Glenn Beck says Obama is a racist

[TheShadow]

Apparently English is your second language. I never said Beck was a racist, he's just a guy who seems to know an awful lot about it.

I mean I've heard he doesn't like black people. What is racist about that?

[Biggs3535]

Very weak.

[dbucfan]

Not a strong try at the explanation either - one of those I didn't inhale type of self protecting comments - like one has a paw caught in a trap

[TheShadow]

More like a pack of wild morons trying to cram words down someone elses throat.

[Biggs3535]

Weaker still.

You're not fooling anybody.

[TheShadow]

Believe what you wish. I shall not nibble on your bait any longer gentlemen.

You think what you want and I shall do the same.

See you at the polls.

[alldaway]

Nowhere did I even attempt to address the truths or falicies of poverty level populations or the reasons for or against attempting to control them. You made this assumption and leapt to the conclusions that I disareed with you on this basis.

When you use an extreme example to belittle my argument I can safely assume this.

The reason for my sarcasm is two fold. One, to dismiss your economic assuption that funding abortions was the MOST cost effective manner in which to deal with this issue and two, that funding said program may just in fact add to the numbers of women seeking remedies due to readily available funds.

As for the truth, this is a matter of debate depending on wheather you are talking about the levels of population increases of uneducated lower income individuals, the correlation of those figures to increased crime/terrorism or if you are talking about the truth of this program being truly effective, irregardless of the debatable moral issues.

You seem to be under the impression that our country will save money because theere will be less lower income, highly probable criminal elements that are uneducated and unwilling to help sustain their own families and this cause the USA to not have to squander money in other areas of foreign aid. If you can provide to me the actual dollars reduced to any other foreign country in direct proportion to the amount of money appropriated for abortion related funded programs, I would be willing to listen.

As for me, the truth  I see is that this program will not reduce any of the problems you think it will and is not economically viable because there is no corresponding reductions to other areas of aid. In addition, I see this program primarily as socially driven and ideological based as opposed to being driven by economic values, but that is my opinion and I will not claim it as anyone's truth other then mine. 

By the way, I always like the truth in any shape it may come. I do not need the truth to match my beliefs, I make my beliefs match the truths as best as I can determine them.

And yet can not provide proof that it is not cost efficient? Why is that?

The truth is that we have numbers which shows a strong correlation between economic prowess of a nation and the number of children a house hold has.  The truth is that reduction of STD's, less children a house hold has to raise, etc are all positive impacts.  Abortion is one part of birth control, but in the process of condemning it you eliminate the rest of the birth control options.  The best birth control option is educating a populace, but that costs loads of money.

Yes we have evidence that abortions has increased economic prosperity in LDC's, but conservatives do not want to hear it.  Condoms are far more cost efficient than 2000 lb bombs without question when it comes to combating crime/terrorism which uses the impoverished to further their criminal or political gains.

Truth that is guided by belief is dangerous because it is not presenting the ultimate truth, but a one sided truth which is the core of sophistry.  We have already determined you are a sophist at heart anyways.

[GhostRider]

Nowhere did I even attempt to address the truths or falicies of poverty level populations or the reasons for or against attempting to control them. You made this assumption and leapt to the conclusions that I disareed with you on this basis.

When you use an extreme example to belittle my argument I can safely assume this.

The reason for my sarcasm is two fold. One, to dismiss your economic assuption that funding abortions was the MOST cost effective manner in which to deal with this issue and two, that funding said program may just in fact add to the numbers of women seeking remedies due to readily available funds.

As for the truth, this is a matter of debate depending on wheather you are talking about the levels of population increases of uneducated lower income individuals, the correlation of those figures to increased crime/terrorism or if you are talking about the truth of this program being truly effective, irregardless of the debatable moral issues.

