Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 9/8/08 08:58 PM, Rockthebestmusic wrote:

At 9/8/08 07:07 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

WELL babies and FETUSES are very different biologically. IF you had SPENT the TIME reading up ON the SUBJECT instead of wasting TIME deciding WHAT words to capitalize AND what WORDS not to, you might not have COME off as so IGNORANT. This isn't ALL about AMERICA, there ARE other COUNTRIES too. FETUSES and BABIES are COMPLETELY different. ANYONE over 13 knows THAT. When YOUR old enough to TAKE SEX ED, you MIGHT UNDERSTAND. YOU clearly don't KNOW ANYTHING about science, so WHY bother pretending YOU know what your TALKING about?

Is a fetus genetically different before birth than after birth? And what are the exact biological differences before and after childbirth? i Know enough basic facts but nothing to validate any VAST difference that would make the fetus any less human (Of course what truly defines a human from something that is not human?). Please provide a link if possible.

First off, the fetus stage is between the 11th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. A lot happens over that time, so could you first specify how long before childbirth you mean. The fetus is only fully ready for life oustide the uterus at about the 35th week. Birth usually happens around the 38th-40th week. During the 11th, at the beginning of fetal development, lungs are not fully developed, but breathing motion is present (for the purpose of lung development). Brain, heart, hands, feet, and other organs arn't developed either, though they are there. The fetus can't feel any pain at this point. I won't be able to feel pain until the third trimester. Toenails, hair, etc., develop during the fetal stage.
This is an excellent page that shows everything that happens in each week. The thing is, what do we consider "humanity". I would think that humanity is when a creature has conscience, self-awareness, communicative skills, and critical thinking. None of this appears until the third trimester, hence why personally, I only believe in abortions during the second and first trimesters. However, I object to any kind of abortion law due to the dispute. Some people don't hold the same views on when a fetus is "human" as I do, so I don't believe there should be any law against aboriton, even in the third trimester. That's pretty much just forcing my viewpoint on others, and I don't agree with that, hence why I'm "pro-choice".

---

At 9/9/08 04:47 PM, CaiWengi wrote: Did anyone notice the Georgia thing played out exactly like the intro movie to Ghost Recon?

Expect the same for the intro movie of Mercenaries 2.

Lol, ya I kinda did notice that. I have Mercenaries 2, that game is badass. This isn't really related though, Russia isn't even mentioned in that the game.

Okay, to the more serious topic, I pretty much agree with the OP when it comes to the actual topic. Russia is trying to reestablish it's influence. This is a counter to the US plans in Eastern Europe with the missle shield and all.

Seriously though, stop trying to put a spin on it. Obama was almost as aggresive as McCain during the Georgia incident, and he's not gonna let Russia bound on our backdoor. Just because he favors depolomacy, doesn't mean he favors letting other countries get away with things. He just wants to talk them out of it instead of using military force to intimidiate them. Obama is using what's called soft power, while McCain is using hard power. They've both been successful and unsuccessful depending on the case. Look up the wikipedia articles on the terms for a better description.

---

At 9/8/08 09:07 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Oh, and Saruman, let's remind everyone of what happened before that you haven't replied to. I'm sure you'll just ignore it again and start talking about irrelevant nonsense, but I can at least bring it to the forefront:

Before you start talking about what I've replied to, let's look back to the top of this page. You made a post. While I was replying to said post, you made two more posts. I had no way of knowing you had made those two posts, as I was typing. I left the thread after posting, and on the politcs page, my post appeared as the most recent one, so I had no reason to believe you had made any other posts. Then, you made two more posts in reply to that posts. I replied to the second of them. Then, you replied twice once again. I am only replying to one of those two posts now. It very hard to reply to triple posts when each post probably goes up to the max character limit aswell. I can hardly even reply to one post with out being cut off, hence why I make posts that are short. Don't blame me for the workings of the BBS and your own massive double and triple posts.

I said in response:

- Waterboarding was used on Khalid Sheikh Muhammad
- He was resistant to other methods of interrogation previously used on him
- He ended up giving us loads of useful information

And it's not only the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad that ended up providing information. Waterboarding has saved people's lives, according to a CIA interrogator.

Okay, now that I see I admit I was wrong, just like I said I would.

And yet again you start you ad hominem attacks.

I'll try replying to your other post in the same post of mine.

