13,861 Forum Posts by "Memorize"
At 10/27/12 09:25 PM, Profanity wrote:
When it's possible to build an entire human from every living cell in your body, should we impose legislation to make it illegal to shed skin? Should dust bunnies be given funerals?
1) You're the one who said it wasn't life. You were wrong. And now you're just trying to come up with this pitiful excuse of a defense.
2) There's a reason why I said that a fetus is genetically independent individual due to it containing half the genetic material from both parents (like you, me, and everyone else).
Point being: My skin cells are all still my unique DNA as an individual. They all belong to me. Meaning if I destroy them, I still exist.
When you destroy a genetically independent individual, it ceases to exist: hence, you've killed it.
This is what I mean when I say that I find it laughable that you pro-choice people claim to be scientific.
At 10/27/12 09:32 PM, Profanity wrote: You don't need to answer that. Anyone reading this conversation already knows you're in over your head and approaching the deep reserves of emotional bias that caused you to learn about this subject in the first place.
So you're going to prove me correct when earlier I said that liberals typically run away from a conversation first?
You didn't think this through did you?
At 10/27/12 10:06 PM, BUTANE wrote:
The only time it is acceptable to restrict an individuals freedom is when their freedom infringes on the freedoms of another individual.
So?
We restrict people's "freedom" to kill or commit acts of violence. If one can demonstrate that a fetus is human life, then why should that be an exception?
It would still fall under your "harm to other individuals."
We know for a fact that the mother's freedom will be restricted if abortion is made illegal. So the only way to justify limiting that freedom is to prove that the fetus is, in fact, a human life that will have its own freedom restricted by the abortion.
No, you need to justify why that "freedom" should exist.
No one operates under the first assumption that killing should be legal and you need to prove why it shouldn't be.
It's the other way around. You need to justify why the use of force to take life should be legal.
Unless you can prove that the fetus is a human life
Which I already have.
It's a living entity made up of living cells comprising of a human genetic code.
If cells are living and you are made up of cells, then by extension you are also life. If those cells are made up of human DNA, then by extension that makes you human.
there is no justifiable way to restrict the mother from doing what she deems best for herself.
Sure there is. You said it yourself: Unless it restricts the rights of others.
Which is why no one can kill anyone else for the simple reason of making their lives "better."
And even if a fetus wasn't living, an abortion would still constitute an act of violence. And last I checked, all acts of violence need to be proven justified.
Yes, really. I know that it is probably hard for you to grasp.
You've made several highly inaccurate and unscientific statements which you could've avoided by opening up any elementary school textbook.
You're not in a position to be snippy.
It is every individuals right to do what they will to their own body.
Fetus = Genetically independent/separated from parents.
Around 80% of abortions take place AFTER the fetus develops an organ (its own heart), that pumps it's own blood through its own body.
How then can you possibly claim it's the mother's body?
Or rather, let me ask you this: How many times have you walked up to a pregnant woman and asked how her two hearts were dong?
So your definition of alive is any cell that has human DNA?
You and I said LIFE, not alive.
Learn the difference.
At 10/27/12 09:07 PM, Profanity wrote: In this thread:
Pro-lifers like to argue that there's a definite time when organic compounds magically become life,
You do realize that we can and already have determined what the smallest unit of life is... right?
At 10/27/12 12:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
No, because I do know the difference.
Well, at least you can admit when you make clearly unscientific statements.
So... point for me.
No it's not. Up until the time a fetus can function on its own, it is little more than a cluster of cells inside the mom's body, just like a tumor. The difference in potential if left alone is not important.
You do realize that every person on this planet is just a cluster of cells... right?
Because I'm a little worried about you if you don't.
Then why do you keep coming back?
Because you people entertainment me with you hypocrisy.
Your tumor excuse is an excellent example.
They have different programming, structures, and purposes.
Since around 80% of abortions take place after the development of a basic heart in a fetus, you can not tell me those abortions were being carried out on a tumor.
Viability doesn't determine person-hood.Yes it does. Until that point of viability (specific or average, whichever comes first) the fetus (not a fetus yet) is little more than a cluster of cells and is part of the mother's body. No different than an egg.
