And barack Obama wins!

Post Reply New Topic

Hi I am not sure if this link will copy correctly but is worth looking at. Otherwise Canada is great but they need to change their outdated legislation regarding seal hunting.




file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/User1/My%20Documents/environment%20green%20issues/canadian-seal-slaughter.aspx_files/layout.css



Each year, the Canadian government gives hunters the green light to bludgeon to death hundreds of thousands of baby harp seals. During the slaughter, baby seals are shot or repeatedly clubbed. Sealers bludgeon the animals with clubs and "hakapiks" (metal-hook–tipped clubs) and drag the seals—who are often still conscious—across the ice floes with boat hooks.

Hunters toss dead and dying seals into heaps and leave their carcasses to rot on the ice floes because there is no market for seal meat. Veterinarians who have investigated the slaughter have found that hunters routinely fail to comply with Canada's animal welfare standards.

Baby seals are helpless and have no way to escape from the sealers' clubs. A Washington Post article on the seal slaughter described it this way: "[A] seal appearing to gasp for air, blood running from its nose as it lies on an ice floe. Not far away, a sealer sharpens his knife blade. The seal seems to be thrashing as its fur is sliced from its torso."

@ Kraichgauer

I forgot to mention, that I read somewhere that at least one of the businesses in question is a non-profit.

Are you referring to one of the companies resistant to their employees receiving coverage for contraceptives?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It won't - the file is on your local hard disk.
You'll need to provide a link to the website you found it on.

"http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml" xmlns:og="http://opengraphprotocol.org/schema

Call it what it really is, they are against funding abortions, the Democrats just use the term "contraceptives" in order to get the public to go along with it, and yes at least one of the companies that has won an injunction concerning Obamacare is a religious non-profit.

As a matter of fact, contraception is a target of the right, since Rick Santorum made them feel safe about exposing their inner lunatic. Many overly religious people think contraception use is murder - when in fact, mainline denominations who actually represent the soundest Christian doctrine have no problem with the use of birth control. And no one has to hide behind the word "contraception," as abortion is legal, and is to one degree or another acceptable to most people.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That and the Bible actually says that life begins at birth. They love ignoring that one though when they crusade against abortion. But we all know it isn't really about protecting the fetus at all. It's about punishing women for having sex.

... and for just being women.

You are forcing people whom are opposed to abortions out of religious beliefs, to pay for said abortions.

Nonprofits, business owners, etc. have been told to either shut their doors or give up their religion; I'm sorry but this is a 1st Amendment issue.

What if I have a religious opposition to war? I still have to live with taxes going to the war efforts.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Several problems with your argument. Two off the top of my head:

-Religion is not a legitimate basis to oppose abortion. The Bible is not inherently opposed to abortion. These "Christians" are not really opposed to abortion on religious grounds but on the grounds that women should be punished for having sex. Religion is the paper-thin facade that they use to cover this terrible view of theirs (and yours) up. If they are being forced to give tax dollars to organizations that perform abortions, their religious beliefs are not being violated. Their political views might be, but nobody is stopping them from practicing their religion, and everyone's tax dollars go towards things they don't support sometimes. I don't support war, yet guess where a large chunk of my tax money goes? I'd think "peaceful" Christians would be up in arms about this violation of their "1st amendment rights", yet they seem quite happy to subsidize our military, even if it contradicts their religious beliefs.

-Churches are tax-exempt organizations even though they are for-profit organizations. As a nonbeliever my "1st amendment rights" are being trampled by this hypocritical policy, along with government subsidies towards AA and other religious organizations. You aren't in the least bit concerned about that, so it's difficult to take your complaints seriously when you're such a flagrant hypocrite.

Actually many churches are non-profit organizations, the money they take in is to pay for church expenses or going into charitable works.

Furthermore the idea of abortion being immoral is found in Christianity (and arguably always has been) regardless of whether or not people want to acknowledge that fact. In fact the pro-life stance's origins is found in Judaism, and thus when Christianity became a religion that stance was passed onto Christianity.

Also Kraichgauer, I'm not entirely sure from a taxpayer standpoint, I do know that people can be exempt of serving in the military (or at least combat roles) due to religion. That said, the forming of a military is actually one of the roles of government as set out in the Constitution.

Abortion on the other hand is a war between two individuals' civil rights; the woman's rights concerning her body, and the child's rights to his/her very life.

I think that´s good. Obama is not that bad after all, he has achieved some important things, and from my POV, anyone is better than Romney.

Most churches are defined as "non-profit organizations" because of the 501(c)3 exemption. That doesn't mean that the money that they take in goes into charitable works. In some churches, the money goes into supporting the leader's luxurious lifestyle.



No proof, no fact.


Your point?





To be considered a citizen of the United States, one first has to be born.