I started a topic like this a while ago, but my opinions have changed a lot since then.

Have any of you ever picked up an Ann Coulter book and read a few pages? It's HA-larious. You don't really think she's serious do you? C'mon. She goes on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Realtime with Bill Maher. She's not the crazy nazi she pretends to be. She's just using shock value to become famous. Who would seriously say that liberals have joyless sex?

On the other hand, I think Michael Moore is the way he acts even though I only know him from Bowling for Columbine. I liked the movie but I was pissed off by some of the stuff he did. Like when he had Wal*Mart (I think) stop selling bullets and when he asked Charleton Heston to apologize on camera. Heston might be a dumbass but you don't go into a man's house and demand that he apologize for his fundamental beliefs.

At 11/8/03 08:52 PM, SonyPornStation wrote: I'd like to say that I believe there are certain things in the world that are wrong and some that have no arguable base to them. I believe that being gay is wrong. I believe that being a lesbian is wrong. I believe that rape is wrong. I believe that men shouldn't hit women and that women should neither hit men. I believe killing is wrong if not done to save one's life. I believe that men shouldn't treat women like objects. I believe that women shouldn't act like objects. I believe that women shouldn't wear tight clothes and abhor male attention. I believe men shouldn't designate women as the child care. I believe women shouldn't distrust men with care of the children.

I never miss a good opportunity to list things.

I believe that there's nothing morally wrong about homosexuality. I believe that rape is wrong. I believe men and women should feel free to hit each other if the situation calls for it (abuse is another matter). I believe killing is wrong unless it's to save your life or the other guy is really annoying. I believe that a little objectification is going to happen but, people shouldn't take it too far. I believe that women should realize that they objectify guys just as much as guys objectify them so they can stop bitching about it (by "they" I mean those women who are currently bitching about it). I believe that women SHOULD wear tight clothing unless they are unattractive and should appreciate the attention that guys give them which they are quite obviously seeking. I believe that men shouldn't assume that women are good with kids because some women don't know what the hell they're doing. I believe that women should mistrust men with child care because most of us don't know what the hell we're doing. I believe that a boy tapping a girl on the shoulder shouldn't be considered a sexual crime. I believe that most sexual harrassment laws are bullshit and people need to stop being so damn sensitive. I believe that sitcoms are funny and that, if you think that one of the characters represents you and are offended by it, you're a dumbass. I believe that people should be honest even if it's not politically correct (at least here). I believe that saying random sexist things just to see how people will react is fun. I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I believe that it's late and my post is probably completely incoherent. And, most of all, I believe I'm gonna get a whole lot of flak for posting this.

First of all, I'd like to mention that I never shop at Walmart. Almost all my clothes are from American Eagle or A&F (I don't want to hear it) so I know that everything I wear was made in nice, upper-class sweatshops.

Sure, sweatshops aren't good working environments, but people aren't forced to work there at gun point. They work because they need money to buy food. If those sweatshops closed, most of the people working in them would starve to death. It's the responsibility of every country to set it's own minimum wage and labor laws. They don't because they know that allowing their people to work for a pitance means that those people will at least have something. It sucks, but it's up to those countries to provide for their people. I'm not going to boycott shirts because the most likely result will not be labor reform but unemployment and death for dozens of workers.

When you look at a sweatshop-made shirt, you see a dirty, half-starved worker. I see a loaf of bread on that worker's table.

You can argue that and many other things. And then you'll get fired. I'm pretty sure there aren't any laws saying that, if it's against your religion to work, you should get paid anyway. The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law...", not "Sam's Fish Shop shall not fire your lazy ass..."

I'm not saying one way or the other, but a plane coming in at an angle might be able to create a hole like that if it took down enough load bearing walls. ...Or not. I don't know much about architecture and how it's affected by suicide bombings.

You asked how much power each branch has. There is a system of checks and balances, but it would be naive to think that each branch is equal.