It's genetically independent.
The fetus is a cluster of cells.
You are a cluster of cells.
You are separated genetically from both parents by containing half the DNA from the mother and half the father.
A fetus is separated genetically from both parents by containing half the DNA from the mother and half the father.
As such, the fetus is not "part of" the mother's body, it simply resides inside of the mother's body.
If the older fetus is not yet to the average viability age, than yes. The quicker developing groups of cells achieves separate person status first.
You don't understand this do you?
The reason why the 22 week old fetus was "viable" was because medical technological advances allowed its life to be sustained outside the mother's body, not because they were quicker developing groups of cells.
That means that the 23 week old fetus was more biologically developed, but wasn't considered "viable" because technology hadn't reached the stage of supporting it yet.
How is it then, in this scenario, that the 23 week old fetus, according to you, is just a "cluster of cells like a tumor", but the less developed 22 week old fetus considered a person?
How do you square your position in the future, if medical advances allowed for viability of a 12 week old fetus?
How then is that 12 week old a person, but not the 22 or 23 week old now?
So when does pain recognition and cognitive function begin, oh sciencey (but not really) one?
Heart begins formation at 3 weeks, and begins pumping at 5 weeks.
Brain stem is formed around the 6th week.
Fetal pain is recognized at 20 weeks, and in many cases, even earlier.
All of these are before your point of "viability."
It is different. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean you can mash wholly different arguments together as one.
They're exactly the same.
In both instances you create a contradiction where it's ok to abort a more developed fetus over a less developed one based not on the physical development process of the fetus, but merely on medical technology.
At 10/27/12 05:22 PM, BUTANE wrote:
Actually, the burden of proof is put on YOU, Memorize (and other pro-lifers).
Lazy excuse.
You have a lot more to lose than I do.
We know for a fact that the mother is alive and has life.
No... really?
If you take away her right to have an abortion without proving beyond a doubt that the fetus is the embodiment of human life,
I like how you call abortion a right without proving how it is a right.
you are stripping away the rights of an individual, whom most certainly has attained life, in favor of an object without life. The rights of an individual come before the rights of an object that has not been proven to have life.
A blastocyst/fetus is comprised of living cells containing human DNA from two parents, just like you.
It is life, genius. It just doesn't fit your definition of alive.
At 10/27/12 02:43 AM, JMHX wrote:
Don't wait for me to answer the question or anything, you seem to have divined an answer from the ether yourself.
You haven't denied it yet.
I asked you if you understood what brought us to the Congressional sequester situation, and if you could explain the sequestration, since you implied that we were suffering from too much compromise in our policymaking.
Wasn't it compromise that put us in that position to begin with?
The only reason the stalemate happened was because people compromised so much in the first place.
"Give me a little welfare, and I'll give you warfare"
I mean yes, how dare those people demand that the Government stay in an actual budget.
You have now avoided answering that question twice.
Because your question had jack shit to do with this discussion.
Though it is amusing that even the example you brought up only existed because of the constant continued compromises that put us in our current position.
Hey, another personal shot.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Thank you for finally acknowledging this.
Oh look, he's dull, but not that dull.
Please, tell me why I should support Roe v. Wade when there are people alive today who were born before the 24 week benchmark.This wasn't what you just agreed the premises of the debate was about. You just agreed that the premises were:
It was an example to get you to guess what position I actually take personally.
It just depends on whether you're actually trying to have a discussion (which I suspect you're not, since you've pretty much implied your interest in hearing the other side only goes as far as giving you ammunition to mock them) or whether you're just trying to troll around and inflame people.
I admit, it's all part of my fun.
It all derives from how when I get into these discussions anywhere else, that no matter how many of them involve me not making these insults, Left wingers are always the ones to run away from the topic first.
You see, as much as I hate Conservatives (and I really hate them), they will at least have the balls to continue a discussion no matter what verbal abuse gets hurled at them. And they're almost always the ones who act in a much more respectable way despite that.
How else do you explain a pro-drug, anti-war, anti-death penalty, in favor of legalizing prostitution guy like John Stossel being invited to debates and make speeches from Conservatives while liberals merely just turn away from him?
