Posts by Semper

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Renewable Energy Growth in Perspective

    07/22/2014 12:39:53 PM PDT · 6 of 6
    Semper to CedarDave

    Here is a very possible answer to our energy needs: http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/04/liquid-fluoride-thorium-power-pros-cons/

    If you check Youtube for information from Kirk Sorensen (anywhere from 5 minutes to 2 hours), you can begin to see the great possibilities of this LFTR (Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor) technology.

  • I Admit, I’m Christian Because I Need a Crutch And I’m Brainwashed

    07/14/2014 4:16:05 PM PDT · 43 of 59
    Semper to Sirius Lee
    (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")

    I love that! Where did it come from?

  • I Admit, I’m Christian Because I Need a Crutch And I’m Brainwashed

    07/14/2014 4:08:14 PM PDT · 41 of 59
    Semper to -YYZ-
    I don't condemn your beliefs but I would be very interested in your answer to the following:

    How does it make sense to get something from nothing?

    There is a scientific principle of cause and effect. Since we logically fit into the effect category, why could we not allow our Cause to be called God (however that term might be understood)?

  • The GOP's Gay-Rights Reboot: An effort to change the Republican Party's platform.

    07/14/2014 2:43:32 PM PDT · 53 of 55
    Semper to GeronL
    Besides it is not my job or duty to vote for someone I don't trust. It is the job of the party and candidate to earn our votes. They do not get them by default.

    It is our duty to vote and to vote for what we believe will be best for our country. There are certainly circumstances when standing firm with your beliefs is very admirable. When what you do impacts on other people it may be a little different. Do you really think our country is better off after the Obama years than we would have been with a Romney presidency? Which comments about Obama that I made in my last post to "cdcdawg" do you disagree with?

    The "lesser evil" argument doesn't work any more. Sorry about that.

    I agree, you should be sorry about that. Please explain why the greater evil is better than the lesser. Since we live in an imperfect world, everything has some evil. Why is it not good to always try to choose that which has the least evil and the most good - call it the "most good" argument. If you believe that Obama was the "most good" option then you will deserve all the potential grief he may cause.

  • The GOP's Gay-Rights Reboot: An effort to change the Republican Party's platform.

    07/14/2014 1:39:03 PM PDT · 51 of 55
    Semper to madprof98
    You should go to work for the Republican National Committee - or, for that matter, the Democratic National Committee.

    I think you have to be a member of one of those parties to do that. I am not a member of any political party.

  • The GOP's Gay-Rights Reboot: An effort to change the Republican Party's platform.

    07/14/2014 1:31:07 PM PDT · 50 of 55
    Semper to GeronL
    I don’t know how moral a person can be if they change their opinions and flip-flop on a whim.

    You have bought the democrat and media propaganda. It is not possible to be as successful in business as Romney was and flip-flop on whims. When conditions change or when you actually learn from experience, a good manager changes appropriately. But more of his "changes" were not accurately represented. Of course our current president does not flip-flop on a massive scale?

  • The GOP's Gay-Rights Reboot: An effort to change the Republican Party's platform.

    07/14/2014 1:21:40 PM PDT · 49 of 55
    Semper to cdcdawg
    He (Romney) would have been a better manager than Obama, without question, but the general direction of ever-growing government would not have altered,

    Obama has hurt this country more than any other president in modern times. He has forced spending to a level beyond belief. He is on a path to substantially destroy our economy, our foreign policy and our military. He has spent the last 6 years forcing this country towards 3rd World status. He is the greatest resource of our enemies.

    Romney was so successful in business that no one even tries to deny it. One reason for that is that he knows how to get very good people to work for him. (Something Obama certainly can't do.) Also, Romney obviously understands fiscal realities such as too much debt. He is a leader as well as a manager. He clearly loves this country and Obama does not. If we have a major disaster (economic melt-down; terrorist attack; natural), Romney could have handled it - Obama wants it and he will make it worse.

    For me the biggest question is: Since it was obvious that only Obama or Romney could win the election, how could the country I love make such a poor and disastrous choice?

    Because too many thought Romney was not conservative enough? Because too many wanted all or nothing? Because too many would not work hard and smart enough to change the minds of others?

    Well, when this country suffers the consequences of Obama and the democrats, those "republicans" who helped by not supporting the best alternative can smugly say "I did not compromise because I believed I was right" - even though the result was far from being right.

  • The GOP's Gay-Rights Reboot: An effort to change the Republican Party's platform.