You seem to be under the impression that our country will save money because theere will be less lower income, highly probable criminal elements that are uneducated and unwilling to help sustain their own families and this cause the USA to not have to squander money in other areas of foreign aid. If you can provide to me the actual dollars reduced to any other foreign country in direct proportion to the amount of money appropriated for abortion related funded programs, I would be willing to listen.

As for me, the truth  I see is that this program will not reduce any of the problems you think it will and is not economically viable because there is no corresponding reductions to other areas of aid. In addition, I see this program primarily as socially driven and ideological based as opposed to being driven by economic values, but that is my opinion and I will not claim it as anyone's truth other then mine. 

By the way, I always like the truth in any shape it may come. I do not need the truth to match my beliefs, I make my beliefs match the truths as best as I can determine them.

And yet can not provide proof that it is not cost efficient? Why is that?

The truth is that we have numbers which shows a strong correlation between economic prowess of a nation and the number of children a house hold has.  The truth is that reduction of STD's, less children a house hold has to raise, etc are all positive impacts.  Abortion is one part of birth control, but in the process of condemning it you eliminate the rest of the birth control options.  The best birth control option is educating a populace, but that costs loads of money.

Yes we have evidence that abortions has increased economic prosperity in LDC's, but conservatives do not want to hear it.  Condoms are far more cost efficient than 2000 lb bombs without question when it comes to combating crime/terrorism which uses the impoverished to further their criminal or political gains.

Truth that is guided by belief is dangerous because it is not presenting the ultimate truth, but a one sided truth which is the core of sophistry.  We have already determined you are a sophist at heart anyways.

Well done.

[kevabuc]

Nowhere did I even attempt to address the truths or falicies of poverty level populations or the reasons for or against attempting to control them. You made this assumption and leapt to the conclusions that I disareed with you on this basis.

When you use an extreme example to belittle my argument I can safely assume this.

The reason for my sarcasm is two fold. One, to dismiss your economic assuption that funding abortions was the MOST cost effective manner in which to deal with this issue and two, that funding said program may just in fact add to the numbers of women seeking remedies due to readily available funds.

As for the truth, this is a matter of debate depending on wheather you are talking about the levels of population increases of uneducated lower income individuals, the correlation of those figures to increased crime/terrorism or if you are talking about the truth of this program being truly effective, irregardless of the debatable moral issues.

You seem to be under the impression that our country will save money because theere will be less lower income, highly probable criminal elements that are uneducated and unwilling to help sustain their own families and this cause the USA to not have to squander money in other areas of foreign aid. If you can provide to me the actual dollars reduced to any other foreign country in direct proportion to the amount of money appropriated for abortion related funded programs, I would be willing to listen.

As for me, the truth  I see is that this program will not reduce any of the problems you think it will and is not economically viable because there is no corresponding reductions to other areas of aid. In addition, I see this program primarily as socially driven and ideological based as opposed to being driven by economic values, but that is my opinion and I will not claim it as anyone's truth other then mine.  

By the way, I always like the truth in any shape it may come. I do not need the truth to match my beliefs, I make my beliefs match the truths as best as I can determine them.

And yet can not provide proof that it is not cost efficient? Why is that?

The truth is that we have numbers which shows a strong correlation between economic prowess of a nation and the number of children a house hold has.  The truth is that reduction of STD's, less children a house hold has to raise, etc are all positive impacts.  Abortion is one part of birth control, but in the process of condemning it you eliminate the rest of the birth control options.  The best birth control option is educating a populace, but that costs loads of money.

Yes we have evidence that abortions has increased economic prosperity in LDC's, but conservatives do not want to hear it.  Condoms are far more cost efficient than 2000 lb bombs without question when it comes to combating crime/terrorism which uses the impoverished to further their criminal or political gains.

Truth that is guided by belief is dangerous because it is not presenting the ultimate truth, but a one sided truth which is the core of sophistry.  We have already determined you are a sophist at heart anyways.

