205 Forum Posts by "Pyrrho"
At 8/8/05 08:04 PM, The_Tank wrote: Why was I born ? My mother concieved and birthed me, well who concieved and birthed her? Her mother, trace it all the way back to the begginging of the Universe who created that ? God, Well who created God ? No one God must have never been created, and must never be destroyable. It's like a chain each link is connected by the one before it, It can only be traced so far before it reaches it's beggining. If God created everything who created God Answer He was never created, and he will never end.
You didn't answer either of my questions. How do you know there was an "eternal starting point", and from what evidence do you derive this conclusion? I apologize for my redundance. Can you efficiently disprove the notion that "time" is not infinite, that it has no starting point and will have no end?
At 8/8/05 07:45 PM, Buckdich wrote: Now about women being created from a man's rib.. Dont men have one less rib than women? I am not sure, even if men do have one less rib, could be a coincidence.
At 8/8/05 07:41 PM, The_Tank wrote: Its already been scientificly proven that a God exists, IE St. Thomas Aquinace's primary cause, all things have a cause, therefore at the base of this there must be an eternal starting point.
Why must there be an eternal starting point? I understand that in Western culture our Aristotelian minds try to attribute our basic logic to such matters. My question to you: How do you know there must be an eternal starting point, and from what evidence do you derive this conclusion?
At 8/6/05 02:57 AM, Jimsween wrote:
:Find me a country we didn't make an invasion plan for.
"You forgot Poland."
At 8/3/05 01:35 PM, thynameisconor wrote: Whats your opinion? Is it good to teach kids that? Or let them learn on their own?
Is it good for a public broadcasting station to teach little kids to tolerate all families, regardless of sexual orientiation? Is it wise to teach tolerance to small children? It most certainly is.
At 8/4/05 03:14 AM, _FLAGG wrote: I just get tired of people talking like liberals, walking like liberals, supporting 90% of everything liberal America says, hating bush with every breath, scorning anything that comes from the republican party...while at the same time having the audacity to say
"Oh, I'm not a leftist or a liberal at all. I'm just a 'centrist'."
You do realize that it is, in fact, possible for someone to consider oneself a "centrist" on the political spectrum, agree with some leftist stances and dislike Bush's policies at the same time? And what's so audacious about considering one's self to be "centrist", even if they do tend to side with the left? Labeling and pidgeon-holing people into one particular slot of the immensely expansive political spectrum does little to supercede bipartisanship. After all, it is the intention of the current adminstration to reach across party lines, is it not? To unite a divided nation?
If you're a fucking leftist, have the bravery to admit it. There's a dozen different people on the NGBBS that are more liberal than Moore himself...yet they claim to be 'unbiased centrists'.
Claiming to be unbiased, no matter where you stand politically, is outright bullshit.
While he was out of the country for the funeral of Saudi king Fahd in early August 2005, soldiers reportedly seized state media. [1] The group, which identified itself as the Military Council for Justice and Democracy, announced a coup in a statement run by the state news agency on August 3: (translated) “The armed forces and security forces have unanimously decided to put an end to the totalitarian practices of the deposed regime under which our people have suffered much over the last several years,” the statement said. The military dictatorship said it would remain in power for two years to allow time for democratic institutions to be implemented.
So, what are your thoughts? Is a military coup and government usurpation justified in this case? When is a militarily staged coup vindicated?
At 6/8/05 02:27 AM, AwkwardSilence wrote: And fortunately for Austria, Arnold is WAY more famous than Adolf. =D
Ain't that the truth. What is this world coming to...? I ask you.
I can't believe in God, either. At least, not the tradition Judeo-Christian sense of an almighty Creator who will damn all the heathens to Hell. To tell you the truth, I have no idea whether an entity that imcomprehensibly vast can exist. I don't know. That's why I'm agnostic. I used to think about the existence of God or any superior being for that matter. Now, I just don't care. If there is a God so hypocritical as to send me to damnation for the decisions I made in life then so be it. I really don't care. Just enjoy yourself and be a good person. As long as you uphold yourself as a moral and honorable person, I don't see any reason to bring organized religion into the matter. Even if you aren't a moral or honorable person, I still don't see any reason to bring organized religion into the picture. Just quit being an asshole. Quit it. I'm going to finish up this post with a phrase I've memorize that express my opinion on this matter: "...the flaws or lack of soundness in all arguments for the existence of God is sufficient to show that God's existence is less probable than his nonexistence..."
