Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

lukeyrid13 wrote:I don't think we have a hope of ever leaving the two party system. There is far too much money and power involved at every level that there are too many bonds to break. Funny thing about them is that neither are what they say they are. Liberals are only liberal when it comes to their views but very close minded when it comes to religion for example. Conservatives are anything but. It's not the conservative approach to attack gays just because they're gay

I find this fascinating as well. A majority of my more liberal friends are some of the most intolerant of opposing views around (speaking to my group of friends specifically, I think this is somewhat a product of academic elitism). Meanwhile the more conservative block of individuals I associate with, tend to consider themselves "small government conservatives" when it comes to economics; but when forced to adress social issues that run counter to their religious beliefs, they'll be the first to advocate a government mandated solution.

QuackininBama wrote:

goducks75 wrote:

QuackininBama wrote:

goducks75 wrote:

justducky0 wrote:

greenyellow wrote:To make another point, both parties have screwed the country up in their own and different ways so it's about equal.

i agree with this

I second that motion! But seriously, the two party system is awful and horribly inefficient.

Wait, so your not in favor of checks and balances, rather you would replace this system with....what? A monarchy? Dictatorship? Socialism? Whats your replacement?

Do you even know what checks and balances are?

This was already covered. If you had taken the time to go through the thread and read the posts, rather then skip through it all to post a smart ass comment, you'd see this question was asked, and answered. However, I still have yet to see my question addressed at all. If your going to discard the "two party system", what is your idea to replace the current system and how would it improve our political frustrations? If you choose to address this, I'm afraid I'm not sure it can be boiled down a sarcastic condescending blurb. You might actually have to think. Just warning you now.

I do not necessarily believe in 'discarding' the system, but creating incentives that allow for more political diversity and reduce the power of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Things like putting limits on the amount of money that goes into campaigns (including/especially the president) since the one who spends the most money on said campaign usually wins (should be about ideas, not money spent). Candidates, regardless of party, usually have to sacrifice their own views to pander to a political "base" that is incredibly fragmented among themselves (again this is apparent in both parties). Granted, that's the nature of politics but the extent that it's happening today is ridiculous.

I'd start particularly with the primaries. Remove the rule that one needs to register as a democrat or republican to vote for candidates in said party. Hell, make it so it's one single primary and the top 3 candidates (regardless of party) would then go on against the incumbent. The association of primaries with particular parties is stupid.

But unfortunately that's just what I would do. I'm incredibly cynical of this ever happening any time soon.

Elduderino wrote:

Some people think that Judgment Day is not coming. It is. There is accountability to the Author of life for these things.

The “Author of life,” in his/her/its various historical incantations, has been a major justification for some of the most heinous and insensible wars in the history of mankind. It’s also disingenuous to paint the United States as being uniquely drawn to a warring cycle. I don’t argue that U.S. history isn’t violent; it is. This violence though, isn’t unique to the U.S. It is a product of the nation-state, and world history is colored by the wars of different peoples over time.

I don't think it's fair to blame God for wars and what not. I can't speak to the Koran(muslims) but in the Bible God does not want violence or murder. I think a good example is 'The Book of Eli'. The bad guys were after the lone remaining Bible left in the world. They wanted it so that they could control people and have justification for doing violent acts. They were going to twist the words of God and paraphrase and misquote what is written. That isn't done by or for God but in God's name for your own selfish personal gains. Similar to what happened in the Crusades and priests/church elders being the only ones who had access to the writings and mis-using them to obscene proportions

lukeyrid13 wrote:

Elduderino wrote:

Some people think that Judgment Day is not coming. It is. There is accountability to the Author of life for these things.

The “Author of life,” in his/her/its various historical incantations, has been a major justification for some of the most heinous and insensible wars in the history of mankind. It’s also disingenuous to paint the United States as being uniquely drawn to a warring cycle. I don’t argue that U.S. history isn’t violent; it is. This violence though, isn’t unique to the U.S. It is a product of the nation-state, and world history is colored by the wars of different peoples over time.