    07/14/2014 11:05:24 AM PDT · 43 of 55
    Semper to madprof98
    One of the reasons that we became a great country is that our constitution requires the co-operation of those with differing interests and beliefs. If you have never held a belief which you believed was absolutely correct and later found that you were mistaken, you should be out walking on the waters and healing the multitudes.

    The genius of our founding fathers was that they knew that ultimate solutions could not come from any one person or group of persons and good solutions come from hard work and co-operation from all involved. When you do it quickly and exclusively, you get obamacare, et al. And that comes out of loosing elections.

  • The GOP's Gay-Rights Reboot: An effort to change the Republican Party's platform.

    07/14/2014 11:01:50 AM PDT · 42 of 55
    Semper to GeronL

    Do you believe that a destructive Obama is better than a competent, successful (in business and state government), moral, Romney who was governor of a democrat state where he had to compromise to get anything done?

  • The GOP's Gay-Rights Reboot: An effort to change the Republican Party's platform.

    07/14/2014 10:34:23 AM PDT · 39 of 55
    Semper to cdcdawg
    Then how do you know that you are electing an actual alternative?

    You do your homework. What are this person's qualifications. What has this person achieved. What is this person's character. Is there anyone better qualified to do the job.

    There were "conservatives" who did not support Gov. Romney because he was a Mormon (of course there were other reasons also) but there is no question that this country would have been much better off if he had won the last election.

  • The GOP's Gay-Rights Reboot: An effort to change the Republican Party's platform.

    07/14/2014 10:24:13 AM PDT · 36 of 55
    Semper to madprof98
    It is politically wise to stay away from polarizing positions if you want to win elections.

    And once people realize you don't stand for anything at all, they'll be energized to come out and vote for you. Good thinking.

    There are plenty of issues which are not socially polarizing: jobs, defense, scientific research, sound monetary policy, realistic legal immigration policy, etc.

    Just because you don't want accommodate political opponents by fixating on socially divisive, politically loosing issues does not in any way mean you stand for nothing.

  • The GOP's Gay-Rights Reboot: An effort to change the Republican Party's platform.

    07/14/2014 9:45:13 AM PDT · 24 of 55
    Semper to cdcdawg

    This is one of those issues which is a political looser for Republicans. It is politically wise to stay away from polarizing positions if you want to win elections. You don’t have to support something you believe is wrong and you don’t have to oppose it either - at least during an election. The way to improve any situation is to gain the power to influence that situation through legislation and court appointments and you can’t do that if you loose elections. Being rigid and self-righteous is a sure way to loose elections.

  • More Obama-Muslim Brotherhood cooperation revealed: Smells like treason to me.

    07/07/2014 11:17:36 AM PDT · 13 of 18
    Semper to PoloSec

    Every military serviceman has taken an oath to defend this nation and its constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. The current commander-in-chief has proven himself to be one such enemy - when and how are those who have served and are serving this great nation going to honor their oath?

  • The Real Problem

    12/12/2011 9:08:19 AM PST · 20 of 21
    Semper to Nervous Tick
    Laws passed by politicians certainly AFFECT corporations and other groups. Given that, why should they NOT have the free speech right to influence campaigns?

    Prohibiting organizations from contributing money to influence political campaigns does not take away free speech as much as its contributions dilute the influence of individual voters. It is supposed to be a government of, for, and by the people not the organizations and their special interest money.

  • The Real Problem

    12/12/2011 8:37:04 AM PST · 19 of 21
    Semper to Oceander

    The suggestions are not the point. The point is that our political system is broken. We need to get the national players focused on that and we need to demand to know what our leaders and potential leaders are going to do to fix this critical problem. My suggestions are just a small contribution to the process.

  • The Real Problem

    12/12/2011 8:25:38 AM PST · 18 of 21
    Semper to CowboyJay
    I'm not sure I'd agree that government pensioners of any kind should be voting.

    My government pension was earned and I paid for my social security. I pay taxes on both of those as well as on my earned income and investment income. Last year I paid over 17K in taxes. How you can think that I don't deserve to vote is hard to understand. There are plenty of taxpayers receiving some income from social security or government pensions who are far from "on the dole" and they would not tolerate losing the right to vote. In fact no one now able to vote would tolerate losing that right.

    What is not right is that someone who pays no taxes gets the same voting influence as those who pay significant amounts of tax. It would be much more fair if someone paying little or no tax got one vote and those paying more tax got something like 1 vote per $1000 of tax paid.