Freedom is when you order a six-piece Chicken McNuggets and they accidentally give you seven. And a switchblade. o_O
At 6/8/05 01:54 AM, AwkwardSilence wrote: i know what you're saying but...
did you just compare lincoln to bush? cause...I'm laughing really hard right now. I can't finish this post...
I can make the connection. Lincoln "freed the slaves" and Bush "liberated the Iraqis". Either way, using quotes when making your points make them more adaptable. =)
As some of you may or may not know, the current Dalai Lama of Tibet is residing in exile whilst the People's Republic of China have installed their own government in the region. Tibet's independence has been a matter of political discussion for numerous years with little action to resolve the matter having been implemented. After the kidnapping by the Chinese government of the initially chosen Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the eleventh reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, the inherent leader of Tibet and fellow proponents of Tibetan independence have only further been disregarded. (The Panchen Lama is the title of the second highest authority in Tibetan Buddhism, following the Dalai Lama.) Many countries, including the United States, have voiced their support for Tibetan internal autonomy. However, the Chinese government has refused to compromise. Self-determination has been an issue very active since the end of the Second World War. The relationship between China and the United States is fairly cordial and with the apparent confrontation there will eventually be with Kim Jong Il in North Korea it seems that this relationship between the two countries be as civil and cooperative as possible. The complexity of the matter, in addition to a few other partisan tensions, prevents the United States from taking a pro-active approach to the situation concerning the status of Tibet. Should the United States attempt to effectively confront China about the rightful return of the leader of Tibet? Is the Chinese government justified in their actions?
At 6/7/05 09:32 PM, blizace wrote: how does it help, i am still confused about this becus i thoguth drugs were abd for you(
It's not that smoking marijuana is "bad" for one. The idea is that by inhaling marijuana the pain of patients who are suffering from chronic, painful diseases such as thyroid-related ailments will be alleviated. Whether this is "bad" or "good" is relative. This is where symantecs come into play.
Heh. This was kinda nifty. Although, I think the wording and different ways people would interpret the same subject matter grants the results a considerable margin of error.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36
So, I'm in between Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair on the Economic scale and Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama on the Social scale. I guess I could be categorized as a "Leftist Libertarian"?
At 1/30/05 08:53 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: I thought WWII ended America's great depression. Am I wrong?
Err... What?! The Depression is over?! Well, balls! I don't know, though. While financially, America may be better off, but depression is at an all-time high in America. Teenage suicide is still an epidimic. Anyway, the War didn't end the Depression. Spam was invented during the era in fact, because all of our resources were being drained into the war efforts. We couldn't afford our turkey and bratwurst anymore. However, from the ashes an economical resurgence deveolped, you are correct in that. Black Betty had a child. Bam a lam.
At 1/17/05 03:53 PM, Uziel wrote: The US went into Iraq because so many countries in the UN (including Canada) lacked the balls to enforce the regulations that they set down after the first Gulf War.
Oy vey. Shh... It's grown-up talk now.
America is a "nice" country. I enjoy living here. I enjoy practicing the freedoms and rights that are guaranteed to me as a citizen. However, this country is not perfect. Thus, political debates ensue. And as much as Republicans and Democrats yell at each other, we all want the same thing. We just disagree on some of the finer points.
At 1/17/05 01:32 PM, Proteas wrote:
Eat -silenceintruder- instead, no one likes him anyway.
Ah, come on! He's good for a few laugh. In fact, I crack up at almost every post he makes. It's both... depressingly moronic and hilarious at the same time... And he says he's full grown 19-year-old man. Ha!
At 1/11/05 02:24 PM, aerisferal wrote: My question is why do you peopel bother.
"Greatness without contribution is without significance."
This is our contribution to our posterity. We're trying to make the world a better place for them by what we're trying to accomplish as mankind right now. It's selflessness. And it's beautiful :).
At 1/15/05 11:00 PM, FAB0L0US wrote
Where have you been? You clearly have no grasp of what everything has gone into these discussions. Arafat is clearly the worse man.
Now you're just distinguishing a lesser evil from a greater. Ok, say Arafat is the worse man. It takes two to tango -_-. Sharon is just as much responsible for the fued between the Israelis and the Palestinians as Arafat. You cannot be opressed without an opressor.
