Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/24/10 03:10 PM, The-universe wrote: Hmm...that accusation sounds awfully similar to what another guy was saying about you. And coincidentally only after he mentioned it....

..Strange, isn't it? That you accuse him of doing the exact same thing he accused you of. Or maybe he's just fed up of your attitute so he's playing your game because you don't like being given what you dish out (otherwise you wouldn't of mentioned it).

Hmm, would that be the dude that I have REPEATEDLY said had no clue what he was talking about and responded to others only with "I'm smarter than you"? Or would you just be channeling my mocking of you into your fellow halfwit?

Personally I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me. Even if they're wrong. But morons who simply assert that they're right, despite challenges in their logic from the pro-choice side, and who are simply incapable of defending themselves in a logical debate...

Yea I DO write them off as idiots.

At 11/27/10 06:58 AM, The-universe wrote: blah

Except you haven't done any of that.

You defined abortion as the removal of a fetus. Your definition was so broad that a doctor who was present to help birth the baby was an abortionist as he removed a fetus from a womb. While you've tried to play stupid games with this to make yourself seem like less of a halfwit...the fact remains. A fetus is removed from the womb, and, under your definition, that makes it abortion. Granted, I get it. You were pointed out as being a fool, and that sucks. But instead of admitting error, you simply doubled down, and pretended you were infallible, which you clearly aren't.

Beyond that, what do you want? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. But OH! OH! You're insulting Christianity! So it doesn't matter whether or not yu have a clue, Jesus sucks and all that!

I guess it astonishes me because I catch my own errors un arguments before others do and apoligize for them. And here you are, provably wrong, and you're the beligerent. I don't get it.

Oh boy! You again! Circular logic to follow!

At 11/24/10 03:10 PM, The-universe wrote: Nope. What I'm saying is, the limit one can have an abortion is earlier than the ability to survive an early pregnany (results may vary) and it can only be a fetus if it's developing in the womb.

Am I supposed to guess what this means? Cause the words don't form a complete thought.
Are we continuing your game of re-iterating what terms we all know mean...mean, because you're too stupid to make a point? Of course a fetus is still in the womb. I said that twice above you stupid tit.

So hang on, murder and execution are exactly the same because they take another human life?....right. So unlawfully taking the life of another human being while comitting another felony, have prior knowledge of the killing, did so out of mercy or malice etc (look up first, second and third degree murder) is the exact same as taking another human life.

Sweet jesus you're stupid.

I'm done responding here. Because this example, as I pointed out above, was to show the ridiculousness of your argument. When there is a tiny similarity that helps your case, you overexaggerate it to great measure to show how brilliant you are. When there is a massive similarity that hurts your case, you downplay it like crazy to ignore just how worthless your case is. You'll argue 15 things just to throw crap against a wall and see what sticks.

What good is arguing you further. You have no basis in logic or honesty and simply seek to be right whether or not the facts support your case. I see no reason to respond to the rest of your useless twaddle.

At 11/23/10 09:37 AM, The-General-Public wrote: Absolutely. Which is why I, unlike most Americans, take the threat of religious extremists like you who want to criminalize abortion seriously.

Um, why? You've already admitted rights don't exist above. You simply have no grounds to call me an extremist because there is no real morality, rights or anything else. We simply have two different worldviews that you admit are equally valid and I say are not.

So by even your pathetic argumentative attempts, I have a point that I stand behind and you think all cultures are equal...so I am right. Next?

At 11/23/10 03:03 PM, satanbrain wrote: It is nourished from the woman's body and therefore the woman can decide if it'll live or die, whatever it's name is.

So a woman can decide if a baby can live or die. It's really that simple.

At 11/22/10 12:30 AM, RentallyMetarded wrote: BTW, hasn't anyone noticed that there was only one addition to what Bush has done well? Yeah that's what I thought.

Dropping the tax rates from 70-28% isn't the biggest tax cut ever? Oh ok. You're stupid.

That the highest tax bracket now is 35% (down from 28.5% under Clinton) is higher than 28% means that we have lower taxes now? Um ok. You're definately stupid. Retarded is a good word for you.

At 11/18/10 02:19 PM, The-universe wrote: It is impossible to give birth to a 2 month baby. The earliest born was James Elgin Gill and he was 4 months premature.

So, because I pointed out that your definition was wrong...(birth would be abortion by your definition), you point out that 2 month olds can't survive outside of the womb? Well, um, brilliant?

You're still wrong?

So yes, my definition still applies.

That is because murder and execution are differently defined. An abortion is not differently defined REGARDLESS of the cause. It DOES NOT matter if it is punishment or willingness, it is still an abortion nonetheless.

Murder and Execution are both the deliberate taking of human life, albeit for different reasons. While it may be fun to ignore similarities when it helps your case and ignore them when it hurts yor case, it's not intellectually honest. Which...pretty much sums up the rest of your post. You play semantics when your argument sucks, and point out obviousness when your case sucks and well....your case just sucks.

In fact, reading the rest of your argument, you don't make a single point. You just take shots and say "damn, you're stupid". I admittedly used some clumsy langage, but you ignored real distinctions, created fake ones, played semantics, and pointed out nonsense to ignore just how inane some of your arguments are.

At 11/18/10 03:42 PM, KillroyOmega wrote: It's not impossible, you just won't admit that. Slavery and rape are unethical because they involve violating the rights of others. To describe it simply, one can apply a rule to oneself that their body is their own, and if they do they must also apply it to all others. You can think of it as a simple math rule.

I actually addressed that. Without an objective morality to define my actions, you don't have rights. Rights are whatever society give you. So if society decides that slavery or rape or murder is ok...then it's ok. Bottom line. I know that's uncomfortable for many people, but that's the logical consequence of your argument. Society can simply decide away (as it repeatedly has) your rights away. And, while we can argue from today's morality that this is wrong...that morality could shift tomorrow. Slavery could come back into chiq. Or genocide. And without some final athority to appeal to, it is simply impossible to claim any moral basis on ANY of this.