The Supreme Court's word on an issue is final. It's the highest court in the land, and there isn't anyone with the authority to overrule it (the individual justices are another matter). The only thing is that there aren't that many things that the Supreme Court has a say on. The court cases that it rules on rarely have a big impact on national politics. It's most important function, deciding whether laws are constitutional or not, is rarely needed since Congress almost never passes any laws that aren't constitutional anymore.

The president is in charge of enforcing the laws (FBI) and conducting foreign affairs, peaceful or otherwise. He can veto any bill passed by Congress and nominate Supreme Court justices. Officially, that's the extent of his power but, in reality, he's much more powerful than that. The president represents the nation and, more importantly, his party. Therefore, he usually has his party's full support in all his actions so, assuming his party has the majority in Congress (as is the case now), they will go along with everything he does.

Congress, which predates the other two branches and is 100% democratically elected, has the most power...on paper, at least. They can pass laws, levy taxes, and declare war. They can even overide a presidential veto if they have a large enough majority that supports the bill. They also have the power to impeach the president, vice president, any member of the cabinet, and (I think) Supreme Court justices. Important note: public officials can only be impeached for treason, bribery, and committing a high crime or misdemeanor, not for being incompetent. The problem is that even when the president doesn't have a favorable majority in Congress, the legislature is usually still too split to overide a presidential veto, and the right to declare war is pretty meaningless when you have no control of the military.

Basically, the branches are equal in theory, but, in reality, the president is the most powerful figure in the country.

At 10/27/03 07:58 PM, Solamnus wrote:

At 10/27/03 03:41 PM, dudeitsallama wrote:

No, it wouldn't. Slavery in general was considered wrong by most educated people. The US was founded on the principals of freedom and having slavery was hypocritical. :

Actually, yes it does support slave practices because you are objecting to a set of absolute morals.

There's no such thing as an absolute moral.

And I highly doubt that slavery was considering wrong "in general amongst the educated." Christ, slavery existed in the colonies back in 1620. Yeah, very few educated people over a period of 200 years right?

It was considered wrong. That's why so many of our founding fathers freed their slaves. Even Jefferson who kept his slaves said that slavery was wrong. He was just too afraid of a backlash to free his slaves. As for the slavery in 1620, it was much less harsh and not based on race.

It may be true that we were founded upon "freedom" but that did not extend to blacks and Indians all that well.

That's what I meant by "hypocritical".

Again I will hold the posisition that child sex is an absolute moral that many people hold today and are against.

Again I will hold the position that there are no absolute morals.

But the point was, if Muhammad, a prophet from God had sex with a nine year old girl SOLEY based on the fact that she only had T&A, would Muslims do this today?

Well, do they?

That puts Muslims in a pickle doesn't it? If Muhammad did it, why shouldn't present day Muslims? If they disagree, why? Christ, Muhammad was a prophet from God of all things, he MUST be right...yes?

These are all such ignorant and predjudiced questions. If people want to have sex with nine year olds they'll do it whether their prophet did it or not. On the other hand, intelligent people don't just do things because some prophet did them. They do this thing called thinking for themselves. Jesus went around turning water into wine, but many Christians are strongly opposed to alcohol. You need to stop acting like all Muslims are crazy religious fanatics that need to be reprogramed so they conform to some set of nonexistent "absolute morals".

At 10/27/03 09:51 AM, Solamnus wrote:

At 10/26/03 02:38 PM, dudeitsallama wrote:

No, he didn't make a morally wrong decision. You can't apply modern morallity to other time periods. :

Why not? That would be saying that slavery was ok 150 years ago here in the United States because many people agreed with its practice.

No, it wouldn't. Slavery in general was considered wrong by most educated people. The US was founded on the principals of freedom and having slavery was hypocritical. On the other hand, Islam was not founded on the principle of not screwing nine year olds. Not only is the morallity of having sex with children subjective, but so is the definition of what a child is. Back then, in that region, a girl that had hit puberty was considered a woman and treated as such. Here and now, a nine year old often isn't even given the respect that a nine year old deserves so it would be wrong to treat her like a woman in any other respect.