At 9/8/08 08:48 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Except I have every way of making a logical conclusion based on the overwhelming evidence. Take a peak at European history and then come back once you're not woefully ignorant of it. Europe has constantly been at war and the peace that has existed in the last several decades is incredibly unique, since the Us was responsible for the united defense posture, the economic kick start, and the political unity based on these things, it's entirely logical to assume that in absence of the US, Europe would have been at war yet again shortly after WWII. Hell, the French and the British would have done exactly what they did to Germany after WWI that led up to WWII if the US didn't prevent it, they wanted reparations again, the US instead rebuilt the Axis powers and supported them instead of exploiting them as the Brits and the French would have done.

During the Nuremberg Trials, the French and British were actually the softest on the Germans...

You just make nonsense up off the top of your head don't you?

Germans have kids too. I already mentioned my uncle, she's my uncle's daughter.

Oh, and destroying European political and communications centers, followed by ground invasions of western European cities.

And those documents direcly contradict the majority of the Soviet records. While some documents of that nature may exist, they do not represent the majority of the plans.

By saying that the US is equal to the Soviet union is being biased because only an idiot would actually pretend that if they weren't biased first and foremost. By saying that the US was on equal moral ground as the Soviet Union, you're showing that your bias clouds your judgment because the Soviet Union actually annexed and enslaved the countries they gained power over. Hell, the Soviets killed loads of their own people. According to some estimates, the Soviets killed more of their own people in democide than were killed in WWII by combat.

I'll show how foolish you saying "annexed and enslaved is when I reply later", and no one is denying how many people Stalin killed.

Are you serious?

Notice how you ENTIRELY IGNORED the areas where I provided evidence to prove you wrong and back up what I said? Notice how almost nothing you've said this entire time has actually had any relevance?

- Notice how you said if I proved that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad gave useful information after being waterboarded you'd admit you were wrong? Notice how you DIDN'T REPLY to it after I did just that?

- Notice how you paraded your vast ignorance of the situation in Iraq, got proved wrong, and yet again refused to reply to it?

Yes, I'll reply to that now. You are correct in saying Iraq is made up mostly of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites, but the difference is the population of each.

East Germany wasn't a pawn of the USSR at all.

Yeah it was.

The Soviets did everything they could to make sure East Germany was communist, they rigged elections, censored political opponents, and crushed the German uprising in 1950 when they were getting sick of Soviet influence and presence.

*Have*

Pretty good sign that you know you're fucked when typos are all you have to pounce on.

Lol, I've forgiven you for typos numerous times. I couldn't tell if that was a typo or not, you've being saying "hate" a lot.

Putting the US on the same moral ground as Soviet Union, modern Russia, China, Iran, and terrorists shows that you're biased because there is no real logical basis to make that comparison given what those people do.

Man, you can't even address it. The only person being a hypocrite is you here, that was displayed for all of us to see. But hey how dare I say that right, I must be violating your free speech huh?

Despite the fact that most other people in the thread agree with me. So who is "all of us".

Wow!

What did you JUST say?

Do you actually believe the hypocrtical shit that comes out of your mouth?

Next Post:

Ad hominem

---

This was in response to me saying something that was way, way more benign than what you just said.

Then immediately after you accuse me of ad hominem for saying that you have problems with simple logic, you say:

Lol, ignoring the countless times you've tried to divert the topic and I've only replied to the ignorant, naive world view you profess.

---

Seriously, are you schizophrenic? Before and after you accuse me of ad hominem, you use ad hominem. Your entire participation in this thread has been a giant mess of hypocrisy and ignorance. You've been incapable of replying to where you got proved wrong, and the major bulk of your posts have nothing to do with the topic but are just instances of you acting like a complete clown.

Lol, look up ad hominem.

Now, go ahead, say "ad hominem" in response to that right after you yourself resort to ad hominem as if you're immune from your own criticisms. Seriously, first you think only liberals are allowed free speech, now you only thing you are allowed to resort to insults.

Your posts are filled with hypocrtical ad hominems like this.

Yet another hypocrisy on your part. You just keep ignoring all the areas where you get proved wrong, you yourself resort to ad hominem, then accuse me of ad hominem. (Never mind the fact that you've only done this as a way to distract from the actual argument which has resulted in you getting proved wrong over and over again)

Let's recap what you've said over the course of this thread, just for the hilarity:

- why be proud of it and just going along with everything it says, instead of using your brain. Or do you not have one?
- Is that what you really think? You really are quite delusional..
- More delusions. You should go see a doctor or something. I don't know what wrong with you, but something isn't quite working up there in the noggin.

Lol, do you want me to misquote you too. None of those are ad hominem when you look at them in context.