Simply claiming "we have rights because we do" is nonsense. Slavery may be illegal today, but it was legal for millenia. Rape is now recognized inmarriage, bt that wasn't true before the 50s. Genocide was the norm, and in many parts of the world still is. If your money, your roperty, even your life, is beter used by the majority than yourself, then so be it. Majority rules and all.

Anyone who looks at how laws make something illegal today that was illegal yesterday, and simply asserts "that can't be done" is living in a fantasy.

At 11/18/10 03:48 PM, KillroyOmega wrote: The Bible actually originally claimed slavery to be morally acceptable (Or a pope did, whichever one doesn't really matter. Both are claimed to be direct words of God.) It also said that women were lesser than men.

There's a huge difference between the Pope and the Bible. But whatever.

The first instances of the rights of slavery and women came before Catholicism and Christianity were even thoughts.

The Bible predates Christianity. You really don't know what you're talking about at all do you? And no, the first instances of the rights of woman and slaves came from the Jews (that Old Testiment thingie in the Bible).

At 11/23/10 02:33 AM, The-General-Public wrote: Look who's back, I thought you'd been scared out of the topic for good.

Because I don't come here 24/7 and have a life and friends, you thought your idiocy had scared me away? Goodness, look at who is a self important little tit.

At 11/23/10 02:13 AM, The-General-Public wrote: As if anyone could discourage you from writing these walls of text.
As If I could actually discourage you from writings these walls of text. Brevity is a virtue

So is answering questions. One you don't seem up to.

I get it that all your 6th grade friends are impressed when you write off something as stupid or irrelevant. But justbecause you declare it to be...doesn't mean it is.

At 11/17/10 09:05 PM, KillroyOmega wrote: You really don't understand how things work.

I do actually. As both all of my previous arguments and your lack of arguments show.

It is incredibly easy to explain morality from a logical point of view. Each person is entitled to their own body. Given an acceptable mental state (as in able to think rationally) the persons is able to choose what they wish to do involving themselves. A human does not have the right to do anything to another human without their permission. Therefore, things such as murder and rape are a breech of the basic rights of a sentient species.

It is apparently easy to explain. But you failed. I could point out thousands of laws that contradict you in hundreds of areas. Beyond simply asserting "it is so", you haven't done anything to argue your case.

Taking God out of the equation, I absolutely have the right to do whatever I wish to make my life better. If I want to have sex with a reluctant woman, so be it! It makes me life better. Slaves? AWESOME! Without an absolute set of moral bounds outside of humanity, there is no reason NOT to run wild. Either my rights come from God, in which case they are beyond human touch, or I have whatever privledges that society decides to give me, completely void tomorrow if they so choose. If society decides that rape or slavery is ok again, there is no rational basis we can fight it on. 51% of the public chose and we are on the losing side.

Far from being easy to define why we have rights without a God...it's absolutely impossible.

If we wish to be fully technical and objective, a human is not truly alive until an average of six months. Before this, they are but a mostly blank slate. For all intents and purposes, however, we can assume them as people because they are already 'alive.' It would also be rather useless to terminate the process at this point.

Again, other than simply saying "this is so", you've done absolutely nothing to argue your point. A 9 month old baby is a blank slate. Yet we claim it has rights. Far from refuting anything I've said, you simply backed up something I claimed myself. But um, props on using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing?

A key example of why one does not need to justify morality or a social norm can be to look at creatures in nature. Most have no higher thought, no ability to question why things are the way they are. Yet some birds have been known to care for each other, a young jay feeding an older bird with a broken-off lower beak, for example. Crows have been known to copy human behavior, with one key instance being the burial of their dead. This is interesting in that it leaves the question, "Do they know why they bury the bodies, or do they simply emulate the behavior that they experience?" This question can also be applied to humans. Many cultures have many funeral rituals. Some bury their dead, some burn the corpses, and some go so far as to eat the corpse. This leads you to ask just why they do these things. Do they bury their dead over a fear of loss? Do they burn the corpse to prevent the spread of disease? Do they eat it for there is a scarcity of food?

This doesn't answer anything! Animals often slaughter each other for no reason, and with no purpose. They kill over land, they kill over mates, they kill over food...animals are savage. By your lack of logic we can justify gang warfare, rape, murder, incest, and any other thing we wish to, by noting animals do it too.

The most important question one can ask, however, is why religion A is right and religion B is wrong. Members of both groups are taught from birth that their view is the right view, and that it is the absolute truth. They wage wars, whether violent or not, against the opposing religion. Neither concedes defeat, and both claim that their variant is better. Both religions piggyback on those that came before them, accepting some doctrines while rejecting others. The hatred of the other religion is instilled in the minds of the children on both sides, and the cycle repeats itself for generations until either side conquers the other, or group C takes advantage of the tension and marches their army in.

When someone says "They wage wars, violent or not...." you know you're dealing with a halfwit. War is violent. Period. If it's not violent, it's not war.

Moreover, this moronic diatribe COMPLETELY illustrates my point. There are two sides and they will always disagree. If there is no objective truth, then both sides are right. So abortion is BOTH no big deal, and at the same time a horrible horrible crime. To even the smallest child this is clearly incorrect, so your logic, if we wish to call it that, is null and void.

I could go off on a tirade on why I believe religion to just be a crutch for humanity in it's infancy, I will not. That would just be me spouting my opinion without any basis in fact.

Given the lack of intelligence you've shown above, I have the funny feeling I could use your tirade as a drinking game and kill multiple people with alcohol poisoning.