More tolerance, my ass.
So I merely do my part to return that jack ass attitude towards left wing types. Because I find it entertaining to watch them bitch and complain, threatening to run away from the discussion over something they do constantly.
But even still, why should I hold any respect for a group of people who were willing to use the lives and deaths of people's loved ones in war as a battering ram against Bush, just so they could elect Obama who's on track to get even more of those people killed in one term than Bush did in two?
But sure, let's try it your way.
No more personal attacks, lol.
Honestly, would you continue to entertain someone who cut you off every sentence to shout nonsense like "stupid lefty" or "liberal idiot," or "I bet you enjoy unemployment," as you said to me in another thread?
... It's a political forum...
How is it even possible to cut you off in the middle of a sentence?
At 10/27/12 01:23 AM, JMHX wrote:
In that I don't do any of the things they do? Makes sense. Personal shot #3.
Are you going to vote for Obama this time around despite all the continued war-mongering he's done?
... Exactly.
Personal shot #4. Avoiding my move to press you on an issue #1.
Your response was on that was nothing but avoidance.
Second time you've avoided actually defining the terms of the debate you initiated with me, pivoting unsurprisingly to Personal shot #6.
I said "assuming..."
The issue and positions were already laid out.
Or were you too dull to realize it?
Personal shot #7
Avoidance #3.
Define the terms as I set out in response to your initial question and I'll be happy to start engaging you on it. If you're going to try and claim a "win" on me, you should at least be willing to participate in the debate you threw at me.
Considering I specifically laid out the terms in that hypothetical, you should've started already.
But I'm not going to give you my own personal opinion on it. It's irrelevant.
And considering how wacky my positions are, like how much I love to call out you lefties for being more war-mongering than Bush was, you can't really tell if I'm simply pro-life or if I'm just a pro-choice individual who hates that people like you having unconstitutionally nationalized the issue by making a one-size fits all, unscientific piece of trash of a decision like Roe v. Wade.
Please, tell me why I should support Roe v. Wade when there are people alive today who were born before the 24 week benchmark.
Personal shot #7
You know, just because they're personal shots, it doesn't mean they're not true.
At least we defined one term tonight.
Personal jabs are icing. They're fun.
But they also shouldn't matter. After all, if you really cared about the issue, then you should be able to get passed it.
At 10/27/12 01:28 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
I chose to spoof the spurious and wholly emotional title of pro-life.
The irony being that pro-life is a more specific term than pro-choice.
First off, I never used this phrase. It's not my body. I'm a male.
"your" was a general term.
My point was that you wouldn't disagree with the statement, regardless of how biologically inaccurate it is.
Also,according to the University of Texas every tumor is genetically unique. Should we stop using chemo and radiation to fight it?
Do I have to explain the genetic structural and purposeful differences of a zygote and tumor?
Until a baby is viable on its own without womb simulating machinery it is little more than a tumor with potential.
Once again, another clearly unscientific statement. Completely ignoring the genetic and cellular structures, where they come from, and what they're programmed to do.
I never said that either.
Not in this thread.
But really, you wouldn't call those pro-life, religious idiots who argue based on "God's will" as anti-science?
Why shouldn't you? Other than the fact that you're clearly no different.
Your opinions are worthless to everyone on this board.
Considering the type of people you are, I can only conclude that it's a good thing.
Since the best thing you left wingers can do when not winning an argument or having to actually use a brain cell is to respond by putting your hands over your ears while shouting "Nu-uh!"
Up until that baby becomes an independent life through viability, I don't much care any different from fighting a tumor or freezing a wart. After viability is a very different story which is only at argument by a very very few people.
Viability doesn't determine person-hood.
People who use such idiotic stances are the same ones who ignore fetal development.
All viability does is give you an excuse to kill up to a certain point. It means that it was ok to kill a 23 week old fetus when medical technology couldn't sustain viability, but it's not ok to kill 22 week old fetus when technology caught up, despite one being older and more biologically developed than the other.