Then, when I said "Do you have any idea how hypocritical you are" YOU start saying:

- Ad hominem much?
- More delusions.
- Don't forget to take your meds before you post, or else the delusions can be rather unpleasant.
- Lol, that's not stereotyping at all.

I got cut off here. I won't even bother.

---

Wow, do you even debate, or do you just use ad hominem attacks? How hypocrtical. I think you can do better than that.

---

It's just a rumor, there was no such bill...

---

At 9/8/08 06:55 PM, CaddyCo wrote:

At 9/7/08 09:07 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 9/6/08 09:06 PM, CaddyCo wrote: Bottom line. I don't agree with it. I think abortion is murder. They call it a fetus to confuse people. No one knows what FETUS means, a lot of people at least. It means BABY in latin. If it said BABY, they wouldn't have passed the law because people would see it as MURDER. ABORTION IS MURDER!

Please deal with the english definition or the scientific definition. Words mean different things from language to language.

fetus: The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.

Basic structural resemblance to the adult animal? Um, hello? what does a baby resemble? Hmm?? Does it not "RESEMBLE" the ADULT animal? Do not BABIES end up GROWING up to be ADULTS. THE UNBORN YOUNG? Seriously, the scientific versions are just fancy footed words that dance around your head. IT'S the SAME thing. Don't be ignorant. The ONLY reason they changed the word from BABY to FETUS is because most americans are IGNORANT to the term and were OKAY with it because they were UNFAMILIAR WITH IT. If they had KNOWN that FETUS and BABY are ONE IN THE SAME, they WOULDN'T have VOTED YES! WOULD THEY NOT? I DON'T THINK SO!

WELL babies and FETUSES are very different biologically. IF you had SPENT the TIME reading up ON the SUBJECT instead of wasting TIME deciding WHAT words to capitalize AND what WORDS not to, you might not have COME off as so IGNORANT. This isn't ALL about AMERICA, there ARE other COUNTRIES too. FETUSES and BABIES are COMPLETELY different. ANYONE over 13 knows THAT. When YOUR old enough to TAKE SEX ED, you MIGHT UNDERSTAND. YOU clearly don't KNOW ANYTHING about science, so WHY bother pretending YOU know what your TALKING about?

---

At 9/8/08 03:03 AM, n64kid wrote: A representative, but not a direct representitave, democratic-republic based on Judaeo-Christian values.

I Win.

Judeo-Christian values suck balls. Otherwhise I agree, I would rather live in a democratic republic (or a parlimentiary republic) then anything else.

---

At 9/8/08 03:23 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Brainwashing? Look whos the conspiricy theorist now, better wear ur tinfoil hat before I erase ur memory 8P

Says the person with the "9/11 Truth Now" banner, who supports Dennis Kurinich, the guy that sees UFOs...

I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but we have three months left, I think you can handle it. Plus, nothing Bush has done warrents impeachment. Yah, he made some stupidass desicions, but so have a lot of presidents. Impeachment is reserved for when a president violates the Constituation or the law (ie Nixon, or Clinton). Now, I am a big fan of Bill Clinton, but he lied under oath, thus the impeachment proceedings brought against him were justified (though I don't think he deserverd impeachment, the proceedings were still justified). Has George Bush done anything like that? Sure, he fucked up the economy, got us into a useless war, and left us trillions of dollors in debt, but that's being a bad president, not violating the law or Consituation.

---

At 9/8/08 10:51 AM, fuzzles1992 wrote:
they have no real reason to do that though ,which is why i say can't we all get along.

Yes, they do. What's wrong with arguing. In life, you will meet people who won't agree with you. Better to debate with them then be close-minded and just ignore them.

again ,they don't have to retaliate and it is probably easier just to ignore the offender ,otherwise the argument spirals into a long unecessary feud

They don't have to, but why shouldn't they. Who was it that said "Ignorance is the cause of all evil"? I would rather have a long unnessicary feud during which I learn about the other side's views and defend my own, then live my life not listening to anyone.

they don't need to argue ,they can just keep it to themselves

But they shouldn't keep it to themselves. That's being close-minded and foolish. There's nothing wrong in being open in your views.

true ,but there are those who are not religious but still have a hard believing theories such as that

Wait, I don't get it. Of course those that arn't religious have a hard time believing the obvious foolishness of creationalism and ID. Kinda stating the obvious there :P

what i mean by beliefs is the personal ideas of one person ,not a religion on a whole

also not all religions oppress others ,they simply believe they are right , and thats okay as long as they don't directly try to harm ,humiliate ,eliminate ,etc. others who don't agree