At 11/16/10 01:26 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Wait... so then doesn't that make them God given niceties? Are are you saying God given rights can't be taken away?

Could you list some of these God given rights?

So, you're saying that no one can ever violate rights? Either you're trying to be cute (and failing miseravly) or you're trying to ignore the very clear wording I put forward. Of course society can violate rights. But that doesn't make it right. Quite frankly, unless you admit that you deliberately misunderstood me (you're a rather smart guy), there's not much reason to take you seriously anymore. "It happened, therefore it's both moral and acceptable!"

At 11/16/10 04:20 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote: Ummm... rape is something you do to somebody elses body.

As in abortion. It IS another being you're destroying.

Yeah... cause he was Jesus... he was perfect. You're not Jesus. You're not perfect.

No, but we follow his example. And yea, most of the Prophets were pretty judgemental. Including Paul, who was one of the worst people EVER before he became Christian.

Yeah... they're to preach it. Not force their interpritation of Gods word upon the masses.

You're not very bright.

At 11/17/10 02:38 AM, Gario wrote: Why do we care more for something that is human over something that is non-human? Who knows, but you can easily observe that most humans place humans above non-humans, in terms of priority. Perhaps it's for religious reasons, for some. For others, maybe the familiarity a human being provides is much greater than a non-human does, so the person sympathizes with him/her. Whatever the reason, I can't say, but it's easy to show that people care for humans simply by virtue of the fact that they are human.

Except a lot of people don't. Since you don't get this, this is why you're flailing at the air here. A plurality of Americans are pro-Choice. Almost half of those that are pro-life feel that they have no right to force their rights on others. Which means, they believe they have no right to protect one human from another.

You're a good kid I'm sure, but you're a little late and a tad clueless on the debate. However, feel free to keep trying. I won't be the prick you were and tell you you're useless.

At 11/16/10 12:57 PM, The-universe wrote: 1. Abortion is generally defined as the termination and/or removal of a fetus by an external party.

Well, abortion has never been defined as the removal of a fetus. As this would make every doctor who delivered a baby before term to save it an abortionist. And we don't consider people who remove dead babies to be abortionists either.

Moreover, punishment is not pro-crime. If one supposrts the death penalty they don't support murder.

Logical problems exist in abundance in your response.

2. As explained in Numbers, if a woman commits adultery her fetus is to be terminated.

Um, I wwent back and reread Numbers and it says no such thing. But hey.Good try?

The only thing you can argue is God supports abortion to a specific degree. But if the religious say that all abortions are murders and/or wrong, then god is (by their own logic) a murderer and/or has done wrong.

Or not. Making someone infertile is not the same as killing a child. Punishing someone for doing wrong is not ever the same as attacking an innocent. You have no point here.

And considering the slave's right's movement is Judeo-Christian, you have nothing.

Then they're not reading their own scripture. The Bible is actually quite an amusing book, if they followed all the rules, then they're psychotic bigots, but if they didn't, then they're cherry picking and not actually following gods law.

Catch-22 FTW!

Um, the Bible is the first book in history that says slavery is wrong, and slaves have rights. It is the first book that claims women have rights. But hey, have fun with your idiocy. I love people who think they're smart failing hard!

At 11/16/10 04:46 AM, The-General-Public wrote: I want to have the right to life, so I'll personally fight to defend it.

So you DON'T have a right to life. You just want one. That's a ridiculous answer.

10,000 years of human history, and these rights have only been considered sacrosanct for about 200 of them. Your god is pretty bad at his job. Also, the fact that you've had to use your religion to explain your position so quickly shows the actual poverty of your argument.

Shrug. I think your arguments are pretty damn stupid too.

Regardless, my point is irrefutable. We either have God given rights (I believe we do) or we have no rights at all. "Rights" that can be taken away are not rights. They're nicities. Society can vote them away tomorrow. Something that society can take away is not a right. It's a privledge or grant.

Just reminding you that you were wrong, but I think you're starting to realize that about your entire argument.

Nothing in my argument was incorrect. I think you're just incapable of arguing your point. Next?

Yes, but I respect that my mother had the right to abort me if she wanted.

Then you're a moron. And by this simple admission, you have no rights. I can kill you tomorrow by your logic.

I'm not religious, I'm personally against murder, rape, and theft. If you need religion to justify your morality, you probably might want to see a psychologist.

Yet, it's IMPOSSIBLE to justify morality without religion. I've heard tens of thousands of athiests try. Not a single one can mount a convincing defense. After all, every great Athiest thinker in history has poo-pooed the idea of morality. Any athiest who wishes to impose a moral code is a fool.

If you keep saying that, it might become true eventually(not really)

You gavce yet to argue anything to the contrary. You are one of the most pathetic debaters ever. "Nope" is not a valid counter argument.

If society gets to vote on our rights (the Constitution says they can;t, but moving on)
The Constitution was created by humans, using their reason and intellect to decide how to create the best possible society. In addition, the Constitution actually protects a woman's right to abortion, so apparently women have a god-given right to get abortion. Damn, sucks to have your own logic(if you can even call it that) used against you, huh?

Um, no it doesn't. Abortion is mentioned NOWHERE in the Constitution. Idiot.

All of those things have been considered "ok" for most of human history, way to prove my point.

I didn't prove your point imbecile. You're just simply unable to argue your case. I expect no less from a moral relativist.

At 11/16/10 12:17 AM, Warforger wrote: Israel fires missiles into schools then blames it on terrorists firing missiles from them, but when someone asks for documents about what happened Israel gives a small scene that makes them look good. Israel has constantly been caught bullshitting and right wingers don't pick up a whife of it.

Terrorists fire from schools. Israel responds. Morons blame Israel.

Oh crap that' you.
My bad...