I don't think it's fair to blame God for wars and what not. I can't speak to the Koran(muslims) but in the Bible God does not want violence or murder. I think a good example is 'The Book of Eli'. The bad guys were after the lone remaining Bible left in the world. They wanted it so that they could control people and have justification for doing violent acts. They were going to twist the words of God and paraphrase and misquote what is written. That isn't done by or for God but in God's name for your own selfish personal gains. Similar to what happened in the Crusades and priests/church elders being the only ones who had access to the writings and mis-using them to obscene proportions

To be clear, I don't blame "God" for wars; I'm of the opinion that humanity must account for the actions of their own free will. I am trying to highlight the irony in declaring the "bloodthirsty" will have to answer to God, while history shows that God has been routinely used to justify conquest, genocide, etc...by all sorts of different religious groups for a very long time.

Biggus Duckus wrote:The losing presidential candidate becomes the VP and is in charge of domestic affairs like in France.

Every time you have an abortion, you lose a finger.

One child per household, either natural or adopted.

Make it so.

If the woman loses a finger for an abortion, what does the guy lose? I have an idea!

Hope you know I'm kidding.

Duck07 wrote:I believe we've been living in a one-party system for some time now and when taking an honest examination of the policies that each administration has put in place since Reagan I don't see how that can be argued. Good old Ronny took America from being the world's largest lender to debtor in less than a decade! Yay Reagonomics!

If it is a one-party system, why is so much money, time and effort put in by each side attempting to win?

Duck07 wrote:What about the moral argument for over-population?

You mean the myth of over-population?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... odJ0OOdgRg#!

Duck07 wrote:For the religiously inclined (let's not kid ourselves on this one either, this is very much a religious question so either recuse yourself or don't start with any insults, capiche?), how can you separate killing a fetus versus dropping a smart-bomb in a market?

How is killing a US citizen who has constitutional rights only a religious question?

MFRDuckFan wrote:How about a man putting a sleeve on it & taking some responsibility of not getting her pregnant in the first place?

Deadbeat dads are certainly a problem. I don't think anyone is letting them off the hook.

However, a father not taking responsibility for their role isn't an excuse for taking a life.

MFRDuckFan wrote:I was talking about the recent rhetoric from politicians trying to even take birth control away.

That is not what happened. No politicians are trying to take birth control away.

Politicians (and many others) are objecting to new law that is attempting to force religious institutions to pay for birth control. That is a question of religious liberty. Not of whether or not people can get birth control. Fix the law for religious institutions and you will still be able to get birth control the same way you have been able to for over 100 years: by buying it.

MFRDuckFan wrote:You should read up on what women did before abortion became legal. They went into back alleys & many died from those procedures. Outlawing abortion doesn't mean they're not going to happen just means more women are going to die.

Should we legalize burglary since robbing homes can be dangerous?

MFRDuckFan wrote:You obviously don't live in the real world or have ever known any woman who has had to make such a hard choice. I've never known any woman that would treat a pregnancy as an "inconvenience". You make it sound so easy to just carry the baby to term & give that child up for adoption. Not one statement from you lends any responsibility to the male counterpart of this whole situation. You can't tell me that God is perfectly okay with a man going around making women pregnant and the woman must bear the complete responsibility of the situation. That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

These are two, separate acts.

The act of making a child takes two people. And, yes, they are both responsible. And yes, men who don't take responsibility for their role in a pregnancy are wrong.

However, the decision to take a life is a separate act. A man not taking responsibility for the pregnancy does not justify taking the life later. And certainly, the responsibility for taking that life can be shared by women and men. For example, the person performing the abortion could be a man. Or, a man could pressure or compel a woman to have an abortion. Or, men can fund and support abortion institutions or laws.

Men and women ARE responsible for taking human life through abortions. That there are deadbeat dads in the world is no justification for taking a life.

MFRDuckFan wrote:Bloodthirsty? Give me a break. I would love to see you become socially active & come up with solutions instead of pointing your fingers at those who don't necessarily follow your doctrines. It's easy to quote from a centuries old book vs. taking a clear look at what's really happening.

How about quoting from our founding documents?

Taking a life through abortion is to violate the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

MFRDuckFan wrote:Open up your home to pregnant women who have nowhere to go. Stand up & have your voice heard against war. Solutions.

