Bill O'reilly And Glen Beck

[SoCooLBob 0]

Is there anyone on this forum that actually listens to O'Reilly and thinks, "What a brilliant man?" I can't believe he is even on the air, rude, obnoxious, and continuously comes up with random "facts" that are totally inaccurate, then he doesn't bother to retract or apologize.

Dare I say, I can understand your negative reaction to Bill O'Reilly and/or Fox News, but I am surprised that "anyone" who has spent any length of time on "any" internet bulletin board would use the word "rude" to describe his behavior. By far the rudest behavior I've ever seen is the kind of behavior that takes place regularly on these boards.

A Copy Of This Post Has Been Forwarded To Bill O'Reilly"It would probably be "beneficial" to him, but I think you should makeDaniel Negreanu a pinhead anyway. And I like the guy! What the heck?"God Bless You Daniel NegreanuAnd Good Luck !!SoCô¿ôL Bobhttp://www.ratherbelucky.comDarn .. you actually got 12 pages out of this post.Question?How does any of us believe any of them when they have been saying for two or three years ..Just elect me President and in January I'm going to fix these things.What happened the last time we elected either one of you?I'm in favor of previous President George W Bush, in his campaign, when he said over and over,"Judge me by my results." Personally, I don't know how anyone could be satisified with any of their results.Too many people demonstrate they want to get the job. Too few demonstrate they want To Do The Job

[Nimue1995 1]

That was being figurative reffering to Christ blood, in that through his blood you have eternal life. That's the first time I have ever heard anyone go this direction with it. Interesting, but completely out of context.

This was old testament Genesis at I think the time of Noah though if you really want me to check into it I'll find the verse. But better in the religion forum I would think.

[Nimue1995 1]

Gotta correct myself because it was in Leviticus. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, you shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof; whosoever eats it shall be cut off. Lev 17:14Regardless I'm still prolife from conception. But I can understand where some Christians might take a different view.

[SoCooLBob 0]

Regardless I'm still prolife from conception. But I can understand where some Christians might take a different view.

And hopefully, some might understand that there could be a difference between one's "spiritual" view and one's "political view." Hopefully.

[vbnautilus 48]

Too bad you have to be such an arrogant prick to someone who prior had no beef with you.

Scott I am a fan of yours, but you have to admit you were asking for it a bit here. e.g.

So many people lying to themselves, coming across as intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. Pretty sad.

I mean you vehemently denied that there is any moral issue at all worth struggling with surrounding abortion. It just seems kind of ludicrous given that half the country at least thinks there is; certainly not all of us are morally bankrupt and dishonest. I respect that you disagree with our conclusion, but find it hard to accept that you can't see what the struggle is about.

[Nimue1995 1]

And hopefully, some might understand that there could be a difference between one's "spiritual" view and one's "political view. Hopefully.

I've been able to find common ground between both sides of the debate. Other than Planned Parenthood anyway, who has an economic interest in keeping all abortions legal and making sure the rate doesn't go down. I know that was mean.

[Actuary 3]

This got off track.Copernicus nailed it and Vb and El and LLy disagreed.But it was - well nevermind, actually, I guess it was about Glenn and Bill.But in any event, if we can't evenagree that Obama with his "nuance-ness" avoided the question of when he thinks like begins, we sure as heck are not going to agree among ourselves.Are there any Christians here who do not think life begins at conception?(my point is it's pretty much coming down to that in the abortion discussion, to debate it scientifically with a Christian is silly)(aside from the youg'n who said when blood flows)Honestly, laugh if you want, but I'm saddened by the callousness of those who so easily support the killing of a fetus. Had you grown up in a world wher it was not allowed AND not done in back alleys, I wander if it would be so easy to accept. Maybe it simply comes down to religous beliefs.More on Barak and his response to (paraphrasing) "What would you do about evil" He gives his typically thoughtful answer. I know we are not a perfect country; but I'd rather not have our faults on the tip of the tongue of our leader. Call me dumb country boy.

