this Obama guy knows some Aikido!

Toby Threadgill wrote: As far a Obama goes, a similar education in facts might be in order.

A very nice summation. Thanks for that.

David

Mike Sigman wrote: Let's just wait and see what happens. I suspect it's all going to be interesting. If nothing else, the press will be continuously positive regardless of whatever happens for a few years, so that will be a relief. Mike

For those interested in the issue of how fair and balanced the press coverage has been regarding Obama and his rival for president, you may find this excellent recap informative.

http://blogd.com/wp/index.php/archives/4888

Kind regards,

Todd

Using Aikido to run the government? Cool!

Toby Threadgill wrote: Ms Knowling Before you get all warm and fuzzy about aikido and universal love I would suggest you go out and actually read about Ueshiba and his benevolent exploits in Manchuria prior to WW2.

Aikido did not yet exist at that time. It is my belief that Ueshiba learned much from his experiences with violence in Manchuria, and everywhere else, and that it probably led him to realize the need for Aikido. In my opinion, he got older and smarter and decided to train accordingly. At least, that's based on what I read.

Toby Threadgill wrote: As far a Obama goes, a similar education in facts might be in order.

Toby Threadgill wrote: Obama supports the concept of liberty, personal responsibility and a government that stays out of peoples private lives and decision making. Therefore he supports in principle a persons right to make a horrible and drastic medical decision in cooperation with the advice of medical experts. He does not support an intrusive decision enforced by government and instituted those uneducated in the realities of actual medicine..

These medical experts that offer abortions have something to sell. Billions of dollars worth every year.

Toby Threadgill wrote: He also does not support intrusive legislation intended to pander to ignorant religious do-gooders.

Ignorant. Check.

Toby Threadgill wrote: Without the option of a late term abortion my sister in-law would have suffered a debilitating stroke and most probably died....She was devastated by the medical reality she faced, which was a choice between bad and horrible. But you see, before Pub.L. 108-105, she enjoyed the LIBERTY of personally making an informed and educated decision based on medical facts presented to her by medical experts. Today, there is no personal liberty involved. The decision is pre-determined by the government without any input by experts educated in medical fact or realities.

If my wife were in danger, I would do just about anything to protect her. If any woman's life is truly in danger, and she chooses to end her pregnancy, she may have some explaining to do in the afterlife. I wouldn't give her a hard time about it, though. There are some subtle differences between the statements "If I have this baby, it'll be a huge inconvenience." and "If I have this baby, I could die."

I support a woman's right to do what she believes is right in cases of rape and medical emergency. I also believe in a woman's right to shoot the SOB that's about to attempt raping her. I'm not so sure that Obama would agree with me there...

Most folks that I've spoken with say something similar when discussing their views on abortion. There are rarely absolutes. There are instances where an abortion could save a human life, but that's not what proponents of abortion on demand are looking for.

Toby Threadgill wrote: See, according to your line of reasoning, 2 deaths are better than one. Right? So, who is more benevolent, you or Obama?

Christine said:

"This post isn't meant to tear anything (anyone) down, but that's just my cent."

and that's where the respect seemingly ended.

Most folks that I've spoken with say something similar when discussing their views on abortion. There are rarely absolutes. There are instances where an abortion could save a human life, but that's not what proponents of abortion on demand are looking for.

Humph, I just think a bunch of men have no right telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale wrote: Humph, I just think a bunch of men have no right telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Best, Ron

That argument is weak. Does a male OBGYN not have the authority to advise a woman about treatments for cervical cancer, or a female surgon somehow unable to preform a vasectomy? Just because you don't belong to a certain 'class' (by class I mean group, not necissarily in the economic sense) does not suggest that you ought not have an opinion about the behaviour or actions of that class. I've never been a coke fiend, am I somehow unqualified to tell my buddy he is screwing up if he becomes a coke fiend.

Just to be clear I am 'pro-choice', I just think this argument is a bit flawed.

peace
Bettis

Isaac Bettis wrote: That argument is weak. Does a male OBGYN not have the authority to advise a woman about treatments for cervical cancer, or a female surgon somehow unable to preform a vasectomy?

I can't even parse that sentence.

(yay, yay, a religious war, how wonderful!)

Ron Tisdale wrote: Humph, I just think a bunch of men have no right telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

Not to mention a potential vice president who wanted to deny abortion rights to young women who had been raped or were the victims of incest.

That sounds pretty gosh-darned absolute to me, you betcha!