At 11/15/10 11:10 PM, The-General-Public wrote: The fact that I don't care has been explained, I'm just asking a question. Why are you afraid of answering it?

The same could be asked of you. Multiple questions have been asked of you. You haven't answered one, and instead have insulted multiple people who are clearly more intelligent than you.

Why are you afraid of those questions?

At 11/15/10 07:09 PM, The-General-Public wrote: That doesn't follow. Our rights are decided upon by society. Australia's tax law doesn't come from nature, are you saying that you don't have to pay taxes?

Sure it does. Do you have a right to life? Or does society get to vote that away?

Our rights are decided (I'm American) by God. We are given certain inalienable rights that no government can take away. Among them are life, property, and doing what we will with our money.

you're right, I was slightly off after the decimal point.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html

Yet it's still irrelevant. Next?

Not as moronic as equating a paralyzed person to a fetus.

Why? They can't feel. They can't contribute. They don't deserve much by what you've said.

Damn, using your logic against you sucks huh?

Your flimsy retort non-withstanding, I care about the rights of women who are having religious nonsense enforced on their bodies despite the fact that I'll never get pregnant. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" I don't society to force me to carry and give birth to a child, so I don't expect to be able to force women to carry and give birth to children. Simple enough rule.

That is...wow. Did you get born? I think you did...
"Religious nonsense" is forced onto people all the time. You shall not kill, or rape, or rob. Etc. The HORRORS!

The question is: Does one person have the right to take away the rights of another? Our society (limitedly) says no. So Abortion is a moral wrong and must be stopped.

Can you link me a study showing that God gave us rights? I'm curious.

That is an amazingly stupid question on a variety of levels. If we o not have God given rights...we do not have rights. It's really that simple. If society gets to vote on our rights (the Constitution says they can;t, but moving on), then our "rights" are the simple whim of society. You may get to live today and die tomorrow. Nothing is right or wrong, just whatever society says is cool. Thus, slavery, abortion, genocide, all are completely ok!

At 11/15/10 06:40 PM, The-universe wrote: But using your logic, those who claim that abortion is wrong because of religious convictions is being hypocritical because god has done the exact crime they condemn! It's the same hypocrisy as preaching the 10 commandments but if you look in the next chapter (assuming you're reading the ones in exodus), anyone who curses their parents should be killed. Also makes a fun filled and 'morally superior' statement about treatment to slaves...wait, wut?

Oh my. Someone who has no clue what the Bible says arguing anything. Always fun.

Destroying a culture for their crimes against man is hardly "Yay abortion". This is the equivalent of using the death penalty to say murder is ok. Your argument is self defeating.

And considering the slave's right's movement is Judeo-Christian, you have nothing.

Thanks for playing!

At 11/15/10 06:40 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Your rights begin where society, using reason, compassion, and logic has come to a consensus on when one's rights begin.

So then we don't have rights.

Because if rights come from society, not from nature, we hve no rights. Society can vote them away. Rights are non-existant.

The thalamic connections between the nerves and the cortex don't form until the early third trimester. 99.91 percent of abortions take place well before that point.

That's a neat ( and completely wrong) statistic. Yet it's irrelevant.

I'll ask a paralyzed person if he wants me to kill him, you can ask a fetus if it wants you to abort it.

That's moronic. Thanks. Moving on.

As I'll never be a fetus physically attached to someone, I'm happy to decline crusading for fetal rights.

Gotcha. So as long as something never affects you, it's irrelevant. You're a moron.

Prove it

Scientific fact. Sorry, imbecile.

At 11/13/10 06:17 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 11/13/10 06:04 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Why does a fruit fly deserve more protection than a human being?

it does not. like a fetus, it is not helping anyone except itself.

So we do not have rights then? Because few of us help anyone other than ourselves? Do our rights begin when we begin helping others?

At 11/13/10 05:47 PM, The-General-Public wrote: I'm just asking you to explain why you think that a Fetus deserves legal protection despite the fact that it can't think, feel, or express any preferences in regards to being aborted or not. From the way you keep evading the question, it seems to me like you don't have an answer and are trying very hard to hide it.

Some fetuses can do everything that you described, and some cannot. Just as some fully born people can and some cannot. Is feeling something required to be human? If so, what about paralyzed people? If conscious thought...are those in comas human? You don't have an argument as much as a (falsely) assuming question.

At 11/13/10 05:49 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Your inability to understand my question is your fault, not mine.

Well, no. If someone is unclear, then it is upon them to clarify. If their question is so silly and broad as to be unanswerable, then that is also their failing. The nature of debate is that, if someone asks you to clarify, you clarify. If someone points out a flaw in your argument, you address it. You just don't simply say 'nope' and move on. Such a tactic not only proves you're a terrible debater, but that you don't have the answer to their question. Even Satanbrain addressed my follow-up better than you did.

So, in short, your question was stupid, and by your answer, you have acknowledged that much.

At 11/15/10 05:19 AM, joe9320 wrote:

If abortion is illegal people will have to resort to self abortions or underground clinics. These are often unsanitary and dangerous. Not to mention the methods are usually less then humane.

(Notice, this was not Joe. He was responding to this.)

The fact that people will continue to do something after it is illegal is not grounds to make it legal. People will rape, kill and rob no matter what. The first question (even as a libertarian) is, what wrong does this address. The answer here is: Abortion robs a human being of their god given right to live, without their consent. As such, it should be a crime. Abortion has a murder victim each time.At

11/15/10 02:41 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote:

Then you wouldn't get an abortion. Why should you get to decide what I do with my body?

For the same reason that, while I wouldn't rape someone, I get to decide you don't get to either. That was easy!

If religion is the issue, doesn't Jesus teach you not to judge? Isn't that Gods job? So isn't the logical stance to let me make my own decisions and let God deal with me as he sees fit?