[copernicus 0]

This got off track.Copernicus nailed it and Vb and El and LLy disagreed.But it was - well nevermind, actually, I guess it was about Glenn and Bill.But in any event, if we can't evenagree that Obama with his "nuance-ness" avoided the question of when he thinks like begins, we sure as heck are not going to agree among ourselves.Are there any Christians here who do not think life begins at conception?(aside from the youg'n who said when blood flows)Honestly, laugh if you want, but I'm saddened by the callousness of those who so easily support the killing of a fetus. Had you grown up in a world wher it was not allowed AND not done in back alleys, I wander if it would be so easy to accept. Maybe it simply comes down to religous beliefs.More on Barak and his response to (paraphrasing) "What would you do about evil" He gives his typically thoughtful answer. I know we are not a perfect country; but I'd rather not have our faults on the tip of the tongue of our leader. Call me dumb country boy.

I didnt think that was as bad as his identifying evil as Darfur, our cities streets, etc, without mentioning radical Islam. Then he, in his nuanceness, criticizes the Iraq war in the form of "doing evil even when your intentions are good".The LA Times has actually woken up and become less rigidly liberal. A good editorial

[Loismustdie 0]

This got off track.Copernicus nailed it and Vb and El and LLy disagreed.But it was - well nevermind, actually, I guess it was about Glenn and Bill.But in any event, if we can't evenagree that Obama with his "nuance-ness" avoided the question of when he thinks like begins, we sure as heck are not going to agree among ourselves.Are there any Christians here who do not think life begins at conception?(my point is it's pretty much coming down to that in the abortion discussion, to debate it scientifically with a Christian is silly)(aside from the youg'n who said when blood flows)Honestly, laugh if you want, but I'm saddened by the callousness of those who so easily support the killing of a fetus. Had you grown up in a world wher it was not allowed AND not done in back alleys, I wander if it would be so easy to accept. Maybe it simply comes down to religous beliefs.More on Barak and his response to (paraphrasing) "What would you do about evil" He gives his typically thoughtful answer. I know we are not a perfect country; but I'd rather not have our faults on the tip of the tongue of our leader. Call me dumb country boy.

It makes perfect sense to me that people support the killing of a fetus because of what it represents, and that's control. People want control, at really any price. I generally am saddened by just the overall selfishness of people in general.

[Loismustdie 0]

I didnt think that was as bad as his identifying evil as Darfur, our cities streets, etc, without mentioning radical Islam. Then he, in his nuanceness, criticizes the Iraq war in the form of "doing evil even when your intentions are good".The LA Times has actually woken up and become less rigidly liberal. A good editorial

His answer on this was disgusting as well. He basically said that we make there evils okay because we perpetrate evil as well, which is a never ending circle of bullshit. Evil things happen in prison, is imprisonment evil? The guy has been taught America is evil from day one, he has no other way of thinking.

[vbnautilus 48]

Guys, you don't have to be a monster to be pro-choice. The view that McCain espoused is that human rights begin at conception. That is really a radical claim. It means that killing this thing:is equivalent to murder. You really think it's so "callous" to disagree with that? Or to question it?

[Loismustdie 0]

Guys, you don't have to be a monster to be pro-choice. The view that McCain espoused is that human rights begin at conception. That is really a radical claim. It means that killing this thing:is equivalent to murder. You really think it's so "callous" to disagree with that? Or to question it?

Yup. Don't even need to think twice.

[vbnautilus 48]

Yup. Don't even need to think twice.

Try it, though, think twice. Seriously I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm asking if you can understand why someone would think this thing in the picture does not have the same rights as a baby, and if you really think such a person must be so morally vacuous to come to that conclusion.

[Balloon guy 158]

Try it, though, think twice. Seriously I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm asking if you can understand why someone would think this thing in the picture does not have the same rights as a baby, and if you really think such a person must be so morally vacuous to come to that conclusion.

Here's the problem, if you look at the farthest example, the moment an egg is fertilized, it makes it easier to say abortion is okay.If you look at it from a 8 month old fetus/baby, then you can't really claim that quite so easily.Left on it's on, that fertilized egg becomes human 99.9% of the time, so when can you kill it?Give us a time that it's okay, and then not okay.Then make the case why one hour before your moment is it okay?Used to be a baby wasn't viable until say week 22, then with advancements in medicine we reduced that to 20. So was killing that baby at 21 weeks then okay, but now it's not? Did the babies change, or just our time line?So which side do you want to err on? the side of life, or the side of convience for the irresponsible parents who didn't want to buy a $2 condom?As of today, the pro-abortion saide wants abortions legal up till the baby is outside the womb..for any reason at all. That's more unreasonable to me than someone saying it's a life at the moment of conception.