David

Ron Tisdale wrote: Humph, I just think a bunch of men have no right telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Best, Ron

I work next door to an abortion clinic, and I've seen two types of men that were telling women what to do with their bodies. That street goes both ways.

That's the trouble with the whole abortion argument. Some people think that it's a baby, and some don't. Some are fighting for the rights of women, and some are fighting for the rights of babies. Both types of people believe that they are doing the right thing.

It's when the ol' broad brush is whipped out and people on the other side of an issue start getting painted up that things get a little rough.

When people are referred to as "baby killers" or "religious nutjobs",often the listening has ended and the fighting has begun.

People have reasons for the beliefs that they hold dear, regardless of what those beliefs might be.

More patience, and less disrespect and ridicule from both sides, could make things really great on this site. Lashing out when someone hurts you is easy. I've been taught to do it ever since the first time another kid smacked me. It didn't work as well as aikido does.

Toby Threadgill wrote: Obama supports the concept of liberty, personal responsibility and a government that stays out of peoples private lives and decision making.

Reminds me of one of my relatives. My mother's aunt was a nun and eventually the head of the Sister of Norte Dame for, I believe, North America (might have been all of the Americans, It's been several years since I have seen that side of the family) for several years. Her whole family was very religious and several members went on to be nuns. She'd done the whole work in Africa thing and such and eventually was something of a heavy weight in her time, spending a chunk of each year working in Rome where she knew and worked with the pope often. Suffice it to say that to to just about everyone she was about as religious and as good a Christian as they come. Interestingly enough, and shocking to most pro-lifers I have talked to about this, she and the other sisters I had met were all very much pro-choice. Their point of view was that any choice in that regard was a decision between you and God alone and the government had no business getting involved or forcing their religious views onto anyone else.

Random food for thought,
Rennis Buchner

If a man and women sleep together and the woman becomes pregnant and wants to keep the baby yet the man wants her to have an abortion and failing that, nothing to do with the baby or mother-should he still have to pay child support?
(IMO, no he shouldn't)

For those of you who say YES he should still pay it's his responsibility etc..etc..(and there will be some) turn it around.
If the mother wants to have an abortion but the father says NO i want this baby- should the woman then be forced to carry the child to term and give it to the father?

Problem is, I never said someone couldn't have an opinion. I'm referring to what for a long time, was a bunch of old, white, men making legislation about the bodies of 55% of the population, who at one point, couldn't even vote.

And you knew that...so let's not let the hyperbole get out of hand.

Best,
Ron

Isaac Bettis wrote: That argument is weak. Does a male OBGYN not have the authority to advise a woman about treatments for cervical cancer, or a female surgon somehow unable to preform a vasectomy? Just because you don't belong to a certain 'class' (by class I mean group, not necissarily in the economic sense) does not suggest that you ought not have an opinion about the behaviour or actions of that class. I've never been a coke fiend, am I somehow unqualified to tell my buddy he is screwing up if he becomes a coke fiend. Just to be clear I am 'pro-choice', I just think this argument is a bit flawed. peace Bettis

When people are referred to as "baby killers" or "religious nutjobs",often the listening has ended and the fighting has begun. People have reasons for the beliefs that they hold dear, regardless of what those beliefs might be.

Problem is, you quote my statement, and then hyper-inflate it to make it sound like I have any sentiments like those you state above.

I don't. And I didn't mention either of those catch phrases in my statement.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale wrote: Problem is, you quote my statement, and then hyper-inflate it to make it sound like I have any sentiments like those you state above. I don't. And I didn't mention either of those catch phrases in my statement. Best, Ron

Sorry. No inflation was intended, especially not hyper-inflation.

Only the first paragraph was really meant as a response to your post in particular. In the rest of my post, I was commenting about the tone of some other statements I'd read in this thread.

I can only post during my lunch hour, and am sometimes pressed for time. I find that I'm a bit clumsy with online posting, and I wish we could just talk in person.

Dude, I'm clumsy in person too...

I've been doing 14 hour days in networking, level 1, level 2, and design of new projects. I've got visions of subnets dancing in my head. Boy, do I need some sleep.

Understood, and My Bad,
Ron

James Davis, Jr. wrote: Aikido did not yet exist at that time. It is my belief that Ueshiba learned much from his experiences with violence in Manchuria, and everywhere else, and that it probably led him to realize the need for Aikido. In my opinion, he got older and smarter and decided to train accordingly. At least, that's based on what I read.

Yes. It is especially illuminating to note that after Ueshiba's troubling exploits in Manchuria the Chinese were going to execute him and Deguchi by firing squad. That sort of thing does tend to have a lasting impact on people.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: These medical experts that offer abortions have something to sell. Billions of dollars worth every year.