  • The Real Problem

    12/10/2011 7:21:02 AM PST · 16 of 21
    Semper to CowboyJay
    I'd also strip the vote from anyone on the gov't payroll or pension.

    I receive a pension as a result of career Marine Corps service which included 3 trips to Vietnam. I would think that should qualify me to vote under the proposal of this thread. (Also served in Afghanistan as a civilian contractor.)

  • The Real Problem

    12/08/2011 2:38:39 PM PST · 9 of 21
    Semper to Semper

    After further consideration, “government aid” needs more explanation. Does that mean that a disabled person getting aid could not vote? Doesn’t seem fair.

  • The Real Problem

    12/08/2011 1:56:59 PM PST · 8 of 21
    Semper to kosciusko51
    you cannot vote in an election if you have been on government aid for more than 1/2 of the preceding year.

    Good suggestion.

    I would also add the suggestion that after serving in elected office, you could not lobby the institution in which you served.

  • The Real Problem

    12/08/2011 1:52:00 PM PST · 7 of 21
    Semper to Bigtigermike
    If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country."

    My point is that the needed change will most likely not happen with the current defective political system.

  • The Real Problem

    12/08/2011 1:35:55 PM PST · 6 of 21
    Semper to Nervous Tick
    Laws passed by politicians certainly AFFECT corporations and other groups. Given that, why should they NOT have the free speech right to influence campaigns?

    Maybe a good point but organizations are made up of people with differing political views and therefore some will have their effort and or investment used to support a candidate not of their choice. Not fair.

  • The Real Problem

    12/08/2011 1:13:20 PM PST · 1 of 21
    Semper
    The above is the body of a letter sent to several presidential candidate campaigns. It is offered for comment and as a call for other such letters.
  • Huntsman, 'Americans Elect', and Soros

    12/08/2011 12:45:26 PM PST · 4 of 9
    Semper to Halfmanhalfamazing

    This is about both ideology and money. Americans Elect was conceived by democrats to help Obama’s reelection. And disclosure of funding sources is in conflict with democrat core principles.

  • A CEO's 6 month evaluation of Obama's performance

    10/29/2009 11:49:31 AM PDT · 15 of 27
    Semper to w4women
    ("All great change begins at the dinner table". Ronald Reagan)

    True in the "good old days" but not so much any more. Except for the decreasing percentage of "normal" families, dinner table gatherings and conversations are disappearing. It is now "All great change begins on the Internet." An unfortunate example of that was the millions in illegal election funds raised by Obama on the Internet. A positive example is the influence of Free Republic and other such forums.

    To your point, it takes my breath away to see that this country has deteriorated to the extent now evident by the election of such an unqualified and harmful president. This, coupled with a congress filled with amoral buffoons, makes it really hard to be optimistic.

  • Mike Lupica: Tom Watson's historic run at the 2009 British Open is one for the ages

    07/19/2009 4:31:42 PM PDT · 14 of 14
    Semper to SE Mom
    It was "soooooooo close". If Tom's 2nd or 3rd shot on the final hole had turned out just a little better, he would have won.

    Stewart Cink is a good guy and he is a worthy winner. After all was said and done, Tom showed a lot of class.

    It would be even more spectacular if he wins next year.

  • How long until we abort the old too?

    07/19/2009 3:45:32 PM PDT · 25 of 32
    Semper to Kaslin; All
    It has been puzzling to me how so many incompetent and ignorant liberals have gained political office in this country, but after reading this thread it is becoming more clear.
  • The Smiling Unborn Child (Music in Utero)

    07/13/2009 8:20:57 PM PDT · 31 of 58
    Semper to SeekAndFind
    It might be better to leave this issue to the Churches because it is a guaranteed losing issue in politics. How else could so many moron democrats have been elected?
  • Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy On The Iraq War: Yes You Can!

    06/20/2009 7:03:55 PM PDT · 7 of 8
    Semper to DakotaRed
    don't put it all off on Bush, accept your part as well.

    I did not put it all off on Bush, I put it on the whole republican party as well. The whole party spent too much and grew the size of government when they controlled congress. They all decided to squander billions on the mistake of invading Iraq. They all accepted the influence of special interest money. Both parties are corrupted by a political system which is broken and under the influence of special interest money and it will not get fixed in an environment dominated by corrupt liberal media. What part in that mess is my responsibility?

  • Obama Closes Doors on Openness

    06/20/2009 4:01:26 PM PDT · 12 of 25
    Semper to Pacothecat
    Anyone surprised at the stuff the Obama administration is doing must have helped get them elected by pushing unwinable idealistic requirements.
  • Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy On The Iraq War: Yes You Can!