The Bible, the Koran, the Torah, those Hindu scrolls, all say that those who don't convert to their view will burn in hell. Real open-mindedness right there.

atheism is only one out of ALOT of beliefs

but i am not saying it can't be true

Okay then why did you say "all beliefs are unlikely to be true". Atheism is completely likely, as least in my opinion. That's why we have those arguments, people have different opinions, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't see what is wrong with debating. Arguing about religion is a good thing, it creates open minds and free wills. And it has nothing to do with "getting along". I have many friends who have opposite political views as me. We get along just fine. Sure, we argue about politics frequently, but that doesn't mean anything. We still are good friends. You can get along but still debate politics and religion. As for there being no need to, of course not, there's no need to debate anything. But there's no reason not to, so why not? Maybe you can enlighten some people, or bew enligtened yourself.

thank you

Your welcome.

---

At 9/8/08 12:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You have absolutely no historical precedent to suggest that. Up until the end of WWII, Europe was seeing constant wars, constant shifts in alliances, constant invasions, territory wars, economically-motivated wars and so forth. Europe was made up of warring empires until the US became the most powerful source of influence there.

To suggest that the Europeans wouldn't have gone back to business as usual if a power like the US wasn't there to prevent it (assuming the Soviets didn't invade and annex those countries) is quite a stretch of logic.

But you have no way of knowing. That's why arguing about what could have happened is history is pointless: there are too many variables, you have no idea how it could go. So discussing "what ifs" in history is foolish.

My uncle is German and he doesn't hate the US.

I speak German, I lived in Germany for several months, roughly half of my family is composed of Germans. The older generations of Germans tend to be the most benign, but the young Germans, the college students and young socialists that attended the Obama rally, those people hate the US.

What about my cousin, she's in college in Germany, she doesn't hate the US.

No, except I actually have logic to suggest that the Soviets would have invaded western Europe, you have zero logical support to suggest that the US would have invaded eastern Europe.

The US didn't invade any country in Europe and take them over by force after the end of WWII. The US allowed those countries to have democracies, the US protected them, and built up their economies with enormous amounts of aid. The Soviets however did the exact opposite, they began annexing the countries, manipulating their economies for their own benefit, and oppressing and enslaving them. The only thing you even need to see as proof, even though it's a given fact and your denial of reality is just a sign of your ignorance, is that people were ESCAPING the Soviet sphere of influence to come to western Europe. Whereas people were literally dying to live in the areas occupied by the US, people were dying to LEAVE the areas the Soviets controlled.

WIth the opening of the Soviet records at the end of the Cold War, it was revealed that Soviet war plans where based almost entirely on defense. The only offensive actions that prominence where attacks on silos that might be able to do damage to the USSR (with nukes or otherwhise). After the massive casualties of WWII, the Soviets valued minimizing their own casualities over inflicting casualties on others. Sounds like a real evil empire to me.

So much for trying to pretend that the US and the Soviets were on equal moral ground. Thanks for proving that at the expense of all logic, you side against the US. Thus shattering your claim that your criticism of the US isn't motivated by anti-Us bias first and foremost. Thus that the blind loyalty you referred is not blind, but is more objective than the blind disloyalty that you have.

Lol, by saying the US is equal to other nations I'm not being biased...

Before you say I side against the US, you should read "US is a military empire" and some other anti-American threads I replied in, in which I defended the US against claims it was some sort of evil military empire.

AHAHAHA. You could, but it would be another form of proof of how utterly wrong, hypocritical, and void of reality everything you have said this whole time has been.

Once again you prove you have no idea what a debate is. Affirming that your view is the "right" view before the argument is even over and before you have even done so much as prove the other person wrong is without a doubt on the first things you can do. If anything, it makes the rest of your argument seem less convincing.

That in and of itself shows how utterly ignorant of reality and history you are. You say your uncle is German, if he actually lived in Germany you might want to ask him about East Germany. Tell an east German who lived long enough ago to remember what it's like to live under communism that the US isn't more harmful than the US.

Lol, my uncle lived in East Berlin. I believe you ment "Russia isn't more harmful than the US". Whatever, typos, we all make um. East Germany wasn't a pawn of the USSR at all. East Germany worked on nuclear energy behind the Soviets back. They withheld information from the KGB. In the later years before the fall, relations were shaky at best.