At 10/26/03 03:24 PM, CaptainCoco wrote: The USSR was perfect untill they got rid of it.

If you don't know what the hell you're talking about, don't talk. Have you ever lived in the USSR? Well I have. Don't ever tell me that shit hole was perfect.

At 10/26/03 09:17 AM, Commiel wrote: Peace is the most realistic option.

What? Peace as a solution to war? Brilliant! You're a fucking genius.

Both the israeli and the palestinian public are tired of war. The end of the occupation, the withdraw of the IDF, the dismantling of all settlements, the division of the Jerusalem and the return of the refugees will

...return things to the way they were at the outbreak of the first war.

At 10/26/03 01:00 AM, Solamnus wrote:

At 10/25/03 11:58 PM, dudeitsallama wrote: Would I marry a 9 year old? No, of course not! I still wouldn't do it though because I think it's morally wrong. :

So then Muhammad made a morally wrong decision though he is supposed to be a prophet from God. Christ, what about all the psychological crap a child would go through. You often hear psychologists say 'Let kids be kids."

No, he didn't make a morally wrong decision. You can't apply modern morallity to other time periods. Have you ever heard of prolonged adolesence? That's what we have now. Back then, people didn't live that long so a nine year old wasn't really that much of a little kid.

At 10/25/03 10:06 PM, Solamnus wrote: Usually with age, comes wisdom. Of course it is a simple statement that it of itself is not proof. However, older people can handle their alchohol a tad bit better than younger people. They would have the experience or intelligence to know how to handle it. Not to mention biologically. So age does have a factor here.

Wisdom doesn't always come with age. Sometimes age comes alone. Older people can only handle alcohol better because they've built up a tolerance to it. I know that kids don't handle alcohol as well as adults but that has to do with physical development, which happens at a different rate for everyone.

Again, age comes with experience in the overall grand scheme of things.

Experience comes with experiencing things, not being alive for a set period of time.

To get back on topic...

Would you take a nine year old girl for your wife and have sex with this child? Why or why not?

Would I marry a 9 year old? No, of course not! Nine year olds are annoying as hell. She'd drive me crazy. Besides, they usually can't cook or clean very well so what's the point? (random bit of sexism) Seriously though, I wouldn't have sex with a 9 year old. That's disgusting. But just because something is disgusting doesn't mean it should be illegal. A 9 year old probably wouldn't have hit puberty yet, much less have developed to the point where she could be considered more than a child in any sense, but if she had, I wouldn't necessarily label someone who had sex with her a rapist. I still wouldn't do it though because I think it's morally wrong.

At 10/25/03 07:39 PM, Solamnus wrote: There are many things in this world that are arbitrary. The drinking age, the driving age, the age to vote etc.

These are perfect examples of imperfect laws that only exist because no one can come up with better ones. The right to drink should be determined by a person's responsibility and their suceptibility to alcoholism. The right to drive should be determined by responsibility, reflexes, and hand-eye coordination. And the right to vote should be determined by intelligence and knowledge of politics. Age really has nothing to do with any of these things. It's only used as the determining factor because the other factors are difficult or impossible to test accurately.

Sexual activity between adults and younger adults is determined by age because it takes into account biological changes and the emotional stability of the person in question (in theory anyway).

Exactly. It's all determined by biological changes and emotional stability. The emotional stability comes doesn't come with age or, in some cases, ever, and it shouldn't be the government's job to prevent people from ever making a bad decision in their lives. The biological changes come with puberty. Some hit puberty at 16 and others hit it at 9. There is no one set age when everyone hits puberty. It all depends on heredity, environment, and nutrition so there shouldn't be a law that states when everyone should be considered mature enough to have sex.

At 10/25/03 09:36 AM, Foolishfool666 wrote: If an 18 year old guy and a 17 year old girl have sex the guy can be charged with rape. I think that is wrong but if a 50 year old guy has sex with a 17 year old girl, he should be charged with rape.