If given the opportunity, MANY people would open their homes to pregnant women in order to prevent abortions. It is organizations like Planned Parenthood that are fighting against such solutions and charity.

MFRDuckFan wrote:It would be wonderful if abstinence was practiced first, but many married people might actually want to have a relationship with their spouse and ultimately have children down the road, so birth control is their best option and if it was reasonably priced, it may not be the typical choice of either paying for gas or birth control. That is a real life reality of the average American.

* It's very easy to get free birth control already.
* Even if you pay for it, it's not expensive.

Elduderino wrote:I believe that those people feeling responsible enough to engage in the activity should also be responsible enough to deal with the repercussions; but I don’t believe it should be a religious majority’s job to dictate what the options of dealing with those repercussions should be.

That's fine. However, taking a life as one of the options is to violate the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Protecting the rights and liberty of people is not a religious dictate on the basis that religions agree with the perspective. By that reasoning, all laws against murder would also be "religious dictates".

Elduderino wrote:The “Author of life,” in his/her/its various historical incantations, has been a major justification for some of the most heinous and insensible wars in the history of mankind.

One, wars over secular reasons easily outpace religious wars in the heinous and insensible categories. Even wars that are sometimes characterized as "religious" such as The Thirty Years War were arguably driven by old fashioned secular motives (expansion of states by taking over territories).

Two, the acts and judgment of people should not be confused with religious belief. For example, that some people have used God to justify something that is wrong does not logically mean that believing in God causes such judgments.

lukeyrid13 wrote:

Duck07 wrote:

Phalanx wrote:I just got done arguing with a guy who has no problem killing women and babies with drones as long as it doesn't consume over 5% of our GDP, and now I get to read a woman who wants to kill babies if carrying them to term is too much inconvenience, or a guy who thinks it's okay to kill babies because we need to cull some of the herd anyway. I live in a bloodthirsty culture. In public school, I can remember being in history class and each chapter was highlighted by a war; 95% of the class was just going from war to war, and that was the summation of American History 101. All I can say is, it's a good thing that you people have sports to placate you, or God only knows what you would be occupying yourselves with. I feel like I live in the Last Days of Pompeii or something. Some people think that Judgment Day is not coming. It is. There is accountability to the Author of life for these things. Do you think that saying, "But God, they were going to do it in a back alley anyway" is going to sway Him?

If you are referencing my point about over-population, you'll have to make a better analysis of it than that.

What are your thoughts on the book of Job? Personally, I find it sadistic that God would entertain Satan like that. If he were a person in the United States caught doing that he would be brought up for multiple felony charges. As Carl Jung famously said "Is it worth the lion's while to terrorize a mouse?"

God was showing satan that Job was a devoted follower. No matter what happened to Job he would never turn his back on God. It also showed the deviousness and ruthlessness of Satan.

Why does God have to show/prove anything to Satan?

What about the atrocities that King David committed?

renfrO wrote:

Duck07 wrote:I believe we've been living in a one-party system for some time now and when taking an honest examination of the policies that each administration has put in place since Reagan I don't see how that can be argued. Good old Ronny took America from being the world's largest lender to debtor in less than a decade! Yay Reagonomics!

If it is a one-party system, why is so much money, time and effort put in by each side attempting to win?

Duck07 wrote:What about the moral argument for over-population?

You mean the myth of over-population?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... odJ0OOdgRg#!

Duck07 wrote:For the religiously inclined (let's not kid ourselves on this one either, this is very much a religious question so either recuse yourself or don't start with any insults, capiche?), how can you separate killing a fetus versus dropping a smart-bomb in a market?

How is killing a US citizen who has constitutional rights only a religious question?

Such a silly first post! You can't actually argue my points can you? Do you really believe that cute little video of yours? Or how it ignores the fact that we have a limited amount of resources such as arable land or fresh water and continuing to add more people only means fewer and fewer people will have access to those resources.

As for your abortion remark, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where a fetus is given rights, is it in the Bill of Rights? I understand an implied right, but that isn't what you're talking about. Care to answer which is worse, abortion or dropping smart-bombs that "accidentally" land on innocent people?

renfrO wrote: That is not what happened. No politicians are trying to take birth control away..