    06/20/2009 3:01:08 PM PDT · 5 of 8
    Semper to xuberalles
    Did they not brand George Bush as inept and dangerous for sticking to his guns in regards to protecting America, our borders, and the freedom loving peoples of the world?

    George Bush did not protect our borders - especially with Mexico. George Bush is a good man with good intentions but he was incompetent as president and he, with his republican party weasels brought about the complete disaster of Barak Osama/Obama.

    As far as Iraq is concerned, we never should have thrown away the political and material resources to invade a country on the other side of the world because of what they might have done with what they might have had. Iraq posed so little threat to this country compared to other sources that it was one the worse decisions in world history to commit such critical resources to that fiasco. Iraq might come out better off, but the USA is obviously not better off because of that ill advised effort (ie. president Obama). It is not our place to be the policeman of the world - see the founding fathers.

  • Ashamed

    11/03/2008 6:50:13 PM PST · 28 of 42
    Semper to Blennos

    Thank you for your support.

  • Ashamed

    11/02/2008 10:07:47 PM PST · 26 of 42
    Semper to Blennos

    Thank you for your comments and support.

  • Everyone calm down (anti-vanity vanity)

    11/01/2008 9:37:57 PM PDT · 40 of 44
    Semper to NCPAC
    It will end if/as Barak Hussein Obama II gains executive power in this country. How could this happen? Certainly the biased media helped. But what also helped was any fanatical group which eliminated highly qualified candidates because they did not completely meet that group's litmus tests.
  • Ashamed

    11/01/2008 4:40:30 PM PDT · 23 of 42
    Semper to fellowpatriot
    I was ashamed of my country when clinton was re-elected.

    In this case, I was not ashamed - I was greatly disappointed but I understood that incumbancy is very powerful and Clinton (as is Obama) was more clever and devious than most weasel politicans.

    I worry for my son’s future.

    I can certainly empathize with that - I fear for my children and grandchildren - the potential damage will last for generations - if it is ever corrected.

  • Ashamed

    11/01/2008 4:28:44 PM PDT · 21 of 42
    Semper to kalee
    I will never be ashamed of my Country.

    If the majority of voters in our country make such a monumental mistake, or if the majority of citizens in this country allow an unqualified, corrupt politician to illegally obtain executive power, I can't help but be ashamed.

    America is the best place on earth and even if obama is elected I will not be ashamed of her.

    If Obama obtains executive power, with the help of democrat majorities in congress, this country just may not be the best place on earth. They will overturn the principles contained in our Constitution and CHANGE our country forever. The country you wish not to be associated with shame just may be disappearing. I hope to God that is not true.

  • Ashamed

    11/01/2008 7:53:40 AM PDT · 1 of 42
    Semper
    I wish this had been posted sooner and done a little better.
  • Sneak Peek: Coca-Cola Super Bowl Ad (Sen. Bill Frist and James Carville)

    02/01/2008 1:47:07 PM PST · 8 of 29
    Semper to RDTF
    That commercial sucks! What was Frist thinking?
  • LSU to play for BCS title (not the best team on either side of the line)

    12/03/2007 11:48:50 AM PST · 66 of 146
    Semper to Manfred the Wonder Dawg
    The country and the school forget their prime reason for existence is academic education

    Universities prepare their students for a variety of vocational and professional pursuits - sports is one of those. If you want to play professional football, a college team is where you prepare.

  • Not Everyone Loves Huckabee!

    12/03/2007 10:55:35 AM PST · 41 of 47
    Semper to chicagolady
    It looks as though the main example of Huckabee's tax increase is on tobacco. The use of tobacco increases health care costs - eventually for everyone. What is so negative about increasing taxes in that case and why are his remarks being taken out of context to imply he would agree to tax everything when he was just talking about tobacco?

    I am not on the Huckabee bandwagon but I get concerned when information given is not totally aboveboard.

  • Anthony Daniels: The false prophet (Kahlil Gibran's new age kitsch debunked.)

    12/03/2007 10:07:53 AM PST · 23 of 26
    Semper to neverdem
    That was much too long and tedious an article just to say, "I really don't like Kahlil Gibran and I'll tell you why over and over again".

    I'll give him an aphorism from Semper: "You can't see in others that which is not also in yourself".

  • Celebrity Endorsements: Does Anyone Really Care? (by Pat Sajak)

    11/28/2007 2:18:11 PM PST · 63 of 65
    Semper to EveningStar
    Does Anyone Really Care?

