that not erode at the very judicial foundations of our country?

Morality differs from party to party, but more specifically person to person.

What makes you think that in the two questions you posed, your beliefs are moral?

moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

[LionPride]

[quote="fleaflicker";p="98658"]Hey LP, I said in certain cases, and I gave two examples. So, why don't you answer those examples? Heck, I'll ask them again...

First question: Which is more moral, disposing of embroyos in a fertility clinic (disposing, unless I am missing something, means to get rid of, thus ending their potential to further develop and become a human) or using those embroyos to benefit mankind (through stem cell research)?

Second question: Which is more immoral, lying about the reasoning behind sending 100,000+ men to war (and ending up with about 1800 of them dead), or lying about some girl giving you a blow job?

Answer if you dare.

Oh, and as I said, you are free to move to South Carolina. I'm sure they're looking for strict conservatives such as you in that community.
http://www.christianexodus.org[/quote]

I'll answer you're questions AGAIN, which I have done MULTIPLE times in the past.

1. Where does it stop? When you believe human life starts at conception, which I do and you don't, then you believe an embryo is living. When testing is done on these embryo's, they are destroyed. So it's morally wrong to use human embryo's for testing, PERIOD. Where does it stop if it's allowed? Are retarded children next? How about someone in the same condition as Terri Schiavo? You belong to the party of DEATH.

2. GW DID NOT LIE. GW DID NOT LIE. How many times do you have to hear that? If you beleived that your next door neighbor was a child molester and you had the proof from multiple agencies saying so, and you told someone that he was. Then later you found out he wasn't. Does that make you a liar? No, it makes you wrong, not a liar. The US had intel from our own agencies, intel from countries around the world, saying that Hussein had WMD, and it was NO SECRET that he was skirting the conditions of UN resolutions for 12 years. After 9/11, how can you possibly take a chance?

Now answer a question I've asked, and others have asked, but you didn't have the balls to answer before. If you're the President, and you have that intel in front of you, with 9/11 in the back of your mind, what do you do? Since you remind me of a chicken sh%t, you probably run and hide from it (am I giving you enough ammo now for your little name calling episode?).

I'd rather you move to Canada to be with your liberal buddies up there. I'm staying put.

[LionPride]

Thanks Analyst. I didn't see your post before I started mine. Seems like we're on the same page, just like 52% of the rest of America.

[flybynight]

lionpride, isint it >50% now, not trying to cause trouble, just saw it on the news

[LionPride]

[quote="flybynight";p="98700"]lionpride, isint it >50% now, not trying to cause trouble, just saw it on the news[/quote]

Um, 52% is >50%.........

But I know what you were referring to. I was talking about the election results.

[once a runner]

LP, by your definition then Nancy Reagan also belongs in the party of death since she is in favor of stem cell research. Not to mention John McCain, Tommy Thompson and Trent Lott. If you are purposely aborting the unborn to conduct the research, I agree that is wrong. But there are cases where information can still be gathered. You said yourself that there are exceptions where abortion is permissable (such as the mother's life is in danger). Can't those embryos be used to further the research? There are certainly other examples as well. There is no need to completely stop the research of something that could save many lives in the future.

You say GW didn't lie, Gunner says he did. I'm really getting confused on what the conservative view is these days. Ok, let's say he is telling the truth. Where did the intel come from? Russia. They obviously weren't too concerned about it themselves because they did not sanction the war. Wasn't everyone at the UN shown the same intelligence? The UN sanctioned the first war with Iraq, so it's not as if they are all Saddam lovers. The inspectors found nothing prior to the war.

If you are going to do something as drastic as sending young men and women into a war, you had better be certain of the reasons. Under the same logic, we should be invading N. Korea and Iran. They are developing the weapons and both are rather unstable governments who would not hesitate to use them against us.

So to answer your question....if I was certain that the safety of our country was at stake, I would have gone to war. Having just Russian intelligence at my disposal is not overwhelming proof. Plus, (and I know the conservatives will dismiss this point), there is the possibility that the intelligence we did have was manufactured to get support for the war.