You're only proving that you not only hate a serious problem with simple logic, but your bias against the US is exactly as as RadioactiveRabbit described it.

I "hate a serious with simple logic" Huh. I don't know if that's a typo or not. I can't see how by saying the US is an equal among nations of the world I'm being biased.

No, it doesn't. The EU projects some power in the world entirely because of the US. The EU is a growing power but it is still entirely dependent on the US and its relatively powerful economic position today is do to, oh, the simple fact that the US rebuilt their economy after WWII free of charge, didn't take them over as the Soviets would have done, then turned around and protected them for decades without so much as a simple reparation or repayment.

Who said you can't critize. You can critize all you want, and I can point out how stupid the critcism is.

Then that means that your criticism consisted entirely of "free speech". You didn't defend the logic of it, you only defended it by saying it is free speech. That was your rebuttal. That's fucking pathetic.

By pointing out that the person was suggesting that liberals shouldn't be allowed to excerise free speech

He didn't suggest it. You FALSELY suggested that his criticism was suggesting liberals shouldn't be allowed to exercise free speech.

I debunked his arguement that he was true American and liberals arn't.

No, you actually proved that liberals such as yourselves not only hate the US and are thusly not true Americans, but you hypocritically refer to "free speech" to defend yourself even though that free speech was provided by the people who you hate.

Do you actually believe the hypocrtical shit that comes out of your mouth?

RadioactiveRabbit referred to liberals that hate the foundations of the country. He didn't say the liberals shouldn't be allowed to have free speech. You said "free speech" anyway, as is the typical liberal ploy. You have major problems with the most simple of logic.

Ad hominem...

That's called a debate, where people argue there points civilly. You obviously don't understand it. But that's okay, you'll learn.

It's funny, because you the majority of your posts have been filled mostly with irrelevant nonsense that adds nothing to the debate whatsoever. You have only actually replied in context a few times this whole time.

Lol, ignoring the countless times you've tried to divert the topic and I've only replied to the ignorant, naive world view you profess.

WOW!!!

I never said that. Ahaha... this is really amazing how you are completely incapable of understanding, let alone replying to, such simple points.

It was implied. You basically repeated the world idiots and idiocy in a sentance, then went on to critize liberals. It's not hard to draw the connection. Regardless, you made a similar generalization that all liberals hate America. What BS. I can't believe you actually believe this stuff. Even if I misread your post, how many times have you misread mine? I would go back and count, but that's just a waste of time. Your posts are filled with hypocrtical ad hominems like this.

---

At 9/7/08 10:40 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/7/08 10:17 AM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/6/08 10:16 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
I think you pretty much proved his point.

Winning isn't everything.

Repeating idiotic cliches like a parrot, nice tactics. Nevermind the fact that it makes absolutely no sense when talking about a war.

Lol, that's the first time I said that...

Winning in Iraq is incredibly important. Losing it will waste the lives and effort already put in, but in the situation in Iraq, losing will probably end up costing more in the long term. If we lose in Iraq terrorists will have a safe haven there, Iran and Syria will gain influence. Iraq's resources and territory will be used against us, as well as to destabilize the region. The ethnic divisions will flare up again and spread to the rest of the middle east.

As I said in my last post, I perfer to let the families of the dead soldiers decide what is best for there memory. To say what happens in Iraq will spread to the rest of the Middle East is ignoring Iraq's demographics, which are very different that those of the rest of the Middle East (besides maybe Iran).

Our absence there will cause a power vacuum. People who are sworn to our destruction will fill that vacuum. It's not juts about winning or losing for the sake of claiming victory, it's about what will result from either event.

Yah sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

You know it's true.

Same thing as I said before: whatever helps you sleep at night.

The military is useful.

A military is useful, a outrageously expensive military is not.

It's not outrageously expensive considering what it accomplishes and considering we only spend 5% of our yearly income on it. And if we cut spending to our military the usefulness will decrease, all you have to do is look at what happened under Clinton's presidency. Our military got weakened across the board. We all know democrats wish our military was only powerful enough to police our own citizens, but even Clinton had to come to the terms with the fact that the US military was suffering under his presidency when all he could do was launch a few missiles in response to terrorist attacks against the US.

And Clinton is commonly regarded by historians (as in people who know a lot more about the subject then us) as one of our best presidents.

I don't see why the US military should have more responsibilities than the rest of the worl'ds militaries.

You should probably ask the hypocritical, pretentious, self righteous Europeans who you actually think are a good example. Their unwillingness to carry their own weight is part of the reason the US military has such a disproportionate amount of responsibilities.