    Of course they do. Celebrity is our holy grail. You have to have celebrity to get elected president. Bill Clinton was a political celebrity of the highest magnitude, craving attention and power, and willing to do almost anything to get those.

    If this country could elect someone lacking character to the degree that Bill Clinton did and is even considering the possibility of electing his even more defective wife to that position, it is obvious that too many in this country care about the wrong things.

  • Pro-Life

    11/21/2007 1:59:49 PM PST · 106 of 108
    Semper to steadfastconservative
    Your criterion of what is “absolutely necessary” is really subjective. A woman could easily decide that it is “absolutely necessary” for her to have an abortion for almost any reason.

    Yes, that is very true. However, we have the freedom to try to help her realize the value of NOT choosing abortion. Freedom means the possibility of choosing incorrectly but with that incorrect choice will come the consequences that direct us to the correct choice, sooner or later. Our progress depends upon each of us freely learning the lessons of life and then correctly applying them.

    An important consideration here is whether or not there has been sufficient progress in this human experience to have the privilege of freedom of choice - we restrict that privilege from children until they display the maturity to exercise reasonable choices. It may be that our pregnant women do not have the maturity or moral development to rate the freedom to decide this question. Then those who think they do have that development can force their will on them. Not me, thanks.

  • Pro-Life

    11/21/2007 1:28:40 PM PST · 105 of 108
    Semper to DocRock
    The fallacy in this argument is that both Saddam and the U.S. initiated violence. Any reasoning mind can clearly see the contradiction in this logic. Only one can initiate and then others respond.

    What violence did Saddam initiate directly against us? Please don't make the incorrect claim that he initiated 9/11. We invaded Iraq. We were opposed in this by several of our allies as well as many religious people including the Catholic Church. The fact is that we initiated violence against Iraq - some in this country think it was justified and just as many or more do not. If having nuclear capability is sufficient reason to invade, then our country is the most justified target - we have more than anyone and we are the only country to have used nuclear weapons on other human beings. (I know there is a very good case for that use - especially from our perspective.) However, how does any one country get the right to decide what other countries can have or not have?

    This current war is not supported by the United Nations - the first Gulf war was. Our actions, in defiance of the majority of world opinion, are being undertaken because we believe that it is in our best interest - the innocent life lost in this endeavor is justified because it promotes our well being. Because we are powerful, we can insist on the choice to do this. In this case, we as a nation, are pro-choice (at least for us) and the innocent life lost in war is an unfortunate but necessary consequence. But you are supporting the opposite of this situation for our women.

    I know there are significant differences in this. Countries exist on their own, with the ability to contribute something to the quality and circumstances of their existence.

    An unborn baby is completely dependent upon and attached to the woman within whom it exists. Nothing happens to that developing human before it happens to the woman. That developing human is part of the physical structure of the woman and alters her physiology significantly. To take away her right and responsibility to determine what is best for her and her family is almost like an external power determining what will happen in our physical environment - as in completely giving up our national freedom to the United Nations. We are not likely to let that happen but there is outrage when we can not take freedom of choice away from our pregnant women.

    It is clear that no human being comes into this world except through the environment of a woman's body. That may change - with the development of an artificial womb - but it is now the case. I do not believe that our spiritual life, created by a spiritual God is dependent upon a material, human sex act and a woman's choice to deliver a baby. Human will is not more powerful than God. To realize our true spiritual existence, in the image of our perfect Source, we need the freedom to make our own way towards that true and wonderful existence. Life is eternal and spiritually indestructible. Human consciousness is limited and flawed - it must be overcome. No one can force this on another, we must have the freedom to make that progress on our own - even if it appears that innocent human life is interrupted at whatever stage. If it is "God's will" that a person should be here in this human environment, then nothing can prevent that from ultimately happening in one way or another. What is more powerful than God?

    This may be beyond what you are ready to contemplate, but I offer it anyway - just in case.

  • Pro-Life

    11/20/2007 1:11:58 PM PST · 102 of 108
    Semper to steadfastconservative
    Thank you for that information. Did you and/or the Catholic Church support the invasion of Iraq? If so:

    What damage inflicted by Iraq on this nation was lasting, grave, and certain?

    Were all other means of "putting an end to it" (?) impractical or ineffective?

    Considering the totality of what was involved and the political divisions here and in Iraq, how could there have been "a serious prospect for success"? It was a coin toss.

    ... situation certainly does not justify the 96% of abortions that are performed for reasons of convenience, birth control, etc.