Rick Santorum disagrees.

One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s OK; contraception is OK. It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

renfrO wrote:That's fine. However, taking a life as one of the options is to violate the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Protecting the rights and liberty of people is not a religious dictate on the basis that religions agree with the perspective. By that reasoning, all laws against murder would also be "religious dictates".

Well, we both know where this is headed--"where/when does life begin?" Not all people of all faiths agree on the subject, and those who subscribe to no organized religion might obviously feel different. Comparatively, there is no debate about the viability of a conscious human being.

renfrO wrote:

Elduderino wrote:The “Author of life,” in his/her/its various historical incantations, has been a major justification for some of the most heinous and insensible wars in the history of mankind.

One, wars over secular reasons easily outpace religious wars in the heinous and insensible categories. Even wars that are sometimes characterized as "religious" such as The Thirty Years War were arguably driven by old fashioned secular motives (expansion of states by taking over territories).

So you're saying what exactly? Yes, religion has been a justification for war, but there have been more secular ones, so no big deal? The major wars of our time (using "modern history") have admittedly been largely secular--but if you continue back through history and count the colonization/"civilization" of the Americas, the Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Jihads, the persecution of the Irish & continued Protestant-Catholic tensions, etc.. different religions have unavoidably been at the heart (wrongfully) of justification for war.

renfrO wrote:Two, the acts and judgment of people should not be confused with religious belief. For example, that some people have used God to justify something that is wrong does not logically mean that believing in God causes such judgments.

Nor have I ever claimed such things. My intent is to point out the irony in pointing to God (in whatever form one believes in) for judgment of a bloodthirsty culture, while ignoring that these same God(s) have been used as justification for "bloodthirsty" acts; sometimes by that very same society. Not to condemn any one religious belief system (I believe that most contribute in a very positive manner), nor those that believe.

I'm going to hit the highlights on your posts ~

MFRDuckFan wrote:How about a man putting a sleeve on it & taking some responsibility of not getting her pregnant in the first place?

Deadbeat dads are certainly a problem. I don't think anyone is letting them off the hook.

However, a father not taking responsibility for their role isn't an excuse for taking a life.

It is that woman's choice to do what is best for her, not you. She has every right, it is her body. When you can carry that baby on your own, then you can have a say. Until then, women should not have to bend to what some man thinks is best. Sorry.

MFRDuckFan wrote:You should read up on what women did before abortion became legal. They went into back alleys & many died from those procedures. Outlawing abortion doesn't mean they're not going to happen just means more women are going to die.

Should we legalize burglary since robbing homes can be dangerous?

Really? You're going with that comparison? Please...........

MFRDuckFan wrote:You obviously don't live in the real world or have ever known any woman who has had to make such a hard choice. I've never known any woman that would treat a pregnancy as an "inconvenience". You make it sound so easy to just carry the baby to term & give that child up for adoption. Not one statement from you lends any responsibility to the male counterpart of this whole situation. You can't tell me that God is perfectly okay with a man going around making women pregnant and the woman must bear the complete responsibility of the situation. That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

These are two, separate acts.

The act of making a child takes two people. And, yes, they are both responsible. And yes, men who don't take responsibility for their role in a pregnancy are wrong.

However, the decision to take a life is a separate act. A man not taking responsibility for the pregnancy does not justify taking the life later. And certainly, the responsibility for taking that life can be shared by women and men. For example, the person performing the abortion could be a man. Or, a man could pressure or compel a woman to have an abortion. Or, men can fund and support abortion institutions or laws.

Men and women ARE responsible for taking human life through abortions. That there are deadbeat dads in the world is no justification for taking a life.

Same as above. It's not YOUR body, it's hers or mine. Sorry, you have no say. Try to take it away & you will not win.

MFRDuckFan wrote:Bloodthirsty? Give me a break. I would love to see you become socially active & come up with solutions instead of pointing your fingers at those who don't necessarily follow your doctrines. It's easy to quote from a centuries old book vs. taking a clear look at what's really happening.

How about quoting from our founding documents?