All you basically just said was: Fuck science and biology! Human life doesn't matter. Pain recognition doesn't matter. Cognitive function doesn't matter. If it can't survive without someone "supporting" it, then I should be able to own it like it's a slave and kill it whenever I wanted.
It's not any different than people who believe you're not a person until birth, leading to this contradictory scenario where the 6 month old pre-mature born infant is considered a person over the 8 month old fetus that hasn't been born yet.
At 10/26/12 10:07 PM, JMHX wrote:
This one is admittedly a matter of priorities.
That'll ultimately get you nowhere.
I don't know why you think that.
From your statement below.
I prefer the term 'party hack.'
At least you can admit your ignorance.
You're exactly like the anti-war protesters who made massive demonstrations under Bush, only to conveniently disappear when Obama got elected and expanded Bush's while starting new ones.Not really, no. I was never out protesting in the first place.
I never said you did. I said that you were "LIKE THEM."
My point is that despite Obama being absolutely NO DIFFERENT than Bush, you'll still vote for Bush The Third anyway. After all, you're a party hack! You don't give a shit about substance.
I don't think you know what caused the sequestration situation, in that case. It certainly had nothing to do with an abundance of compromise.
I was ignoring your idiocy since you were ignoring my overall point.
"If one can."
"If one can" is a lazy excuse for people to do nothing.
Like you, for example.
Well, I'm not going to play your stacked game if you're not going to do me the decency of agreeing on the definitions of terms and premises.
Because you know you'll lose.
Because you would understand that your "choice/if one can" nonsense is full of shit.
It's not a difficult question to answer... unless you really are a sick, twisted fuck.
I don't understand why you expect "proof" of a moral position, that's like asking me to "prove" the superiority of a religion over any other religion.
See? You won't do it.
Because you know you have nothing.
It's not quite so easy to dismiss the discussion when you're not arguing with a religious people, is it?
At 10/26/12 10:11 PM, JMHX wrote:
Who's wishing for state nullification? I think you're getting ahead of yourself and mixing terminologies. My hope is that Colorado passes a law in direct conflict with the federal statutes, which then kicks in the federalism situation -- we go through the court system and then one of the two laws is struck down.
Considering it was all 4 liberals who sided with the Federal Government in going after a woman who was legally growing marijuana in California, and that Obama has conducted almost 4 times as many drug raids as Bush, why would you ever expect for Unconstitutional Federal Drug laws to ever be struck down?
News Flash: The Supreme Court is a life time job.
At 10/26/12 06:15 PM, JMHX wrote:
Yeah, well, Anti-Federalists had their day. Shut down decisively by the Congress and the states assembled in 1789. the Congress and the White House in 1828 and the Congress, the White House and the Army 1860.
Then quit pretending like you're against state nullification when you're clearly wishing for it.
At 10/26/12 05:48 PM, JMHX wrote:
I don't know how many things you've pinned on me that I never said. You're welcome to fight straw men, but I'm going to be pretty bored. First I was pro-smoking bans (I'm actually not), then I'm pro-PATRIOT (I'm actually not), then I'm an Obama apologist (I'm actually not). Like I said in the other thread, you could actually inquire as to my opinions before you tell me what they are.
1) I never said you were pro-smoking. Only that it's remarkably stupid of you to support Democrat Control over drug issues when they've clearly demonstrated for decades that they actually have no intention of doing anything about it, and in face, only limit other drug related choices.
2) I didn't say you were for the Patriot Act. Only that you consider it of lesser importance now that a Democrat is doing it.
3) Based on your entirely giddy attitude on getting Democrats in charge despite not being a dime's worth of difference, all actions indicate that you're certainly close to being an apologist.
You're exactly like the anti-war protesters who made massive demonstrations under Bush, only to conveniently disappear when Obama got elected and expanded Bush's while starting new ones.
The point is, you'll say that you're against those things, but you'll never go out and protest or demand Obama's impeachment like you did his predecessor.
In fact, you'll only vote for Bush 3.0.
Ideological purity got us to sequestration.
Compromising idiots like you are the ones who got us here.
"I'll give you a little welfare if you give me a little warfare."