    I would not try to justify the 96% (or whatever) of abortions that are not absolutely necessary. I do believe that the decision as to what is absolutely necessary ultimately belongs to the woman who is pregnant.

  • Pro-Life

    11/20/2007 12:27:37 PM PST · 100 of 108
    Semper to Running On Empty
    Neither of us is going to change our position,

    You are speaking for yourself on that one. In the post following yours, I acknowledged that I may be wrong on the abortion vs freedom question.

  • Pro-Life

    11/20/2007 12:22:56 PM PST · 99 of 108
    Semper to DocRock
    Regarding being persuaded, I acknowledge that I may be wrong on choice vs abortion. I have already stated that no human has complete knowledge of truth or how to apply God's truth to all human circumstances. Also, please see post #93.

    You asked how a "pro-life" position can oppose abortion and support war. The question has been answered... in detail with supporting Scripture.

    Maybe to your satisfaction but not yet to mine. Scripture alone can be used to justify many beliefs which are in conflict. I believe that reason is very necessary to get to the truth. Reason does not yet persuade me that it is best to deal with the abortion issue by taking away the freedom and responsibility for that decision from those directly involved. Also, reason (along with experience) does not convince me that the our invasion of Iraq was wise or justified or properly decided.

    Many here seem greatly focused upon properly deciding the abortion issue for someone else but seem much less discerning about the decision to go to war. Our constitution states that Congress shall declare war. That does not mean that Congress can properly resolve to let the president have that responsibility and choice. Congress did not declare war and we invaded a country which did not attack us. We used other people's money to do this (our future generations and foreign debt - much from China). We caused upheaval and alienated many of our allies. And, as in all war, many innocent people had their lives torn apart and ended. That choice was obviously an extremely important one - it can impact almost the whole world. I believe it was the wrong choice and I have trouble allowing those who made and support it, to decide a question that involves the health and freedom of individual women and their families.

  • Pro-Life

    11/20/2007 10:36:10 AM PST · 96 of 108
    Semper to Running On Empty
    I am not surprised that you see it as a “challenge”. I felt it was that way from the beginning—that it was presented more as a challenge than a discussion. If I’m wrong about that, you can correct me.

    I see the discussion as a challenge. Any discussion of critically important issues is a challenge. No one has complete understanding of the truth in this life. I believe the Bible contains the truth and I believe we make the best progress toward understanding that truth by constantly and critically examining our own beliefs as well as those of others.

  • Pro-Life

    11/20/2007 10:11:00 AM PST · 95 of 108
    Semper to steadfastconservative
    Abortion is always wrong because it is always wrong to deliberately take an innocent human life.

    There are circumstances when giving birth will take the life of the mother and may also produce a dead baby. Granted those cases are rare but they happen. If that possibility exists, who has the responsibility and right to make the decision? Is it you, or the state, or anyone not directly involved with that decision and not subject to the direct consequences of that decision? I don't believe so.

    Do we have the right and responsibility to try to influence those who would choose an abortion which is not absolutely necessary? Of course. ...wars can either be just or unjust; and it is perfectly moral to support a just war.

    Who and what determines a "just war"? That is usually the winner. North Vietnam won their war against South Vietnam and the U.S. so from their perspective it was a just war. That war produced a larger and stronger communist country. Was that a moral outcome? Many of the soldiers who fought and died in Vietnam were drafted; it was not their choice to go thousands of miles from their home and engage in war - could they not be called innocent also? However you look at that, there were thousands of innocent civilians killed. Of course war and abortion are different but there are similarities and it is very important who chooses either of those activities and why.

  • Pro-Life

    11/20/2007 9:13:34 AM PST · 93 of 108
    Semper to Running On Empty
    You appear to have remained unpersuaded about a number of things that you brought up for discussion.

    My beliefs have come from over 50 years of experience and study. To become unpersuaded during the course of one or two discussions would be unreasonable - I would not expect that from you. Because you disagree with someones beliefs and because you can't change those beliefs easily is not a good reason to run away from the challenge.

    The value of these discussions is mainly in the help they might give to better understand difficult and important issues. Concepts communicated by organized religion are a good foundation and examining these concepts with independent thinking is also valuable in our progress towards a better life.

  • Pro-Life

    11/17/2007 8:29:23 AM PST · 87 of 108
    Semper to DocRock
    If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God,

    Good advice. Complete understanding of the Bible and wisdom may not be the same thing. I hope it was wisdom that led me to acknowledge my limited understanding. Now I see in part, as through a glass, darkly.