Would a sophist say that he would be willing to listen if you could provide proof  that foreign aid dollars were reduced in the areas of crime/ terroism prevention in proportion to those dollars put into this abortion program? No, but in true Alinsky fashion you must continue to lable me that way. You picked sophist as the targeted moniker and you must beat this horse whenever you can, in spite of the thorough rebuttal to this argument I gave you last time out.

Let us frame the argument that you seek prove of so that we are on the same page. My argument was this originally, that a bullet is cheaper then an abortion. I thought that that argument to be self evident in proof, a bullet is about $5 and abort about $500. It was indeed sarcasm but you needed to defend you position by saying there were statistics available to prove that aborting babies leads to better economic prosperity, ergo better cost efficiency then having to fund crime/terrorism programs. Nowhere did you actually give those statistics or site referrences, but we are to believe your verbage vervatim. (much in a sophist manner I might add, believe what I say because I am the enlightened one.)

That brings me to the argument I then placed before you that I believe is then one you want proof to. That argument being that to prove cost effectiveness of the abortion funding program you must be able to prove a reduction in crime/terrorism prevention funded programs by either an equal or greater amount. I was the one to first give you a way to prove your argument and thereby change my mind (something a sophist would never do I'll remind you) but you have decided that the burden of prove is upon my shoulders.

No problem, follow along.

1. The funding for foreign abortion and family planning has been approved by this administration by reversing the ban on what was commonly called the "Mexico Policy. So we have an increase in funding for this program because without funds the program would not be much good.

Here's a link:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/23/obama-lift-ban-overseas-abortion-funding/

2. The 2009 Federal Budget for State and International programs, where foreign aid comes from was budgeted at $38.3 billion.

Here's a linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

3. The proposed 2010 Federal Budget for State and International programs is $51.7 billion. That is an increase in foreign add.

Therefore if the funding of foreign abortion and family planning clinics was thought to have an cost effective economic impact on the budget for foreign aid to combat crime and terrorism there should be a drop in budgeted total foreign aid to the State and Internation Programs department.

[kevabuc]

Truth that is guided by belief is dangerous because it is not presenting the ultimate truth, but a one sided truth which is the core of sophistry.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

These truths were born from the beliefs of individuals in a time that was indeed dangerous, dangerous to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If these are the one sided truths then I am damn proud to be called a sophist.

[dbucfan]

Well ADW - trot out the info that supports the statement "Yes we have evidence that abortions has increased economic prosperity in LDC's, but conservatives do not want to hear it.  Condoms are far more cost efficient than 2000 lb bombs without question when it comes to combating crime/terrorism which uses the impoverished to further their criminal or political gains."

I am curious as to how this was measured... and who did the measurement - and what is included i.e. condoms, abortion... or any other method, mostly because I perceive the money as wasted/misdirected.  That money being the amounts expended by the US Government to supply birth control measures overseas -

[BucsBullsBolts]

Truth that is guided by belief is dangerous because it is not presenting the ultimate truth, but a one sided truth which is the core of sophistry.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

What's ironic about that statement is that neither the "Creator" of the ones who wrote it nor the authors themselves actually believed that all men are created equal ...

[Ironphist]

sounds like the labor and equipment to bury the "2 for 1" deal aren't really costs - more like "shovel ready" stimulus...

[DailyRich68]

With his grossly under-reported 20-year relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright....

Would this be the same Rev. Wright that was ALL OVER THE NEWS last summer during the primaries?  Yeah, that story sure flew under the radar.

[kevabuc]

Truth that is guided by belief is dangerous because it is not presenting the ultimate truth, but a one sided truth which is the core of sophistry.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

What's ironic about that statement is that neither the "Creator" of the ones who wrote it nor the authors themselves actually believed that all men are created equal ...

What is really ironic is that without this document every effort to overturn and abolish slavery by the colonies was thwarted by the British crown. The overwhelming majority of the Founding Fathers were very much against slavery. True, there were some such as Jefferson, John Rutledge and James Madison that favored slavery, however, the Declaration of Indendence set the stage for abolishing this evil.