Irrelevant......The same could be said of the worlds top cardiovascular surgeons and worldwide religion, couldn't it?

James Davis, Jr. wrote: If my wife were in danger, I would do just about anything to protect her. If any woman's life is truly in danger, and she chooses to end her pregnancy, she may have some explaining to do in the afterlife. I wouldn't give her a hard time about it, though. There are some subtle differences between the statements "If I have this baby, it'll be a huge inconvenience." and "If I have this baby, I could die."

Commenting on the afterlife is rather presumptious isn't it? You assume "she" views such an abstract concept thru the same moral lens as you do, and that your moral lens is "right". Besides that careless quip, you're basicly making my argument for me.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: I support a woman's right to do what she believes is right in cases of rape and medical emergency.

Oooookay....Then you believe Pub L 105-108 should be overturned. I agree.

However....If you're position is, abortion is killing a life, I am perplexed that you appear to justify abortion in the case of rape. Bear with me here......Is it not hypocritical to in effect say that a life created in a rape is less "worthy" of survival than one created in concensual union?

Philosophically, abortion is black or white. A non-viable fetus is either a separate individual or a biological part of the mother. Biologically the either/or question doesn't exist because a non-viable fetus is undeniably a part of the mother. In my opinion and the opinions of most Americans this and similar law should be based on biological fact instead of something so abstract and nebulous as philosophy.

That said, I can respect and at the same time disagree with someone who views all abortion as morally wrong based on the philosophical position that a fetus is a person.. What I can't fathom is the philosophical inconsistency that views a fetus as an individual person and then justifies destroying the fetus because the fetus was conceived in a rape. Such a position is philosophically inconsistent and seems intellectually flawed.....

FWIW....I may be vehemently opposed to the behavior and /or opinions of many Americans but I am just as vehement in my support of their right to hold those opinions and exercise their individual rights in promoting those opinions, as long as the exercise of said rights do not infringe on mine. That is liberty as defined and embraced by our founding fathers. As a supporter of liberty I may or may not not agree with the option of abortion in each individual case but its simply not my decision to make. The exercise of individual liberty concludes that we, as Americans, must let an individiual citizen and her doctors decide what's best for her. Such an immense personal decision should not be left to some legislator or government bureaucrat. Sure, some people will inevitably abuse the system but no system is perfect. The concept of liberty dictates that my rights as well as your rights should end where every other citizens rights begin.....including an individual womans right to make all her personal health decisions without meddling by you, me or the government.

Compromising liberty out of the fear that freedom will lead to the abuse of freedom has been the tool of dictators and a justification for tyranny for centuries. In the opinon of many, legislating control of a womans body is indeed a form of institutional mysoginy and tyranny.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: Christine said: "This post isn't meant to tear anything (anyone) down, but that's just my cent." and that's where the respect seemingly ended.

Respect? Sorry, but this has nothing to do with respect. I simply refuse to let passive/aggressive statements go unchallenged. Go back and read her post. Christine accuses Obama of supporting the killing of people and then attempts to smooth over her attack by saying she doesn't intend to tear him down. If that is not typically passive/aggressive, I don't know what is.

The topics discussed in this thread are difficult and politically charged. In the past years they have been divisive because the tactics employed by both sides have demonized the other. Obama in my opinion signals the possibility of a more genuine and constructive dialogue. The cynics will continue their diatribe but it is my hope that their voices will be overwhelmed by that of new found optimism and its ensuing successes.

Respectfully,

Toby Threadgill

Toby Threadgill wrote: Commenting on the afterlife is rather presumptious isn't it? You assume "she" views such an abstract concept thru the same moral lens as you do, and that your moral lens is "right".

Notice my use of the word may...

Toby Threadgill wrote: However....If you're position is, abortion is killing a life, I am perplexed that you appear to justify abortion in the case of rape. Bear with me here......Is it not hypocritical to in effect say that a life created in a rape is less "worthy" of survival than one created in concensual union?

I don't say that abortion is a good thing in any case. I'm simply saying that I'm trying to understand what a woman is going through in that instance, and I'll not demonize her regardless of her choice. In my opinion, the rape is not the fault of the unborn child, and so the child should not have to suffer.

Toby Threadgill wrote: Philosophically, abortion is black or white. A non-viable fetus is either a separate individual or a biological part of the mother. Biologically the either/or question doesn't exist because a non-viable fetus is undeniably a part of the mother. In my opinion and the opinions of most Americans this and similar law should be based on biological fact instead of something so abstract and nebulous as philosophy.