Uh, no. That's not what the Bible teaches at all. Indeed, Jesus told the woman he saved from stoning that she was a sinner who had to repent. Jesus was judgemental like crazy. He called money changers vipers, Samaritans dogs, and the lot. Christians are to preach the word of God, while understanding that forgiveness is waiting. But we don't idly watch attrocities with our mouths closed.

At 11/15/10 03:13 PM, The-universe wrote: Incase anyone was wondering, God is pro-choice.

No, he's not.

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)

Injuring a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage is a death penalty offense. Merely aborting the child is still a crime.

Indeed, even in your context, the Lord defines punishment as a refusal to bear children:

"11 As for Ephraim, their aglory will fly away like a bird-
No birth, no pregnancy and no conception!

12 Though they bring up their children,
Yet I will bereave them 1until not a man is left.
Yes, awoe to them indeed when I depart from them!

13 Ephraim, as I have seen,
Is planted in a pleasant meadow like aTyre;
But Ephraim will bring out his children for slaughter.

14 Give them, O Lord-what will You give?
Give them a amiscarrying womb and dry breasts.

15 All their evil is at aGilgal;
Indeed, I came to hate them there!
Because of the bwickedness of their deeds
I will drive them out of My house!
I will love them no more;
All their princes are crebels.

16 aEphraim is stricken, their root is dried up,
They will bear bno fruit.
Even though they bear children,
I will slay the cprecious ones of their womb."
You're done bud."

To those who are pregnant, they will miscarry, for they have done wrong, and those who are not pregnant, they shall never become so again. Nothing pro-choice there.

You're done.

At 10/28/10 09:56 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: So while the group Hamas governs Palestine, Hamas does not readily self govern - the main issue is that everyone works towards the same cause.

That's silly. Because everyone doesn't agree on everything, there's no central structure? You contradict yourself!

Do the White Phosphorous airstrikescount?

As carpet bombing? Um, no.

Carpet bombing is when...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bomb ing

By your own link, the WP bombings had ten burn victims. That completely rips apart the idea that the city was carpet bombed. That the city was still standing with minor damage after the fact also negates this charge.

I'm well aware. Now are you aware that there's a violent feud between Fatah and Hamas since the 2006 election? They are both, as we might put it, militant Islamic groups. They both want the same power. They're dissidents in a time of war. I'm not defending Hamas' actions, but its not a historicle landmark for this to happen.

What does that mean? People disagree? Um? So did we not have a government in the US between 2002-2006? Because Democrats still existed and disagreed!

I don't really know, apparantly we need to demolish Gaza to kill a few small active Hamas sects though!

Um, no one even suggested that. But thanks for playing?

At 11/14/10 06:47 PM, MattDogg wrote: So what?The US government lied about WMD and without the 'Saddam had WMD' reason, the Iraqi invasion would not happen in the first place

Um, except they didn't. There's simply no question that Iraq was breaking the UN resolutions on weapons development. EVERYONE agreed on this.

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-03-07/us/sp rj.irq.un.transcript.blix_1_inspection-e ffort-unmovic-unscom/4?_s=PM:US

"While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council. The calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision.

The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament, indeed the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks; lethal weapons are being destroyed.
Advertisement

However, I must add that the report I have today tells me that no destruction work has continued today. I hope this is a temporary break.

Until today, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including four training missiles, two combat warheads, one launcher and five engines, have been destroyed under UNMOVIC's supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 program.

Two reconstituted casting chambers used in the production of solid propellant missiles have been destroyed, and the remnants melted or encased in concrete."

Short version: Iraq had illegal weapons and some were destroyed. However, Iraq stopped that process, and Bush saw that as an opportunity to invade. However, illegal weapons, including WMDs, were clearly in Saddam's possession.

Was this seen as cooperation and compliance? Blix didn't think so:

"Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated, "immediately, unconditionally and actively," with UNMOVIC, as is required under Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441. The answers can be seen from the factor descriptions that I have provided.

However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following: The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in this or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

...

Nevertheless, intelligence agencies have expressed the view that proscribed programs have continued or restarted in this period. It is further contended that proscribed programs and items are located in underground facilities, as I mentioned, and that proscribed items are being moved around Iraq. The working document does contain suggestions on how these concerns may be tackled."

Given his previous problems with compliance, it takes someone not using their brain to read Blix and believe (as even he didn't at the time), that Iraq was complying with the demands.

At 10/9/10 11:26 AM, satanbrain wrote: But it is obvious that hamas isn't responsible for anything, they must have stolen it to liberate the poor palestinians of food given by israel.

Well thank God HAMAS is there to make sure Palestians starve rather than eat demon Israel food!

Please tell me you're joking....

At 11/14/10 12:02 PM, Warforger wrote: Again you said America went after every Dictator, which is funny because the CIA installed Saddam into power and helped him oppress and kill his people. Its funny since Iran North Korea and Venezuala all oppress their people while the US just sits back and and uses their oil they bought from them.

I apologize. I did indeed say this. Mea culpa.

It's a half on, half off situation. We do go after people we consider dictators. Whether economically, financially, or through some sort of force, we intervene. We do not, however, always apply military force. Hence my mixed statements.

Unfortunately, during our brief period of allying with Saddam, he was the lesser of two evils. Reagan quickly realized what a monster he was, and began working both sides to weaken our two biggest enemies in the Mid-East. Was this the right strategy? ....Ehhhhhh, it's hard to say in hindsight. We have a lot of info Reagan didn't have. I don't have the answers on this one.

At 11/14/10 12:04 PM, Warforger wrote: Wow.....I meant approve as supporting it.....

That's not what you argued. Nor can I find anything to support your claim. And the budget is STILL written by the Democrats. Three strikes.