And why is that? Does the guy being old make the sex any less voluntary? Or is it just that the idea of 50 year old guys having sex makes you sick so you want to make it illegal to ease your mind? The statutory rape law was set at 18 not because anyone having sex before 18 isn't ready to do it but because the law had to protect even the most naive and guillible people that might be talked into sex when they really don't want it. 18 years was the extreme they came up with to cover everyone and so politicians wouldn't have to worry about people bangin' their daughters.

Child sex below 17 is just fucked up though. (unless both participants are under 17)

Why? Sex is sex. What difference does it make if they're the same age or not? I know that it's a disturbing thought for most of us to think of a 40 year old with a teenager but there's nothing criminal about it. Laws are meant to protect us, not to force the governments (or even our own) morality on us. The statutory rape law as it is now is bullshit. Don't get me wrong. If I had a daughter (yes, I know this is topic is getting sexist) I wouldn't want her to have sex before she was at least 18, and I definitely wouldn't want it to be with someone older than she was even then, but it's not the governments job to enforce this. It should obviously be illegal to have sex with really little kids, but once they've reached a certain level of development it should be legal regardless of age. Everyone matures at a different rate. Once secondary sex characteristics have developed, it should be the parents' job to protect their kids, not the government's. I have no sympathy for a 16 that was talked into having sex and then decided she wasn't ready afterwards. You can't rape the willing, as the saying goes.

For anyone who got lost in my rambling, here's a brief summary.
Sex between a 16-year-old and a 50-year-old:
Wrong: yes
Disgusting: very
Should it be illegal: no

At 10/24/03 10:25 PM, MALforPresident wrote: not for politics thread..but hey, you guys could use a little humor in such a topic..either that or somebody is going to beat my ass..oh well

"whats the best part about fucking a 2 year old?, hearing her hip break when you go in!"

That's a joke? What the fuck is wrong with you!?! Never tell that joke again! I feel dirty just from reading that.

I think the real question is how do you define the word "children"? Some people are not mature mentally, and sometimes even physically, by age 18. Others become mature in every respect much earlier. I remember hearing a few years ago about an eleven year old girl that gave birth. Can children have children?

At 10/24/03 06:59 PM, Chaoslight wrote: hmmm, considering the president is BOTH...

No, he's not a dictator or a religous fanatic. If you think that being homophobic and claiming that God wants you to overthrow real religious fanatics in other countries makes you a fanatic, then you don't know what the word means. And he might be racist, but he's not racist like a Klanner so let it go. Don't make a bad situation seem worse than it really is.

At 10/22/03 05:05 PM, General_Patton wrote: A racist does not put black people in two of the highest positions in government, dumbass.

Sure they do. They also say stuff like, "I'm not racist. I've got a friend that's as black as the jack of spades."

He also doesn't listen to theior advice when he goes to the asian summit, or put a black person in charge of the reconstruction of an invaded nation. Oh, wait, Bush did that you dumbass.

Yeah, it's really wierd that he'd give a nearly impossible task that no one else wants to the token black guy.

Also, refering to God just makes him a person who believes that God may have given him a mission. Whether he is right or not does not matter. How can YOU determine what god wants. I can't,

But Bush can, right? Because God e-mailed him a list of people that need to be smited. Assuming that he can read God's mind does make him an arrogant dumbass. I might not know exactly what God wants me to do (if anything), but I know it doesn't involve invading other countries so my oil buddies can get rich.

and I'M not a drunk-ass bitch

So you're saying you're a sober bitch? I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.

who doesn't read about policy or what is happeneing in the world and assumes all republicans are racist.

I don't assume. I draw conclusions.

"Do you really think they're all racist?"
No. Remove yourself from the gene pool.

At 10/22/03 02:42 PM, izuamoto wrote: really, bush isn't racist, or a religous fanatic? do you want to go to the mat wit that one?