Well, I guess I'd have to say- Wait. What does this have to do with politics? Nothing. Oh, ok. Why didn't you post this spam in General? It'll be right up there with "typeo your name with your cock" and "what if u were a cat". Good day.
At 1/16/05 01:05 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Too many stupid kids join up to get college money and forget that the military is not an organization created to pay for college, but an organization created to defend the country against it's enemies.
True. The military is an organization to protect the country from its enemies. We've removed Hussein and his regime, have we not? The search for WMDs has been called off. The only Iraqi resistance left comes from civilian insurgents. Who pose no threat to national security. Honestly, what kind of threat do these disorganized civilians pose to the United States of America? We've taken care of Hussein. Now let them have their country. There have been enough casualties in this war - Iraqi and American. Let's bring our troops home.
Absolutely sickening. I don't blame Rodriguez in the slightest for being angry about this. He was sentenced to a childhood of molestation and other sexual abuse. And to think his mother was the one to put him in this position... This just supports my idea of evaluating people pre-conceivement to decide whether they will be a good, loving parent.
I don't understand what they have to bitch about. As long as the school offers the course as an elective instead of a core class, there shouldn't be a problem. If you don't want to hear what the class has to teach, then just don't sign up for the damn class. Is this really that hard to comprehend?
At 1/15/05 09:05 PM, BeFell wrote: One more question, if he isn't willing to fight in the war that he is contractaly obligated to fight in, then would he be willing to pay back all the money that was given to him.
I don't know. You'd have to ask him that, personally.
At 1/15/05 09:02 PM, BeFell wrote: And that is fine but if they want to have the benefits of joining the military then they must be willing to do what is required of them. This is not a charity they are compensating you for your service which they make very clear can involve war.
True. However, some people, upon witnessing the kind of inhumanity that goes on in a warzone, do not look forward to returning. I have no idea how horrible it must be to walk through the streets of Iraq and witness all. They should be able to fulfill their contractial agreements. But, then again, that's easy to say from where we're standing. I don't know about you, but I've never been subjected to war. I wouldn't know what it feels like. And, unless you've served in the military or something, I doubt you do either.
Did they not realize they might possibly have to go to war when they signed up?
I'm sure they did.
They gambled thinking they would be able to coast through without having to do anything. Guess what, they were wrong and now it time for them to earn that money that was given to them.
The man soldier addressed in this article, technically, did fulfill his obligations. He already served in Iraq. He simly refused to do so again. Our soldiers are willing to sacrifice for our country, so long as our leaders do not send them into harm's way without a just reason. Some soldiers feel they did not do that. So they refuse. Personally, I would, too.
At 1/15/05 08:09 PM, BeFell wrote: Everyone who joins the military knows about this little fact so the qustion remains
Have you, personally, ever had problems with paying your bills, credit card debt or college tuition loans? It's extremely unpleasant. There are people who come from poor families. Their parents cannot afford to pay for their tuition. So, it's either they cannot attend college or they need to find other means of finance. The military is a great alternative for these people.
why would you use the military to pay for college if you don't want to go to war.
Isn't that what the article posted was showing? They don't! That is why the US military did not meet their recruiting standards as of late. When you enlist in the Armed Forces, you must sign a contract to serve a certain number of years. A lot of these kids signed up before the war in Iraq broke out. And that's why people are refusing to return. And that's why they'd enlist in the Army. Any other questions you'd like to be addressed?
At 1/14/05 12:46 PM, BeFell wrote: If you don't want to go to war, why the hell would you join the military?
The vast majority of our all-volunteer army are between the ages of 18-25. Especially the mobile infantry.
Now, what do people in this age range have to benefit from joining the military? A paid-in-full college education.
In fact, the Naval Acadamy in Annapolis, Maryland not only pays for your tuition in full, but for food and boarding. Also, they pay you to learn. You receive a paycheck each month just for attending classes. Does that not sound like a sweet deal to you? Attend a highly prestigious university and get paid for it? Hell, it does to me!
That is why the vast majority of young people join the military - for college tuition. Most of these kids who enlisted did not think that they would actually be deployed. And people disagree with the war. That's why he doesn't want to return. It's for a cause he doesn't see to be necessary nor justified. He stands up for his convictions. He's my hero :).