Unfortunately, I have actual news articles and actual evidence while you have crap.

Um, no you don't. Reagan lowered the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rate s.php

Every President since has had higher taxes rates. Even Bush Jr. Hell, to find anything comparable to Reagan, you have to go back to the 1930s. You are out of your league here bud.

At 11/14/10 12:02 PM, Warforger wrote: On the other hand North Korea has......Along with the rest of those threatening nations and openly saying they want the destruction of America

Saying the US sucks and should be overthrown isn't a case for war against whatever country. There has to be a logical and legal reason. Not just "they hurt my feelings!" Breaking a ceasefire with us counts, as does shooting at our planes, harboring people who have directly attacked our soil and trying to kill an ex-President. Saying hurtful things doesn't.

Again you said America went after every Dictator, which is funny because the CIA installed Saddam into power and helped him oppress and kill his people. Its funny since Iran North Korea and Venezuala all oppress their people while the US just sits back and and uses their oil they bought from them.

Um, I've said no such thing. In fact, repeatedly on this thread alone, I've rejected that idea. And provided the reasons why.

Yes, affiliates, but do they actually have anything to do with Bin Laden beyond say "I like Bin Laden!".

Yes. They supply money, troops, weapons and more. Most of them either take orders from Bin Ladin or Zawahiri (EIJ, AQI, SOJ, etc), or take influence from them. Being an affiliate means more than "I think Ladin is sexy in his turban.". It means being directly tied to the group. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Or are you genuinely clueless about how the world works?

*sigh* pathetic.

No, it's not. I provided multiple examples to prove him wrong. He chose one example which (he was wrong on but) even if he was right, it would have no bearing on anything I said above.

Even if Saddam had no idea the specific Jordanian group existed, it had no meaning. He still financed HAMAS, Hezbollah and Fatah in killing Israelies. He still house Al Queda members directly connected to the first world trade center bombing. He still trained and armed EIJ operatives, which are directly connected to Al Queda through Zawahiri. And the list goes on. At the end of the day, it's the equivalent of saying, "Your honor, my client may be guilty of murder, arson, rape, robbery, genocide, terrorism, and puppy kicking, but he is NOT a jaywalker!" Who cares?

So are you clueless? Or deliberately stupid? I'm leaning towards the latter...

At 11/13/10 11:21 AM, Warforger wrote: Just like say North Korea, Iran or Venezuela? The only difference here is that Iraq mostly ousted all its potential allies and it itself was weak making it ripe for the takeover and another threat gone. Funny how all the Veterans are told they protected our freedoms, while the reasons were for international security.

Um, make the case for any of those. Venezuela never sent people to kill a former President. Nor did any of those countries violate a ceasefire. You are ignorant of history.

What makes you think Al-Queda has that much influence in Iraq? Sure its there, but the one in Iraq has few members, little support from anyone else, they're one insurgent group, but they're not the major one. Hell, most of their members are foreigners!

Yea, AQI's not worldwide with dozens of affiliates or anything...

The one in Iraq was not established by Bin Laden or anyone he knew, it was established by a Jordanian terrorist who pledged allegiance to him, which you will find is very common among so called Al-Qaeda groups outside of Afghanistan.

Um, that ignores everything I said above. You're dishonest or stupid. We're done here.

At 11/13/10 10:56 AM, Warforger wrote: Your right, he approved it, and we all know how great Bush managed his budget......

Presidents don't approve state budgets. You're clueless.

That seems pretty clear that Reagan had higher taxes. Reagan also drove the debt to record levels just like both Bush's and Obama. What a "Conservative" he was.

Reagan lowered taxes like crazy. The biggest cuts in history. But again, who cares about facts? And he had a Democrat congress (who writes the budget). Man this is going poorly for you.

If you believe that a fetus, incapable of thought, feeling, or the ability to exist physically independent of another being is more deserve of legal protections than say an adult fruit fly, then I'd like to hear your reasons why you believe this. No semantics involved there.

Why does a fruit fly deserve more protection than a human being?

Your question is illogical.

At 11/12/10 12:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote: They really are. So how's about you bring them to the table on this issue.

I did. Millions died during Saddams term. I listed some of the nicities above.

First off, Iraq was extremely stable under Saddam. Sure, the man was a crazy nutball and the people were oppressed, but their lives were not filled with danger, and prior to the embargoes, Iraq was one of the most developed, if not the most developed, country in the Middle East.

I'm sorry, that's insane.

Sure the man was a genocidal dictator who slaughtered his own people for fun...but if you ignore THAT, it wasn't so bad! Saddam and his son's committed horrible attrocities that make some of Hitler's handiwork look tame. A bullet to the back of the head looks preferable to being put through a paper shredder.

Moreover, the sanctions were because Saddam refused to stop being belligerent. He chose to let his own people die. Even after we started "oil for food", he squandered the money, and let his people starve. NO ONE but Saddam is to blame for his people's plight.

Unecessary killing in any form is bad. We have saved a few, while at the same time, subjecting a many more to harm that did not exist before. Iraq, now, is a net loss from what it was in 1988, or even 1996, or even 2002.

If by few you mean hundreds of thousands...then yes. Less people have died during the entire war than starved to death every year under his regime. That's a massive number. Not "a few". Less people die now than at any time under Saddam. Had we killed him under Bush Sr., over a million lives would've been saved. What a shame.

When is this "before". If by before you mean under Saddam, you are wrong. if by before you mean earlier on in the invasion, you fail to fight AVA's point. We let the terrorists into Iraq. Nobody can rationally argue that.

Uh, yes they can/ Saddam was an open supporter of terrorism. He was an allyu to Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) which is Zawahiri's terrorist group. He funded suicide bombers in Israel. He praised Osama for the 9/11 attacks and housed the original WTC bomber. Saddam had more terror connections than any other country except Iran.