[vbnautilus 48]

Here's the problem, if you look at the farthest example, the moment an egg is fertilized, it makes it easier to say abortion is okay.If you look at it from a 8 month old fetus/baby, then you can't really claim that quite so easily.Left on it's on, that fertilized egg becomes human 99.9% of the time, so when can you kill it?Give us a time that it's okay, and then not okay.Then make the case why one hour before your moment is it okay?

I'm not claiming to be able to draw a line somewhere that satisfies me. It's clear to me that killing an 8 cell embryo is a very different act from killing an eight month old fetus. In between lies a gray area, and I'm not saying I have a solution. I intentionally used an extreme example in this case to show how that John McCain's (extreme) view is easily challenged by a moral person. All I've been arguing for in this thread is recognition that it's neither dishonest nor evil to acknowledge being faced with a difficult moral issue which you cannot currently decide.

[El Guapo 8]

I'm not claiming to be able to draw a line somewhere that satisfies me. It's clear to me that killing an 8 cell embryo is a very different act from killing an eight month old fetus. In between lies a gray area, and I'm not saying I have a solution. I intentionally used an extreme example in this case to show how that John McCain's (extreme) view is easily challenged by a moral person. All I've been arguing for in this thread is recognition that it's neither dishonest nor evil to acknowledge being faced with a difficult moral issue which you cannot currently decide.

I don't agree with everything you have said, but I see where you are coming from and it seems like a fairly logical standpoint.This is a very difficult subject. Its also volatile but at the same time I don't think in the whole scheme of things this issue should be weighted very heavily when decided on a president.

[SlapStick 0]

"You're not a human until you're in my phonebook!"This debate is always intriguing, its illegal here in Ireland, there was a vote and it lost.There was a girl here, Ms X as she became known, she lived in poverty, very similar to Brad Pitts character in snatch, she was raped by her second cousin a man over 40 when she was 15. She became pregnant, Priests and nuns who had been helping her since she was raped learned of her plans to go to England and get an abortion. After arguements and consulting everyone they filed a case in court stopping her going to England and she had the baby.I understand its such a heated issue with completely contrasting views but I'm not going to listen to one "pro-life" arguement until rape victims and cases like this, do not have to live like the above, forced to bear a child from rape.

[Balloon guy 158]

"You're not a human until you're in my phonebook!"This debate is always intriguing, its illegal here in Ireland, there was a vote and it lost.There was a girl here, Ms X as she became known, she lived in poverty, very similar to Brad Pitts character in snatch, she was raped by her second cousin a man over 40 when she was 15. She became pregnant, Priests and nuns who had been helping her since she was raped learned of her plans to go to England and get an abortion. After arguements and consulting everyone they filed a case in court stopping her going to England and she had the baby.I understand its such a heated issue with completely contrasting views but I'm not going to listen to one "pro-life" arguement until rape victims and cases like this, do not have to live like the above, forced to bear a child from rape.

I would never have it in me to tell a rape victim she can't have an abortion...maybe that's hypocritical.But I heard a woman on the radio once, who was pro-life and was raped and carried the baby and put it up for adoption. She said: "The baby didn't rape me"If the only time we were discussing abortions was rape and incest, I would bet the public opinion would be 80% for abortions, 20% against. But one thing for sure, you would have very few protesters.

[SlapStick 0]

I would never have it in me to tell a rape victim she can't have an abortion...maybe that's hypocritical.But I heard a woman on the radio once, who was pro-life and was raped and carried the baby and put it up for adoption. She said: "The baby didn't rape me"If the only time we were discussing abortions was rape and incest, I would bet the public opinion would be 80% for abortions, 20% against. But one thing for sure, you would have very few protesters.

I understand the "baby didn't rape me" and its actually really strong and impressive what she did, but she had a choice and she took it. Rape is one of the most traumatic things that can happen to someone. For a woman to have to give birth to this has to be one of the most horrible things ever, in Ireland they don't have a choice, you're example had a choice and obviously a crazy amount of will. My point being that for people that want it illegal, it goes against my beliefs but I understand why, but there is no way I will ever listen to an arguement if a woman thats raped cannot have an abortion.After I wrote the post I thought, aha wait, a pro lifer will agree with me and then I'll point out how hypocritcal it is that they can agree seeing that they consider the feotus alive, so why kill this baby, but you took care of that.