He's racist, but he's Republican racist, not lynch mob racist. And he's definitly not a religious fanatic. Saying that God told him to smite evil doesn't make him a fanatic. It makes him a dumbass.

Most people believe their culture is the best one around because it usually supports their morals and values more than other cultures. So, since we're all westerners, for all intents and purposes, our culture is better than any other.

Just a question: If your gun is locked and hidden, what good is it to you in an emergency?

"I am a follower of American politics."--Dubya

"Really? Cuz you'd think the president would be a leader of American politics."--Jon Stewart

What would be really stupid is repeatedly pronouncing the same word wrong. Like...oh let's say...pronouncing the word "nuclear" as "nucular."

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

At 10/18/03 07:45 PM, izuamoto wrote: to feel all woman or all man is something difficult to believe, since most healthy adults are secure enough to admit they have attributes that are associated with what society considers masculine or femminine. people have such a rigid view of gender and sexuality, and it prevents them from understanding people who exist outside of that strict realm of understanding.

I completly agree. I don't consider myself to be a girly guy but I have plenty of personality traits that definitely don't fit the "macho man" stereotype. Most people are somewhere in the middle of the feminine-masculine spectrum.

from your last comment it seems that your particular sense of male and female is directly confronted by the idea that some people don't want to be the gender they're born as, and it disturbs you, which is a form of fear, a repulsion of something incomprehensible. a lot of people have trouble understanding it, that doesn't mean that transexual people should be judged.

It's really hard to psycho-analyze myself, but maybe you're right about it confronting my sense of male and female. No, I don't understand the thought process behind changing one's gender. But I honestly don't have very strong feelings about the issue. My attitude is that I wouldn't want anyone I know doing it, but if other people want to do it, I'm not going to stop them. I'd have the same attitude toward someone attaching a third arm to their chest, although I would understand that thought process much better. It all falls into the same catagory as having your tongue forked or having wiskers implanted into your face because you want to be a cat. I think it's all stupid and weird, but I'd also be opposed to any laws that tried to prevent it. People should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies...unless they are my friends or family. If they are, they need my written approval for everything they do.

At 10/18/03 09:12 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

At 10/18/03 01:02 AM, dudeitsallama wrote: There is a difference between choosing a child's gender and trying to make a boy live as a girl. Most of the people in this world are forced to be a boy or a girl. We're born that way. Should intersex children not have the same rights or lack their of because of a birth defect?

This is exactly my point. HOW is it different? I understand the obvious differences, but if you force an intersexed child to grow up as male, when inside he feels alllll woman, HOW is that a good thing?

And why would that child feel all woman inside? If the kid is most anatomically similar to a boy to begin with and is then given surgery and any necessary supplemental horomones and is raised as a boy, he won't feel all woman inside. He can't.

:How on earth can you take that choice away from him when he says, 'Daddy, I wanna be a girl.'

Easy. I never had that choice. I don't want to switch genders, but if I told my parents that I wanted to be a girl, they'd send me to a psychiatrist. And they'd be right in doing so. You play the hand you're dealt.

At 10/17/03 04:53 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

At 10/17/03 04:28 PM, dudeitsallama wrote:

I'll take my time with this one, since you're obviously not seeing the bigger picture. Of course there has to be SOME sort of gender assignment. A name, for one. What to tell the family, number two. What clothes to buy, what toys to buy, things like that. What I'm speaking of, mainly, is SURGICAL assignment. Or forced feminization of a child who obviously wants to be male, or vice verse: the forced masculinization of a child who wants to be a girl, and is giving clear signals.

A gender has to be assigned either way. The first years of a childs life are the most impressionable and growing up without a definite gender could, and probably would, cause permanent psychological damage. I'm sure that by now we have enough technology to establish which gender the baby most resembles anatomically and genetically and make alterations accordingly. Besides, there are plenty of effeminate boys and tom boys in the world that do just fine.