You don't have to lose a physical battle to lose a war. We lost everything needed to fight. We did not win quickly enough, while we sent tens of thousands of our young men to die, for ZERO gain, and finally we lost support of the homefront. Vietnam outlasted us in a battle of wills, and we lost that battle.

You don't have to lose to lose. ....That makes soooooo many comments above make sense.

We outnumbered the NVA 25 to 1. We slaughtered them in every battle. There is no possible way to lose unless you actually lose battles. Good God man. Have a little brainpower....

Any military strategist will tell you that winning battles in only one of many things needed to win wars. Sure, we may have won the skirmishes, but do you know what we could not do? We could not subdue their military. They were quicker, faster, smarter, and most of all much more willing than we were. They could have fought us off at the cost of 10,000,000 vietnamese lives and still we would not have had control. Like I said before, they went toe to toe with us in the battle of wills and they routed us. Without the will, no measure of military victory can win a war.

I'm sorry, but there's not a single person who's every been a military strategist who will tell you that killing the enemy is not the main key to victory. If you are beating the enemy in every encounter, there is no possible way for them to win.

We easily crushed them even with Soviet backing. But whatever.

Crushed them, but they won... Hmmm.

Um, they didn't win. We slaughtered their military. We won EVERY battle. Then we decided to go home and after we left they violated the peace treaty and killed the South Vietnamese. That's not a military victory.

But hey, you've proven today you don't know anything about history, military tactics, terrorism, or even how to tie your own shoes.

So hey, good luck there sport.

At 10/9/10 04:23 AM, chairmankem wrote: Bullshit. I'm pretty sure that 2nd Amendment is pretty vague.

Well, you're not very bright then.

1. "A well regulated Militia...": The country needs a well regulated militia. Militia is a vague term that doesn't convey the same meaning that it did in the 18th century. Back then, that could very well have meant getting a whole bunch of people together at the town magazine and defending yourselves from bandits, redcoats, natives, whomever. Those threats don't really exist today and so it would be useless to interpret it as such nowadays.

The Militia is a state entity that was enacted to protect the state against the federal government and consisted of every free male of the state. To ignore the very clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment one has to ignore the laws of the time REQUIRING the citizenry to be armed, the Constitutional debates, the Revolutionary war, and the Federalist papers. In short, one has to deliberately misunderstand the Amendment. Since you are trying to be cute, I'm cutting out the 2nd part of your deliberately nonsensical argument.

3. "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.": This basically says, when pulled strictly out of context, that people have the right to carry weapons. Of course, we interpret that to mean firearms, but it doesn't say that here, does it? Nor does every use of the word 'armament' imply a gun. A medieval 'man-at-arms' certainly wasn't equipped with one.

Wow. That is stunningly stupid and dishonest. "Arms" meant guns. Pure and simple.

Moreover, these words are extremely clear. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is not a clause that says "If the militia ever becomes useless, this Amendment is null and void." Nor did A SINGLE FOUNDER see the meaning of this amendment as anything other than "People have the right to own guns."

That's a straw man argument because you're just taking the easiest snippet from the Constitution to syntactically analyze. It's like saying "'DOG BITES MAN' MEANS 'DOG BITES MAN', NOT 'MAN BITES DOG'" -- well, good job, that's not exactly doctoral work you're doing there. Try not stating the blatantly obvious.

Well, I'm taking the "snippet" that is used the most often and that only has one meaning in the document. Whatever the justification, the 2nd Amendment clearly states that Congress cannot make a law banning the keeping and bearing of arms. Even if we re-write the preamble to say "Since ice cream is tasty, Congress shall make no law..." it still means the same thing. That you are arguing this, despite even you acknowledging that it can have no other meaning, shows dishonesty.

Oh yeah, just because the Constitution never mentions it means that no laws at all can be made about it. At all.

Yes. That is what it means. Way to know your constitution!

Where exactly in the Constitution does it define a set page length? Why does this even matter? After all, the Constitution never said that legislators were required to read the laws that they pass. And even if they did, why would it matter? What would breaking it down into a thousand different laws accomplish anyway? It would still be impossible to parse the entire material completely in a meaningful amount of time, if not make the job a thousand times harder.

You're done fool.

At 11/2/10 06:47 PM, Warforger wrote:

Yah, it annoys me when Republicans blame the debt and the economy on the Democrats, here in California its solely blamed on the Democrats..... Even though Republican Governer Arnold Schwarzenegger was responsible with his George Bush approved budget plan he passed a while ago. So much for "Democrat policies"

Bush didn't write the California plan. Good try though.

Thats not even to mention the fact that while people like the TEA party are complaining about taxes, reports show that taxes are the lowest they've been since 1950, lower then the Republican god Ronald Reagan who also, like both Bush's, raised the debt to record levels.

Wow. you're clueless.

At 11/2/10 08:13 PM, TheMason wrote: If the Republicans don't get things under control...then 2012 will not go easy for them either.

I think most tea partiers voted for Rs as the lesser of two evils. If the tea party movement can become sustainable (and it wont), maybe we'll have something.

At 10/20/10 11:33 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Wasn't Saddam a dictator? See, this is my problem. Nobody is arguing Saddam was good. Saddam was shit. But there are many other dictators in the world and shitty rulers, but we DO NOTHING about them. We plan and intend to do nothing about them. This war was launched because the Bush administration saw some benefit to them in it politically, strategically, or whatever. The welfare of the Iraqi people was far far down the list if it was even on the list at all. Let's not act like idiots here and pretend that really mattered all that much.

Iraq threatened our allies, tried to kill a former President, etc. They violated MULTIPLE UN resolutions and we're in violation of our ceasefire. Bush had legal grounds to attack Iraq, and no one else.