Yeah. I doubt anyone can decisively prove the ethics one way or another. Questions of morality are as arbitrary as the language we use to describe the debate itself. Trying to score a "moral win" on abortion either way is predicated on the idea that everyone will at some point agree on the set of morals up for debate.
Morality being arbitrary is also irrelevant.
Your idea of arbitrary morality is what gives lazy, selfish people like you the justification to use Government to steal from one group to give to another, simply because you were too chicken-shit to do it yourself due to the threat of jail time.
The only thing that matters, is if we have laws that prohibit the unjust violation of another person's life, then those laws must apply equally to everyone, and that includes a fetus if one can determine if it is human life.
Okay. So, holding that "Abortion is an unacceptable taking of human life by force" is essentially holding three premises as true:
1. That an abortion involves taking a human life
2. That the taking is by force
3. That the taking is unacceptable
Before I go further, I want to make sure you agree on the three premises I just raised.
It's a simple hypothetical. My personal position of being pro-choice or pro-life is irrelevant.
Although it does raise an interesting question.
Considering that a fetus is simply an early developmental stage of a person's life cycle, and that if you were wrong it would mean the acceptance of millions of Government sanctioned killings... then shouldn't the burden of proof be on you to prove that it isn't a human life in the first place?
At 10/26/12 05:37 PM, JMHX wrote:
That 'flimsy law' is called federalism.
It's so wonderful to know that you support an Unconstitutional law being held up with a bullshit "constitutional" excuse.
At 10/26/12 05:25 PM, Memorize wrote: yet that still has stopped Obama from conducting over 3 TIMES as many raids as Bush despite claiming he wouldn't go after those areas.
hasn't* stopped Obama...
At 10/26/12 04:42 PM, JMHX wrote:
What? The last part of the comment was a joke. Humor. Marijuana needles. You know? Not to be taken as a statement of fact. And again, I never implied I supported smoking bans. If you asked instead of just going full-forward on the assumption train, that might help.
Then maybe you should be taking a closer look at those democrats you want to be in power so much.
Every single one of them have only ever talked about legalizing marijuana, yet these are the same people who make it illegal to smoke in bars or in your own home while marijuana continues to remain illegal.
You want to legalize marijuana in Colorado... great! But do you actually believe it'll change anything? Marijuana has been decriminalized in many parts of the country, yet that still has stopped Obama from conducting over 3 TIMES as many raids as Bush despite claiming he wouldn't go after those areas.
And since that Supreme Court you love so much has already Unconstitutionally upheld these Federal Drug laws with their flimsy excuse that Federal law trumps the State, what then is stopping the federal government from ignoring that state law?
At 10/26/12 04:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Because the anti-choice folks are trying to use maudlin stories to prove that they care, when in actuality they couldn't give two shits about the mothers.
Perfect example of what I'm talking about by your use of the phrase "Anti-Choice."
Emotional argument, not a factual one.
Kind of like your obsessive use of the phrase "it's my body", even though around 80% of abortions take place upon a genetically independent individual that has developed it's own organ functioning heartbeat that's pumping it's own blood through it's own body.
Yet you people still go around lambasting others as being "anti-science."
You just don't like the fact that I don't consider you any different from those religious, pro-life idiots.
So i'll ask you as well... assuming abortion is the taking of human life by force, would you just sit there and still claim it's a "choice" people should have?
At 10/26/12 04:40 PM, JMHX wrote:
Ugh, I can't begin to describe how low on my issue priority list this whole abortion debate is, especially since on matters of law the pro-choice side is decisively entrenched.
So is the Patriot Act.
Although, since it's Obama who is currently in office who also extended the Patriot Act 3 times, I'm sure you'll just go along with it like a good, little lefty.
Barring some major ideological shift and a replacement of the bulk of the Supreme Court, I anticipate it remaining that way. It's not an argument from emotion, it's an argument from political intractability.
Translation: "I'm perfectly fine with compromising principles."
Though if you don't think the first post was an ad pathos argument, I don't know what to say.
I never said it wasn't; all I'm saying is that you're no different.
