Punishment

anonymous1515 said:

Call me skeptical, but I'd like to see a reference for where he alleged said that. I could easily make up something even crazier for John McCain.

Click to expand...

You don't have to be skeptical anymore here's the CNN link for the transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/29/bb.01.html

Thanks,
TT

anonymous1515 said:

Also,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fNgA5xLxao

Click to expand...

I just want you to know that McCain will win the Presidency.
Thanks,
TT

PreparetoDie said:

So is this the new anti-Obama ad?

Click to expand...

It's a picture I found and I believe it is very appropriate in telling the truth about Obama's true nature.
Thanks,
TT

Jeremiah 1:4-5
I knew you even before you were conceived.

Ephesians 1:11-12
I chose you when I planned creation.

Psalm 139:15-16
You were not a mistake, for all your days are written in my book.

Acts 17:26
I determined the exact time of your birth and where you would live.

Psalm 139:14
You are fearfully and wonderfully made.

Psalm 139:13
I knit you together in your mother's womb

Psalm 71:6
And brought you forth on the day you were born.

Gen 25:21
And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she [was] barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

Thanks,
TT

Quirk said:

Copying and pasting Bible verses doesn't prove that you're up on politics.

Click to expand...

It proves that Christ is for life and life begins at conception and we are supposed to follow Christ and to be salt and light upon the earth.

We are taking care of my wife's cousins kids. My friend from work and I went to Pizza Hut for lunch today. At the table their were some paper place mats that the kids could draw on. I immediately thought about the kids and I folded up two of the paper place mats for the kids and put them in my pocket to give them when I got home. Then God spoke to me and told me that how I feel and how I think about the kids is how He thinks of us.
How could anyone abort a baby is beyond me. Where is the love for the children?
Thanks,
TT

Quirk said:

Because not everyone is ready to be a mother or a father at all stages when one can physically conceive.
And if you're voting on leaders based on what you believe the Bible suggests versus what is best for the country, well... that maybe why the US is in the political mess it's in.

Click to expand...

The Bible does not suggest. It speaks in black and white to where everyone can understand it. God is the God of the living not of the dead.

Quirk said:

If the changes will hypothetically be good for the country, or at least better than the other alternative, why not vote Obama? I fail to see how he is less supportive of life based on his pro-choice views.

Click to expand...

The changes won't be good because Obama and the demoncrats are liberal, socialist communists. It is the demoncrats that constantly get in the way to stop what is right. Is is right for the demoncrats to use tax payers money to fund abortions across the earth? NO!!!
I applaud President Bush for stopping that funding.
He did the right thing!!!

Quirk said:

If you compare him to the other party's candidate, McCain, who seems gung-ho to attack Iran, which will obviously kill more innocent civilians there, how is that any better or how are lives in Tehran any less valuable than a fetus?

Click to expand...

Let's see, Iran has called for the destruction of Israel and America. It will be Iran who chooses to kill their own people by threatening others.

Quirk said:

I'd be behind attacks like this if they also pointed out the ways in which they lack in other areas. But it's all this "Obama is overly pro-choice, so he's pro-abortion!" and "Obama hates fetuses!" that is bothersome.

Click to expand...

It should be bothersome because that's exactly what he is. He is pro-choice.
Here's what he says:
"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level. The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion."

It comes down to sin. Is killing babies who can't run or defend themselves right or wrong?
It is wrong.
Thanks,
TT

karisma said:

http://cornerstork.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/crying_baby.jpg

Click to expand...

How do you think God feels?
Thanks,
TT

Quirk said:

The Bible doesn't say explicity "Vote McCain over Obama because Sen Barack is a nutjob!".

Voting based on religion is no better than voting to make history with the first Black or female president. It's about who will be the best leader for our time - regardless of whether how much value they place on fetuses.

Click to expand...

Psalms 33:12
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."
What does this mean?

Proverbs 14:34 expounds,
"Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people."

Isaiah 60:12
"But the nation and kingdom that will not serve [God] shall perish; yea those nations shall be utterly destroyed."

Since God values fetuses and knows us before we are born then the best President would be the one who values life.

Quirk said:

Liberalism, socialism and communism are not one and the same. I will agree Obama is liberal, but after 8 years of a dictatorship masking as a psuedo-democracy by President Bush, how is liberalism so much worse?

Click to expand...

There is no Bush dictatorship.

Quirk said:

Sure. There are bad apples and good apples in all parties. I love Ron Paul and I agree with him on many things, but I also agree with Obama. Just because they're a Democrat doesn't make them evil.

Click to expand...

Same here. Obama said some good things but he said bad things and his stand for the Freedom of Choice Act is bad. It's not freedom to lie to women about how abortions won't affect them. I know alot of women who are messed up in the head from abortions. That's why I'm so adamant against it.
I like Ron Paul also.

Quirk said:

President Bush & the administration also sucked up any good will you've had around the world. Is that so wonderful as well?

Click to expand...

Just because they disagreed with us? Some of the countries got caught with their hands in the cookie jar in Iraq.

Quirk said:

Well, why attack Iran? This is the same spin that was used to attack Iraq, and we've all seen what a disaster that's been.

Click to expand...

Because they want nuclear power and they've consistently said they will attack Israel and America. If they said no threats then it would be a different story.

Quirk said:

Iran may have nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs. But they're getting those from other much larger countries. Wouldn't it be smarter to freeze out the supplying nations than just bombing another middle eastern country willy-nilly. Even a Republican can see that the US and Bush have mishandled the situation in the Mid-East. [Ron Paul, here's looking at you.]

Click to expand...

That would be great but there's really no way to stop it. The only way is to bomb the nuclear sites into oblivion. I remember when India or Pakistan tested nuclear weapons over the ocean and Bill Clinton was very surprised.

Quirk said:

Pro-choice, again, doesn't equal pro-abortion.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is abortion because the word 'choice' word is there.

Quirk said:

If you can't argue without insulting Democrats who disagree, you really shouldn't be giving an opinion on Mid-East issues.

Click to expand...

They insulted themselves. They are hypocrites. Here's the proof:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Quirk said:

What about Iraq's civilians? They were pretty defenseless too.
Or is that ok, because you can have oil in exchange?

Click to expand...

You can thank Saddam for the civilians. If he would of done what the international community said then there would of been no problems.
Canada is the biggest exporter of oil to America:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Thanks,
TT

anonymous1515 said:

Heh, nice use of the the word demon there. Catchy. Ohhh, can I try. How about we refer to McCain as a Repubican from now on. Damn repubicans.

Click to expand...

They are better than demoncratic communist.
Thanks,
TT