Intrade: 70.5% chance Obama will win third debate

[Aeson]

You're using the strawman claim as a red herring (previously as an ad hominem). At least when I attack you I include it along with a discussion about the topic.

As for invading "willy-nilly", those weren't my words exactly. You're chomping at the bit for us to start bombing Iran. Maybe you don't realize it, but this means occupation eventually. No doubt you were cheerleading going into Iraq, don't even try to deny it. If a R President suggest doing something stupid, you're going to be on-board that ship.

[giblets]

What makes you say our diplomacy in the cold war was stupid? I seem to recall we won. We were obviously doing something right.

You mean not having a stagnant centrally planned economy? Reagan didn't do **** except invade some tiny island that went Communist. Oh, and let's not forget about selling Iran weapons and helping people smuggle cocaine into the United States to give money to the Contras.

[C0ckney]

Take England. In England Conservative politicans were too terrified of telling the public that Germany was rearming even prior to Hitler coming to power, lest they be dismissed as warmongers--and lest the British Labour Party came to power. The BLP stood for unilateral disarmament. Would unilateral disarmament have brought peace with Germany, Aeson? The BLP stuck by that policy for years, almost right up to the days of Chamberlain's warning of war in 1939. Would that policy have brought peace with Nazi Germany, Aeson? On another level pointing out a breach of Germany's treaty obligations would be "provocative", right?

your knowledge of history is sadly lacking. all countries in the league of nations were committed to disarm and to not use force to resolve disputes. of course all countries, including britain ignored it, while paying it lip service to it in public. public support was high for disarmament, in 1935, around 90% of people favoured multi-lateral disarmament. with the horrors of the first world war still fresh in people's minds, this is perhaps not surprising. britain started to rearm in 1934-35. germany's clandestine rearmament had become public knowledge by 1934.

the labour party's position in the mid 1930s was against 'capitalist war' but the party was divided (it's also worth remembering the difference between the labour ministers and MPs in the national government and the labour party which was in opposition) and its actual position was contradictory. as many on the left pointed out, they said they were against war but not prepared to take any actions which would stop britian's participation in one, or to put it more succinctly, to stop the drive towards war. things changed during the mid 1930s, due to the increasing threat from german rearmament and, by 1937, they had come out strongly against chamberlain's policy of appeasement.

[Asher]

Back to the US election - the GOP sure knows how to pick them.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/uselection/article/1276350--republican-candidate-richard-mourdock-says-rape-something-that-god-intended-to-happen

Another Republican running for U.S. Senate has angered voters after telling a live television audience that when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape, “that's something God intended.” Women voters are key to this year's presidential race, and Republican challenger Mitt Romney has been drawn into this latest issue.

[Zevico]

your knowledge of history is sadly lacking. all countries in the league of nations were committed to disarm and to not use force to resolve disputes. of course all countries, including britain ignored it, while paying it lip service to it in public. public support was high for disarmament, in 1935, around 90% of people favoured multi-lateral disarmament. with the horrors of the first world war still fresh in people's minds, this is perhaps not surprising. britain started to rearm in 1934-35. germany's clandestine rearmament had become public knowledge by 1934.

the labour party's position in the mid 1930s was against 'capitalist war' but the party was divided (it's also worth remembering the difference between the labour ministers and MPs in the national government and the labour party which was in opposition) and its actual position was contradictory. as many on the left pointed out, they said they were against war but not prepared to take any actions which would stop britian's participation in one, or to put it more succinctly, to stop the drive towards war. things changed during the mid 1930s, due to the increasing threat from german rearmament and, by 1937, they had come out strongly against chamberlain's policy of appeasement.

So the only fact you're correcting me on here is the BLP turning (apparently) against appeasement in 1937. Funny, none of that changes anything.

[C0ckney]

your whole post was a massive distortion and misrepresentation of the situation.

[Kidlicious]

Back to the US election - the GOP sure knows how to pick them.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/us...nded-to-happen

What is he suppose to say, that children that are the result of rape aren't created by God, but he is?

[Zevico]

your whole post was a massive distortion and misrepresentation of the situation.

You assert that but you haven't actually demonstrated it.

[C0ckney]

i demonstrated that your post was inaccurate to the point of being worthless.

[Tuberski]

You assert that but you haven't actually demonstrated it.

Well, it's usually a given when we see your name to the left of a post...

ACK!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

What is he suppose to say, that children that are the result of rape aren't created by God, but he is?

I am continually baffled by the idiocy of the pubs. Why they feel the need to comment on rape at all is mystifying. They should instead be silent on the matter. They should have always left that discussion to the experts and known advocates of women's rights (i.e. Clinton, Kennedy, and Dodd).

[Imran Siddiqui]

He was asked a direct question, IIRC. That's why he commented on it (not that I think his comment was objectionable - but this is one of those things that believers and non-believers just aren't going to be able to come to an accord, I think).

[regexcellent]

His comment isn't the same kind of dumb as Todd Akin. Honestly if you think a fetus is a living person that should be protected by law I can't see how you'd justify that not being true for a rape baby.

His comment is dumb for the fact that it's politically stupid.

[Guynemer]

If one values the mother's sanity over the life of a handful of cells, I can easily see how one would justify abortion in cases of rape and incest.

His comment is dumb not only for the fact that it's politically stupid, but it is just plain stupid by any metric, and shows a spectacular lack of empathy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

His comment isn't the same kind of dumb as Todd Akin. Honestly if you think a fetus is a living person that should be protected by law I can't see how you'd justify that not being true for a rape baby.

His comment is dumb for the fact that it's politically stupid.

Yes, agreed.

(I'd also argue that that is the ONLY reason its stupid - because of politics, but I have a slightly different POV than the non-religious here, even if I don't agree with the candidate)