Click the link I gave, and tell me that isn't traumatic and horrible.

It's a completly different scenario and doesn't apply to this debate.

As far as I know now, it is normal to leave intersex babies that way til they hit puberty and have begun to develop, and can make a more informed decision.

That's disturbing. It's also an unsupported personal opinion. My unsupported personal opinion is that it is about as far from normal as you can get.

Right, I'm glad you can approach this with maturity and logic.

This topic doesn't deserve maturity and logic.

Parents of pseudohermaphroditic children have to be more attuned to what their children want. There's clear signals, growing up, whether or not there's male or female tendencies.

Those tendencies are usually nurtured.

A sex change operation for an adult who has a wierd hormonal imbalance or, more likely, a screw loose is unnecessary.

Uh...well. Glad to see you're living in the now. Let me guess. Are you afraid of drag queens, too?

Yes, every night I sleep with the light on for fear that drag queens will come in the night and paint my nails. I don't see any rational reason for a man to dress like or become a woman and vice versa. If there is, please enlighten me.

Until you think it out clearly, you won't see the need to let a child grow up without being forced to be a boy or girl. Click the link, read it, see why.

There is a difference between choosing a child's gender and trying to make a boy live as a girl. Most of the people in this world are forced to be a boy or a girl. We're born that way. Should intersex children not have the same rights or lack their of because of a birth defect?

Have you been recently lobotomized? You can't leave a child without a gender (or would it be with both?)! That's sick and wrong. Can you imagine how traumatic and horrible that would be? Any intersex child left intersex should have the legal right to shoot their parents in the face. An operation to establish a definite gender for a baby is definitley not unnecessary. A sex change operation for an adult who has a wierd hormonal imbalance or, more likely, a screw loose is unnecessary. You can't expect a child to live their life without a gender and then have to pick one on their own. I'm really disgusted by this whole topic.

At 10/16/03 03:46 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Notice how the Palestinians greeetd the jewish people with open arms during WWII, just so that they could steal the country from them.

What? The only people to ever welcome Jews with open arms were the Ottoman Turks after the Spanish Reconquista. The Palestinians never greeted anyone with open arms. Not brutally murdering people is not the same as welcoming them.

I have a big problem with that. You basically took the country from them.

Jews played a tiny role in the actual creation of Israel. Blame the British and the UN.

So what if the jews lived there for thousands of years. For 1600 years before Israel was created, it was occupied by Arabs. Arabs!!

You make it sound like Jews haven't been living there continuously since Biblical times. There have virtually always been Jews in Israel. Just because a large number of them immigrated there after WWII doesn't mean that there weren't any Jews there before.

Also notice how much this scenario resembles the europeans coming to america and putting the natives on reserves like we do know. Its just disgusting.

Yes, the similarities are remarkabl...y missing. Now if, oh let's say, the Chinese conquered America and offered to split the Nevada desert between the Europeans and the Indians, but the Indians refused to accept the deal and decided to start killing the Europeans as if it was their fault, then there would be some similarities. And by the way, if Indians started suicide bombing Americans, the native population would be John. Think about that next time you want to imply that Israelis are violent, greedy assholes.

At 10/15/03 05:00 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Isrealies are always trying to make peace, especially when one of their options for peace is killing Arafat. Right. Palestinians fight because they have ridiculousely small territories. Hell, they have a good reason. Maybe you guys want peace, but you also don't want the Palestinians to have a reasonable piece of land.

Of course they don't want the Palestinians to have a reasonable piece of land. They know that if the Palestinians got that land they wanted, they'd just build missile bases on it and attack Israel on a larger scale. What else are the Israelis to expect from people who use money given to them for aid to buy AK-47s?

And Palestinians don't fight. Fighting implies that Palestinian soldiers go out and fight Israeli soldiers for control of the region. What the Palestinians actually do is bribe families to send their members into Israel to murder innocent people in cold blood.

*applause*

Screw newgrounds elections. I declare Adept_Omega king.