You didn't explain how or why he is wrong. You didn't justify your position by demonstrating that a fetus can be killed by the mother's choice or even why it should be ethically acceptable.
All you did was bash his post, calling it emotional, only to then just simply CLAIM it should be her "choice."
Basically preying on people's emotions implying their "choice" is going to be taken away.
But assuming for an instance that abortion is an unacceptable taking of human life by force, would you honestly still sit there and defend that being a "Choice" someone should have?
At 10/26/12 04:21 PM, JMHX wrote: Passing this in Colorado puts it in direct opposition to Federal law, which will certainly spark some court cases. That said, I'm hopeful turnout on this draws out young and disproportionately Democratic voters who also tip Colorado in the Democrats' favor.
It still amuses me that there are still people like you who exist who believe that the Democrats are any different than the Republicans before (like Mr. Bush 3rd Term- Obama).
Seriously though, do you guys do anything in Colorado besides shooting up with your marijuana needles?
Proof that people like you only care about certain civil liberties when you can use it to obtain power.
If you really cared about people being arrested for non-violent crimes, then you wouldn't have used it as an excuse to get all giddy over getting Democrats in power who've only seemed to run in the opposite direction by banning smoking even in your own home.
At 10/26/12 11:31 AM, Entice wrote:
It's true. This is a completely emotional attempt at making abortion appear evil. They bring up cases like the one in the OP and then say that they're banning abortion for the mother's psychological safety, as if people aren't capable of making their own decisions.
The problem with you pro-choice idiots is that you're too used to arguing with pro-life, religiously induced idiots.
It's conditioned you people to be able to make stupid ass counter arguments without having to think, just so you can babble on pretending that you're not just as dumb.
For instance, the only thing that matters is whether or not that zygote-blastocyst- fetus is human life to begin with. Just about all of these other concerns are irrelevant. So who are you and JMHX to make the claim that other individuals are the ones getting "emotional"?
Hypocrites.
At 10/26/12 09:47 AM, JMHX wrote: Yeah, yeah, backdooring one's way into regulating another person by way of false piety and empty sympathy for the individual. We've seen this song-and-dance before, and the Libertarian and Democratic Parties rightly slammed it the fuck down as an empty hug designed to pickpocket choice away from women.
Even after all these years.... you're still a fucking moron.
At 10/26/12 08:17 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Having seen how many abortion candidates treat their children, I can honestly say that I do not wish that pain (the child's pain inflicted by the horrific mother) on my worst enemies.
At least in abortion, the only person feeling the pain for the non-rape abortion is the woman who had trouble keeping wayward dicks out of her body. Slight emotional pain for the person who made the mistake v. extreme emotional and physical abuse to the innocent child? I'll gladly take the former as the prevailing consequence.
So wonderful of you to take such a position based on what MIGHT happen.
I have an idea then... we should give children extensive mental evaluations to determine which MIGHT more likely commit violent crimes in the future before they've actually done anything wrong or committed any crime.
At 10/19/12 12:11 PM, JMHX wrote:
If you've ever worked in political outreach in an urban center, there's a huge impediment to getting photo IDs, especially among the poorest or the elderly in those areas. It disproportionately impacts voters who by tradition lean Democratic, hence why the main proponents of strong voter ID implementation laws have so far all been Republicans.
If people are too stupid to hop over to a DMV to receive a free Photo ID on just 1 occasion over a 4 year period, they deserve to be "disproportionately impacted."
It's a lot like how I would never prevent someone from voting, but I'm not going to encourage some idiot who doesn't even know who the vice president is, to vote.
This has more to do with laziness into getting an ID over anything else. Last I checked, I don't see people crying discrimination over needing an ID to board a flight; nor did I see democrats demanding to show ID when attending their convention.
At 10/12/12 05:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
The conservative bloc has been very lock step, while the liberal bloc has been looser and very reluctant to place party over country.
At 10/6/12 10:58 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:
What are you on about LOL I literally advocate neither Romney, Obamney and defiantly never advocated Bush for day one in any way shape or form. I also agree that it's as they say "Business as usual" and that as you say the similarities between candidates far out way the trivial differences. Know who you are talking to before popping off next time please :-)
Oh, I know who you are.