[Nimue1995 1]

This got off track.Copernicus nailed it and Vb and El and LLy disagreed.But it was - well nevermind, actually, I guess it was about Glenn and Bill.But in any event, if we can't evenagree that Obama with his "nuance-ness" avoided the question of when he thinks like begins, we sure as heck are not going to agree among ourselves.Are there any Christians here who do not think life begins at conception?(my point is it's pretty much coming down to that in the abortion discussion, to debate it scientifically with a Christian is silly)(aside from the youg'n who said when blood flows)Honestly, laugh if you want, but I'm saddened by the callousness of those who so easily support the killing of a fetus. Had you grown up in a world wher it was not allowed AND not done in back alleys, I wander if it would be so easy to accept. Maybe it simply comes down to religous beliefs.More on Barak and his response to (paraphrasing) "What would you do about evil" He gives his typically thoughtful answer. I know we are not a perfect country; but I'd rather not have our faults on the tip of the tongue of our leader. Call me dumb country boy.

Thank you Thank you Thank you! I've not been called a young'n in a VERY long time (I'm 55 sweetie but I think I love you). Anyway, I didn't say I agreed with that definition, just that I could understand how some Christians could see it that way. Personally I believe life begins at conception. BUT I also believe that the majority should make the decision, no matter how disgusting that decision might be. And at this moment, the majority of Americans are pro-choice. If it ever came down to a constitutional amendment, then I would be voting prolife for sure. But we are a voting democracy, and therefore, need to acknowledge that the majority doesn't always agree with us and isn't always right. And just like the slavery issue, those who oppose abortion need to reach the hearts and minds of the pro-choice majority before they start legislating. Otherwise it's still legislating from the bench - just the opposite direction.

[hblask 1]

As of today, the pro-abortion saide wants abortions legal up till the baby is outside the womb..for any reason at all. That's more unreasonable to me than someone saying it's a life at the moment of conception.

Yes it is, but no meaningful portion of society actually holds that position. The argument you are referring to always included "life of the mother", in which case who is to say that the mother must die for the life of the baby?

[nutzbuster 7]

Sorry for coming across as a prick. Sometimes I get too riled up over an issue.

accepted, no worries.

Scott I am a fan of yours, but you have to admit you were asking for it a bit here. e.g.I mean you vehemently denied that there is any moral issue at all worth struggling with surrounding abortion. It just seems kind of ludicrous given that half the country at least thinks there is; certainly not all of us are morally bankrupt and dishonest. I respect that you disagree with our conclusion, but find it hard to accept that you can't see what the struggle is about.

Meh, probably, maybe? I know i sound overly simplistic at times, but it is just my opinion. Lots of time I am typing quickly at work to try to make a point and it doesn't always come out perfect in the rush.What I was getting at is that I know so many people who have had abortions who are still tortured/haunted (to varying degrees) by what they did, both male and female, but then shake it off and apply some sort of rational that it was ok or that it 'had to be done' so my current lifestyle would not be impacted financially, etc. This rationalization is also done to squelch the guilt and sorrow and get thru life. And that is where the intellectual/moral dishonesty comes in.I do understand their thinking at the moment they did it, given where they were in life at a very young age, but I also see the saddness on their face. What a thing to have on your soul. But it's so obvious to me that they know what they really did...stopped a human life, and they feel horrible about it.That led me to conclude that deep down in the heart of most people who have ever chosen abortion, there is regret and guilt, and thoughts of "I wonder what it would be like today if I hadn't aborted it?". I did not mean to come off or sound angry and judgemental,...I feel terrible for them. What a burden to carry though life.What's even worse is that as they get older (and this tends to happen to almost everyone) you're view on certain things tends to change, mainly where life issues are concerned. You tend to think about it all a lot more and as corny as it may sound, life just seems to become more and more precious. You and your siblings grow up and soon you have these wonderful nieces and nephews and grand babies, and man....you would do ANYTHING for those kids.I know I must sound like and old man, lol, but it's true. whatever.....carry on....

[Balloon guy 158]

Yes it is, but no meaningful portion of society actually holds that position. The argument you are referring to always included "life of the mother", in which case who is to say that the mother must die for the life of the baby?

I agree most sane people don't hold that view, but the wording on all abortion bills is always the 'health' of the mother, not life. And that's because, as I've said before, the courts decided that 'health' includes the woman's physical, mental, familian, and financial health. So if the baby would cause a set back in finances, that is a legal reason to terminate any pregnancy.Side note, during all the news stories that have been going on lately since the Saddleback thingy, the pro-life side is almost always called the anti-abortion side. This is a clever way to label negativism to the pro-lifers. You will not hear the pro-abortion side ever be called that or anti-life. It's subtle, but always there.