Taking a life through abortion is to violate the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Really? I don't think the founding fathers were worried about women getting abortions back then (although I'm guessing they did happen with horrible results). Interesting in trying to twist something to fit your argument. Eye roll from me on this one.

MFRDuckFan wrote:Open up your home to pregnant women who have nowhere to go. Stand up & have your voice heard against war. Solutions.

If given the opportunity, MANY people would open their homes to pregnant women in order to prevent abortions. It is organizations like Planned Parenthood that are fighting against such solutions and charity.

This is 110% a lie and you know it. If you're going to make such an inflammatory statement, you need to back this up with facts. I'll be waiting.

MFRDuckFan wrote:It would be wonderful if abstinence was practiced first, but many married people might actually want to have a relationship with their spouse and ultimately have children down the road, so birth control is their best option and if it was reasonably priced, it may not be the typical choice of either paying for gas or birth control. That is a real life reality of the average American.

* It's very easy to get free birth control already.
* Even if you pay for it, it's not expensive.

Viagra is affordable. Birth control can be very expensive if you don't have insurance. Trust me.

renfrO wrote:

Duck07 wrote:I believe we've been living in a one-party system for some time now and when taking an honest examination of the policies that each administration has put in place since Reagan I don't see how that can be argued. Good old Ronny took America from being the world's largest lender to debtor in less than a decade! Yay Reagonomics!

If it is a one-party system, why is so much money, time and effort put in by each side attempting to win?

Duck07 wrote:What about the moral argument for over-population?

You mean the myth of over-population?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... odJ0OOdgRg#!

Duck07 wrote:For the religiously inclined (let's not kid ourselves on this one either, this is very much a religious question so either recuse yourself or don't start with any insults, capiche?), how can you separate killing a fetus versus dropping a smart-bomb in a market?

How is killing a US citizen who has constitutional rights only a religious question?

MFRDuckFan wrote:How about a man putting a sleeve on it & taking some responsibility of not getting her pregnant in the first place?

Deadbeat dads are certainly a problem. I don't think anyone is letting them off the hook.

However, a father not taking responsibility for their role isn't an excuse for taking a life.

MFRDuckFan wrote:I was talking about the recent rhetoric from politicians trying to even take birth control away.

That is not what happened. No politicians are trying to take birth control away.

Politicians (and many others) are objecting to new law that is attempting to force religious institutions to pay for birth control. That is a question of religious liberty. Not of whether or not people can get birth control. Fix the law for religious institutions and you will still be able to get birth control the same way you have been able to for over 100 years: by buying it.

MFRDuckFan wrote:You should read up on what women did before abortion became legal. They went into back alleys & many died from those procedures. Outlawing abortion doesn't mean they're not going to happen just means more women are going to die.

Should we legalize burglary since robbing homes can be dangerous?

MFRDuckFan wrote:You obviously don't live in the real world or have ever known any woman who has had to make such a hard choice. I've never known any woman that would treat a pregnancy as an "inconvenience". You make it sound so easy to just carry the baby to term & give that child up for adoption. Not one statement from you lends any responsibility to the male counterpart of this whole situation. You can't tell me that God is perfectly okay with a man going around making women pregnant and the woman must bear the complete responsibility of the situation. That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

These are two, separate acts.

The act of making a child takes two people. And, yes, they are both responsible. And yes, men who don't take responsibility for their role in a pregnancy are wrong.

However, the decision to take a life is a separate act. A man not taking responsibility for the pregnancy does not justify taking the life later. And certainly, the responsibility for taking that life can be shared by women and men. For example, the person performing the abortion could be a man. Or, a man could pressure or compel a woman to have an abortion. Or, men can fund and support abortion institutions or laws.

Men and women ARE responsible for taking human life through abortions. That there are deadbeat dads in the world is no justification for taking a life.

MFRDuckFan wrote:Bloodthirsty? Give me a break. I would love to see you become socially active & come up with solutions instead of pointing your fingers at those who don't necessarily follow your doctrines. It's easy to quote from a centuries old book vs. taking a clear look at what's really happening.

How about quoting from our founding documents?

Taking a life through abortion is to violate the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

MFRDuckFan wrote:Open up your home to pregnant women who have nowhere to go. Stand up & have your voice heard against war. Solutions.

