Regarding overpopulation, this is a hysteria that has been around for 4 decades now, proven wrong repeatedly, but still people keep saying it. It’s like the wannabe prophets who keep predicting the end of the world and though they are wrong 15 times, they keep getting more believers in their next prediction. Amazing how irrational some people are…

The world population is predicted to crest in the next few decades, and people keep evolving better ways of producing food.

“Would you rather help pay for a woman who can’t afford to raise a baby get an abortion, or spend the next 18 or so years paying for that woman to be on welfare? Umm…easy choice for me…”

Really??? While I would prefer neither choice, I’m not so selfish as to prefer my money of a child’s life (though that’s a false dichotomy many times). Just because the government has dumb welfare rules doesn’t mean that we should circumvent them by killing all the poor babies. It is amazing how little regard you have for the lives of the poor… ironic though that you actually seem to believe that you’re being compassionate toward them.

i must make one final comment (and by doing so have caved into the temptation you provided by taking it upon yourself to attempt to call me out in your closing remarks). i did not fail to give reasons, i chose not to give them. this decision was made based on your statement that you were aware of many of the arguments for closing GTMO. i found the statement to leave me with no reason to expound on my reasoning bc i was not about to pretend (like so many do) as though i had done some sort of groundbreaking research on the issue or discovered some unsung song.

since you are already familiar with the common arguments, and i have no original material, what would be the point of my restating points i already know beforehand you will not be convinced by? this would have been nothing more than fodder (like your comment #31) for faux conversation in which we both refused to accept the other’s position regardless of what was stated.

this is also the reasoning behind my comment #32. i hope that clears things up a little bit. i did not intentionally skirt your question of what my reasons were, and i am sorry if you felt as though i did; i simply found that a listing of my reasons would have been in vain.

now, we can hopefully lay this to rest Godspeed.

can we simply agree to disagree on the handling of GTMO?

“With his shameful order to close Guantanamo Bay, President Obama has perfectly filled the stereotype of the classic clueless ultra-Liberal – the one who can generate great passion for the rights of the guilty defendant and none for the innocent victim.

With a single stroke of the pen, Obama has delayed justice for the victims of 9/11, and in essence granted a reprieve for Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11.”

i meant to write GTMO. i thought it was common knowledge that this was short for guantanamo (just like gitmo is), as in JTF-GTMO (which is joint task force guantanamo). and, yes, i think it is good to shut it down. i am a little surprised that you are unaware of the arguments for shutting it down bc you usually seem fairly well-read in the political sphere. surely you are aware of some of the negative attention that the center has gotten over the past several years. while you may say that all the negative attention is leftist anti-bush propoganda, i would simply disagree. and hopefully that does not make me some sort of crazy liberal. i just do not see the need for a place with such more negative attention and such less accountability than traditional prisons. please let me know why you think we should keep GTMO. i would be genuinely interested to hear what you think on the issue.

brian,

thanks for the link. the take that slater presents is certainly an interesting one. i think there may be some valid points he makes, but i would strongly disagree with his argument overall. his tone seems much too strong and makes his argument come off as “make sure those crazy muslims get what they really deserve.” this makes the article, as well as the articles he hyperlinks to, reek of rightist bias.

thanks for the responses guys! hopefully i will get to read your responses

It is clear that many of our founders were not simply Christian but revolutionists who oppose the government they were under authority to, the British Empire. Moreover, they revolted citing the providence of God and formed a nation, much of which is based on Judeo-Christian principles, yet based on Romans 13, it would have been a sinful formation.

So it puzzles me when people speak of not opposing the government today under the guise of Romans 13, when we are a country, many of whom were Christian, that opposed Britian.

So what did our founders conceive Romans 13 to stand for, and doesn’t it show that determining a government’s ungodliness is not as black and white as it may seem.