[vbnautilus 48]

accepted, no worries. Meh, probably, maybe? I know i sound overly simplistic at times, but it is just my opinion. Lots of time I am typing quickly at work to try to make a point and it doesn't always come out perfect in the rush.What I was getting at is that I know so many people who have had abortions who are still tortured/haunted (to varying degrees) by what they did, both male and female, but then shake it off and apply some sort of rational that it was ok or that it 'had to be done' so my current lifestyle would not be impacted financially, etc. This rationalization is also done to squelch the guilt and sorrow and get thru life. And that is where the intellectual/moral dishonesty comes in.

Thanks for the explanation. I understand where you are coming from. However, I let me explain why I disagree. I think struggling with a difficult moral decision is not a sign of dishonesty, rather it is the opposite. I remember when my family had to make the decision to put down our ailing family dog. He was obviously suffering, but still to make the decision to end his life was weighty. We ultimately decided it wasn't right for him to suffer any more. There was guilt, there was questioning of it, there was all of that. That doesn't mean it was the wrong decision. Who is more honest, the person who feels bad about taking a life but weighs this against the suffering of the dog, or the person who simply follows the creed "never take a life" without thinking deeply about the situation? Let me give another example so as not to get hung up on the euthanasia issue (although I am curious, are pro-lifers necessarily against euthanasia?)Imagine the President having to make the decision to send troops into war. He probably has good reasons for doing it, but also knows that lives will be lost. To me, if he agonizes over this decision, he is doing his job as a properly moral person. He's making a decision that will end human lives, which will weigh on him, but he also may decide that it is for the greater good to do so. Moral decisions involve both emotions and rational thinking. It isn't necessarily right to always side with one or the other. Mothers who have an emotional difficulty with having an abortion but decide to do it anyways are not amoral. A mother who make the decision without struggling with it and has no doubts is more likely to be morally questionable in my opinion. (side note: Interestingly, there is some recent research showing that people with damage to a certain part of the frontal cortex that is involved in feeling emotions tend to make unusually rational utilitarian moral judgements). In short, it's not intellectually dishonest to weigh all of your emotions and your rational thoughts to come to a decision about a moral dilemma. Residual thoughts one way or the other also don't indicate dishonesty, rather they are to be expected when honestly exploring all of one's feelings about a situation.

[Balloon guy 158]

Thanks for the explanation. I understand where you are coming from. However, I let me explain why I disagree. I think struggling with a difficult moral decision is not a sign of dishonesty, rather it is the opposite. I remember when my family had to make the decision to put down our ailing family dog. He was obviously suffering, but still to make the decision to end his life was weighty. We ultimately decided it wasn't right for him to suffer any more. There was guilt, there was questioning of it, there was all of that. That doesn't mean it was the wrong decision. Who is more honest, the person who feels bad about taking a life but weighs this against the suffering of the dog, or the person who simply follows the creed "never take a life" without thinking deeply about the situation? Let me give another example so as not to get hung up on the euthanasia issue (although I am curious, are pro-lifers necessarily against euthanasia?)Imagine the President having to make the decision to send troops into war. He probably has good reasons for doing it, but also knows that lives will be lost. To me, if he agonizes over this decision, he is doing his job as a properly moral person. He's making a decision that will end human lives, which will weigh on him, but he also may decide that it is for the greater good to do so. Moral decisions involve both emotions and rational thinking. It isn't necessarily right to always side with one or the other. Mothers who have an emotional difficulty with having an abortion but decide to do it anyways are not amoral. A mother who make the decision without struggling with it and has no doubts is more likely to be morally questionable in my opinion. (side note: Interestingly, there is some recent research showing that people with damage to a certain part of the frontal cortex that is involved in feeling emotions tend to make unusually rational utilitarian moral judgements). In short, it's not intellectually dishonest to weigh all of your emotions and your rational thoughts to come to a decision about a moral dilemma. Residual thoughts one way or the other also don't indicate dishonesty, rather they are to be expected when honestly exploring all of one's feelings about a situation.

You seem very dogmatic about this. Isn't there a little room in this to say that sometimes it's okay to just say something is wrong?