You're what I call a fake "lefty". Someone who pretends to care about certain issues, but when push comes to shove, we all know who you'll pull the lever for.
It amuses me how you talk about fascism, only to run around demanding people not wear certain things because it "offends" you.
Dumbass.
At 10/6/12 07:46 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:
WHat is painful is how quick and easy some people are to believe and eat up some propaganda from a mainstream news network on an issue that in reality may or may not have actually taken place and the actual underling circumstances that were involved again if any.
Lol, the shear irony in that statement.
It's always funny when Barack "Bush 3rd term" Obama's supporters actually think he's any different than Romney when all they have to do is a simple review of his record to realize he's almost identical.
Who voted to bail out the banks and auto industry like Bush did? Obama
Who passed a stimulus bill in an attempt to "revive" the economy like Bush did? Obama
Who extended the patriot act that Bush signed into law? Obama
Who expanded the wars in the middle east started by Bush (well, Clinton really)? Obama
Who increased drone strikes into Pakistan that Bush started? Obama
You talk about how stupid the kid is for wearing a Romney shirt in class... you might want to look in the mirror you useless, little dipshit.
At 8/31/12 11:55 PM, BUTANE wrote:
Discrimination would mean that one group of people is singled out. Everyone has parents so everyone would be effected by a system where their parents have a right to undo their decision of having children.
Are you familiar with George Orwell's 1984's 'Double Think"?
At 8/30/12 12:38 AM, BUTANE wrote:
However, I would agree that someone who puts their kid up for adoption has given up their right to destroy it.
I was unaware that when a parent could give their child up for adoption that they, during that time, still had the right to destroy it.
At 8/28/12 11:30 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 8/28/12 08:55 AM, Korriken wrote: I have no idea why a rich person would ever vote for a party who wants to forcefully redistribute wealth...Perhaps it's because not all wealthy people are selfish like the GOP.
Because the people who want to use politicians to steal other people's property that they themselves didn't earn is certainly not being selfish.
"We demand everyone be treated equally in race, gender, sexual orientation, ... and maybe religion. But Fuck you if it's Income"
At 8/17/12 02:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Your mom is retired. By the looks of her salary and pension, my guess is she retired over a decade ago. You'll have a hard time finding many teachers who make that much and have that good a pension nowadays. New teacher salaries have shrunk like crazy, almost to the point where they're making as much now as a new teacher did in the 90s. And that pension? Poof! It's gone.
I like how you skipped over the whole Pension being payed out well after her son's death rather than just her's thing.
At 8/14/12 12:46 PM, Jmayer20 wrote:
Its easy to claim some one is lazy or a job is easy if you never did it before.
Never said it was easy. Only that they are certainly not under-paid.
At 8/13/12 11:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 8/13/12 11:03 PM, Memorize wrote: Last I checked, I didn't get a 2 - 3 week winter break from my job.How many teachers actually get to take that as a break? Not very many. It's time for them to prep for spring classes. Those lesson plans don't make themselves. Many high schools have their teachers grade tests and papers during the break as well.
Oh no. How awful that they would have to grade papers... inside the comfort of their own homes... with a textbook that already has all of the answers in it.
And... oh God, not lessons plans that were probably already done well before the start of the school year, during a 3 month Summer Vacation... which couldn't possibly have lifted any sections from the previous year's lesson plan.
Oh how horrible... I feel their immense pain.
At 8/13/12 09:47 PM, Jmayer20 wrote:At 8/13/12 04:09 PM, Memorize wrote:2 Questions. 1 what was your source for that chart? 2 is that per hour?
You have no idea how much a teacher makes per hour of work, do you?
That is per hour.
The only reason you call it minimum wage (which is already idiotic based on their yearly salary) is because you're not taking into account for how many days/hours teachers work.
Last I checked, I didn't get a 2 - 3 week winter break from my job.
At 8/13/12 03:55 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: I'm not saying that teachers should be paid the exact mount as doctors but if some one has to go to college to get there job then they should be paid better then a minimal wage job.
You have no idea how much a teacher makes per hour of work, do you?