If given the opportunity, MANY people would open their homes to pregnant women in order to prevent abortions. It is organizations like Planned Parenthood that are fighting against such solutions and charity.

MFRDuckFan wrote:It would be wonderful if abstinence was practiced first, but many married people might actually want to have a relationship with their spouse and ultimately have children down the road, so birth control is their best option and if it was reasonably priced, it may not be the typical choice of either paying for gas or birth control. That is a real life reality of the average American.

* It's very easy to get free birth control already.
* Even if you pay for it, it's not expensive.

Elduderino wrote:I believe that those people feeling responsible enough to engage in the activity should also be responsible enough to deal with the repercussions; but I don’t believe it should be a religious majority’s job to dictate what the options of dealing with those repercussions should be.

That's fine. However, taking a life as one of the options is to violate the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Protecting the rights and liberty of people is not a religious dictate on the basis that religions agree with the perspective. By that reasoning, all laws against murder would also be "religious dictates".

Elduderino wrote:The “Author of life,” in his/her/its various historical incantations, has been a major justification for some of the most heinous and insensible wars in the history of mankind.

One, wars over secular reasons easily outpace religious wars in the heinous and insensible categories. Even wars that are sometimes characterized as "religious" such as The Thirty Years War were arguably driven by old fashioned secular motives (expansion of states by taking over territories).

Two, the acts and judgment of people should not be confused with religious belief. For example, that some people have used God to justify something that is wrong does not logically mean that believing in God causes such judgments.

That's a mouthful for a first post.

I think its safe to say that it is a regular poster preferring anonymity. I guess even Anonymous is a Duck fan, lol.

Phalanx wrote:I just got done arguing with a guy who has no problem killing women and babies with drones as long as it doesn't consume over 5% of our GDP, and now I get to read a woman who wants to kill babies if carrying them to term is too much inconvenience, or a guy who thinks it's okay to kill babies because we need to cull some of the herd anyway. I live in a bloodthirsty culture. In public school, I can remember being in history class and each chapter was highlighted by a war; 95% of the class was just going from war to war, and that was the summation of American History 101. All I can say is, it's a good thing that you people have sports to placate you, or God only knows what you would be occupying yourselves with. I feel like I live in the Last Days of Pompeii or something. Some people think that Judgment Day is not coming. It is. There is accountability to the Author of life for these things. Do you think that saying, "But God, they were going to do it in a back alley anyway" is going to sway Him?

Assuming that you were referring to me with the drones and GDP accusation, I made no such argument. Do you need to distort others arguments in order to make your criticism of them seem valid?

There are bloodthirsty people in the world. Unfortunately, there probably always will be. Only, you and Ron Paul advocate that we should let the bloodthirsty oppress others without lifting a finger to stop it.

"Viagra is affordable. Birth control can be very expensive if you don't have insurance. Trust me."

You can get birth control, reasonably for 10-25 bucks a month. Just saying... You can mow my lawn once a week, and I'll buy you pills.

wheaton4prez wrote:

Phalanx wrote:I just got done arguing with a guy who has no problem killing women and babies with drones as long as it doesn't consume over 5% of our GDP, and now I get to read a woman who wants to kill babies if carrying them to term is too much inconvenience, or a guy who thinks it's okay to kill babies because we need to cull some of the herd anyway. I live in a bloodthirsty culture. In public school, I can remember being in history class and each chapter was highlighted by a war; 95% of the class was just going from war to war, and that was the summation of American History 101. All I can say is, it's a good thing that you people have sports to placate you, or God only knows what you would be occupying yourselves with. I feel like I live in the Last Days of Pompeii or something. Some people think that Judgment Day is not coming. It is. There is accountability to the Author of life for these things. Do you think that saying, "But God, they were going to do it in a back alley anyway" is going to sway Him?

Assuming that you were referring to me with the drones and GDP accusation, I made no such argument. Do you need to distort others arguments in order to make your criticism of them seem valid?

There are bloodthirsty people in the world. Unfortunately, there probably always will be. Only, you and Ron Paul advocate that we should let the bloodthirsty oppress others without lifting a finger to stop it.

Oh man, you are still on this trip?