Biological fact is that the zygote, embryo, fetus, kid, or whatever else we call it has its own genetic code. This fact doesn't make the decision any easier, but it's part of the whole.

Toby Threadgill wrote: That said, I can respect and at the same time disagree with someone who views all abortion as morally wrong based on the philosophical position that a fetus is a person.. What I can't fathom is the philosophical inconsistency that views a fetus as an individual person and then justifies destroying the fetus because the fetus was conceived in a rape. Such a position is philosophically inconsistent and seems intellectually flawed.....

Some women would give nine months of their life to raise the child, then give it up for adoption. Some would choose to raise the child as their own. Some women couldn't handle doing either of these, and I'm not going to get in their face about the most horrible decision they've ever made in their lives.

Women that use abortion as birth control every few months are an entirely different subject.

Toby Threadgill wrote: FWIW....I may be vehemently opposed to the behavior and /or opinions of many Americans but I am just as vehement in my support of their right to hold those opinions and exercise their individual rights in promoting those opinions, as long as the exercise of said rights do not infringe on mine. That is liberty as defined and embraced by our founding fathers. As a supporter of liberty I may or may not not agree with the option of abortion in each individual case but its simply not my decision to make. The exercise of individual liberty concludes that we, as Americans, must let an individiual citizen and her doctors decide what's best for her. Such an immense personal decision should not be left to some legislator or government bureaucrat. Sure, some people will inevitably abuse the system but no system is perfect. The concept of liberty dictates that my rights as well as your rights should end where every other citizens rights begin.....including an individual womans right to make all her personal health decisions without meddling by you, me or the government.

In the case of Planned Parenthood, often times doctors refuse to show the patient an ultrasound. That's not an educated choice.

Toby Threadgill wrote: Compromising liberty out of the fear that freedom will lead to the abuse of freedom has been the tool of dictators and a justification for tyranny for centuries. In the opinon of many, legislating control of a womans body is indeed a form of institutional mysoginy and tyranny.

Some are just trying to be a voice for kids that can't speak for themselves. No woman should have parenthood forced on her but, in this day and age, there are better ways to prevent parenthood than abortion.

Toby Threadgill wrote: Respect? Sorry, but this has nothing to do with respect. I simply refuse to let passive/aggressive statements go unchallenged. Go back and read her post. Christine accuses Obama of supporting the killing of people and then attempts to smooth over her attack by saying she doesn't intend to tear him down. If that is not typically passive/aggressive, I don't know what is.

Christine stated a fact. Obama supports partial birth abortion. She posed a question as to how this makes him an aikidoka.

In short, she stuck to the topic. Then, there's us, LOL.

Toby Threadgill wrote: The topics discussed in this thread are difficult and politically charged. In the past years they have been divisive because the tactics employed by both sides have demonized the other. Obama in my opinion signals the possibility of a more genuine and constructive dialogue. The cynics will continue their diatribe but it is my hope that their voices will be overwhelmed by that of new found optimism and its ensuing successes. Respectfully, Toby Threadgill

More genuine and constructive dialogue is a great idea. Just for the record, us "ignorant religious do-gooders" really are trying to do some good.

Respectfully +1 (Aha!)

James

James Davis, Jr. wrote: More genuine and constructive dialogue is a great idea. Just for the record, us "ignorant religious do-gooders" really are trying to do some good. Respectfully +1 (Aha!) James

James,

Okay....I'll buy that. One do-gooder to another.

Toby Threadgill

Christine stated a fact. Obama supports partial birth abortion. She posed a question as to how this makes him an aikidoka.

Frankly, I personally fail to see how one has anything to do with the other. And I'm not sure *I* even support PBA. But whether someone does or not, does not to me, say anything about whether or not they do aikido.
Best,
Ron

Women that use abortion as birth control every few months are an entirely different subject.

Hmm...

Are there ANY statistics, records or evidence that says that this actually happens? Or is this more hyperbole? Just currious. I honestly don't know (though I tend to doubt it).

B,
R

Ron Tisdale wrote: Hmm... Are there ANY statistics, records or evidence that says that this actually happens? Or is this more hyperbole? Just currious. I honestly don't know (though I tend to doubt it). B, R

I haven't personally read any evidence, though I doubt clinics would provide it. I know of one person who engaged in this practice, and I can only assume that she's not the only one in the country that ever has.

She may not be the only one who ever has, but she certainly is the only one *I* have ever heard of.

Seems like an abberation to me...certainly nothing to base an argument on.

Best,
Ron