Also my point was where do we have the right to be telling Iraq that they MUST be a Democracy, other then from the, again, set up of we want a friendly government in there. We didn't fight that war to give that country back to it's people, we fought it to get an ally so again. The whole "it's for the people" argument is nonsense on the face of it.

Um, your argument kills itself?

1. most people ARE living better lives under us than they did under Saddam.

For now.

That's all that matters.

2. if we leave, Al-Qaeda will start a massacre.

And if they did, it will be because we destabilized the region in the FIRST place and let them in. They were not there when Saddam was there. Hell, they've done a decent job of it with us there anyway.

No. Massacres were common under Saddam. Logic fail.

Al-Qaeda wouldn't even be in Iraq if it didn't interest them in some way.

And if we hadn't give them the in.

They were there before we ever entered. Fail.

Who assumed they were only interested in Afghanistan? They're interested in spreading their influence wherever they can. They'll spread it right here in the west if they can. Also it's been pretty demonstrably proven they weren't in Iraq until we invaded, destabilized the region, and they snuck in with the rest of the insurgency.

The CIA disagrees, as does every world wide agency. Given that Saddam was directl tied to Zawahiri, you have no point.

You can...and since we don't go after every evil dictator, the whole "look at the benefit" does nothing to mitigate the fact that it was an unnecessary invasion and purely a political and personal war waged by the Bush Administration. I do hope it leads to a better life for all Iraqi's. But history in when it comes to the US and these sorts of things isn't on their side.

Except we have consistently gone after EVERY dictator without a single exception.

Also this idea of "protecting" them from the horror of Communism was really purely based on the overall American strategy of "anything is better then Communism" which led to some pretty shitty democracies that were actually overthrown in POPULAR Communist revolutions (see China for instance)

All of which were worse than what the US was offering. But whatever....

At 10/21/10 07:48 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: I'm sure that Afghanistan, part of Pakistan, possibly Iran, and some people in Iraq outweigh Mother Russia and her legion of countries.

And 25% of US Muslims, 35% of Britain Muslims, 65% of French Muslims, not to mention the rest of the world who supports al Queda, shatters your smartass comment.

Who won between Afghanistan and Russia again....oh right. Shut up imbecile.

That's kind of funny. Because it notably failed horrendously. Also, Vietnamization was an effort to prop up the South Vietnamese forces so we could get the fuck out of there.

Which worked til we pulled out our forces. But hey. Who cares about facts?

...You do know less world have been killed if we had just stayed out of it right?

Um, no. But hey, the fact that communist purges that killed millions (that happened everywhere else regardless of our involvement) still occurred is irrelevant right? You aren't much for history or anyrhing.

At 10/20/10 04:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Nevermind it actually brought Al Qaieda to Iraq or caused a massive civil war that many people still think is just lulling till we pull out. That to me is the real test. What happens with these factions that still hate each other when we're not there with the weaponry to threaten them into playing nice.

Um, Iraqis were slaughtering each other before too.

But hey, facts are pesky....

At 10/20/10 05:02 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I haven't either. Wars tend to be fought between governments or factions that can be considered as a government (even if only de facto). We aren't "at war" in Iraq because the government of Iraq is the government we installed. Right now we're just trying to clean up the mess we created and make sure the people support the system we installed. So nice of us to go in and tell them how to govern themselves.

We didn't create the mess in Iraq. But hey, that's irrelevant too! Death is more personal when we're involved. Even if the death count is much much smaller.

We've also ended quite a few as well. That's all I'd like to point out. Lives have been saved, tremendous amounts of lives have been lost, and lost over an invasion that needn't have happened. That's my issue.

That's...moronic. There's no nice way to say that. Have lives been saved as a result of the war? Reading your comments, it doesn't seem to matter. Even if less people died after the fact, the invasion is awful because it was "unnecessary". Idiotic.

Ends justify the means...nice. Nevermind there's still massive violence and we've allowed terrorists to get a foothold. Saddam was scum, but he kept things mostly orderly...unless you were a Kurd of course.

Terrorists had a foothold before. Oops. And the violence has dropped. But hey, now it's on my TV! AWFULS!

I thought we pulled out of Vietnam because we were beaten out? We didn't get beat here...at least not yet. We'll see what happens when troop numbers withdrawal down to the aforementioned residual force.

We never lost a single battle in Vietnam. But hey. Whatevers. You've already proven life isn't you're main concern. We're the bad guys no matter what.

At 10/20/10 08:43 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: The Vietcong was a much larger group than Al-Qaeda. I'll be damned if there are more than 20,000 Al-Qaeda members worldwide, whereas there were the Vietcong had a fighting force of +80,000 (and that's in a single attack raid) and a support basis of more than 300,000.
Source.

Al Queda has hundreds of affiliations with other groups. One such affiliation is the EIJ which boasts over 5000 members. With individual cells it is impossible to tell how big or small AQ is. And the fact that they have killed more poeple with (in your words) less than 1/4th of the men...shows they are much more dangerous than the Viet Cong.

No. I think you fail to understand that a proxy war between to First World Countries will either escalate or withdraw, sometimes both. We would never have been able to get out of Vietnam because the North Vietnamese had the support of Mother Russia, they armed enemy combatants and ensured that they would be able to combat a developed nation.

That completely ignores the actual Vietnam War, where EVERY battle, without a single exception, was won by us, and where the NVA were desperate for ANY propeganda win they could get. We won Vietnam pure and simple. And had we not abandoned the country to the heathens...Vietnam would never had become the killing fields it did.

You mean as a residual force, right?

Maybe if the Soviets gave up. If the Soviets stopped funded the Vietcong, then we could have easily crushed them.

We easily crushed them even with Soviet backing. But whatever.