Lol, that's not stereotyping at all. Europeans arn't all one personality type. No wonder they don't like the US, people like you made it that way.

And percent of GDP doesn't matter: that's still a lot of money down the drain.

No, it's a lot of money that results in tangible, measurable benefit to our country and to several other countries that depend on us.

If this was 1988 I would have agreed. But this 2008, that no longer applies.

Um you only think it doesn't apply because the 20 years between then were peaceful because of the fact that the US military had such dominance. The only reason people think that there is no threat anymore is because they take the relative stability and security for granted instead of realizing that it was the presence of the US military that achieved it in the first place.

I highly doubt Western Europe would have fought each other if the US hadn't been there. But we can never know.

If the US military got weakened as democrats want, our enemies and potential enemies would be emboldened. That's why it seems that the people who hate the US the most always love Democrats so much. You'll never hear someone who wishes the US never existed say they support McCain, but you'll sure as HELL hear people who wish the US never existed say they hope for Obama. Do they say Obama is good for Americans? No. They prefer Obama because he would be good for them and their worldview because they believe/know that an Obama presidency would result in a weaker US and more opportunity for people who previously had to compete against the US to act freely.

Well, if Obama is as good for Americans as the last Democratic president (Clinton) was, I'll be happy.

Kind of like the speech Obama had in Germany. It's funny that he got such a hugely positive reaction from thousands of young Germans who happen to almost universally despise the US.

My uncle is German and he doesn't hate the US. Some Germans like the US, some don't (actually, of all the European countries, Germany probably has the highest population of pro-US people).

Once again, that no longer applies.

Except it does.

Alternate history is foolish.

It's not alternate history, it's a pretty simple historical fact. Everyone knows that it was the US that prevented a Soviet invasion of Western Europe post-WWII. The Europeans allies were incredibly weak after WWII and still are by contrast to the Soviets and modern Russia. We already saw what the Soviets did to countries that weren't protected by the US. Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany etc...

So... I guess the Soviet Union prevented a US invasion of Eastern Europe. Same logic you use.

You have no idea what would have happened if the US hadn't been there, so don't try to predict it.

It's not a prediction, it's a reflection of history. No wonder you have such wacky views, you're so ignorant of history.

I could say the same of you.

Classic fear-mongering.

Rather, classic logic.

Of which you have none.

How are the Russians anymore likely to invade Europe than the US?

Are you serious? You're only proving my point by now pretending as if the Russians are some benevolent harmless power.

You're getting delusional again. I never said Russia isn't harmless, but it's not more harmful than the US.

Exactly: history, not present. We're talking in the present here. Stop trying to divert the subject to past events.

History repeats itself, and the situation that existed back then is very similar to what exists right now. The only difference is that instead of multiple different powers vying against eachother, most of Europe got unified under NATO, then the EU and the stabilizing force this entire time was the US. Currently, the militaries of the EU are in piss poor shape. NATO is an empty shell without the US as well. Were it not for the US, Europe would simply lack the means to defend itself or project power in the world to protect its interests.

The EU projects a lot of power into the world without the help of the US...

Who said you can't critize. You can critize all you want, and I can point out how stupid the critcism is.

Then that means that your criticism consisted entirely of "free speech". You didn't defend the logic of it, you only defended it by saying it is free speech. That was your rebuttal. That's fucking pathetic.

By pointing out that the person was suggesting that liberals shouldn't be allowed to excerise free speech, I debunked his arguement that he was true American and liberals arn't. That's called a debate, where people argue there points civilly. You obviously don't understand it. But that's okay, you'll learn.

Yes, it allows idiots to act like idiots and then defend their idiocy by saying what amounts to "nuh uh, free speech"

Lol, you really arn't very mature are you? Being a liberal doesn't make you stupid. Nor does being a conservative. But, if you're going to go there, I can point out that Obama's (he's a pretty good example of liberal) biggest voting bloc is the highly educated...

---

At 9/7/08 05:43 PM, Pontificate wrote:

At 9/7/08 05:26 PM, CaiWengi wrote: Show me a time in history when democratic communism was in place and the whole world was not against it.

Well firstly the idea of any form of government goes against marxist principles for anything but the short term and secondly Chile enjoyed a period of democratically elected communism in the 70's. I say enjoyed; the economy crashed, inflation soared, the cities starved and the independant press collapsed. Oh and before you accuse the hostility of other nations for the economic collapse it was actually caused by rapid nationalisation which naturally lead to incredible inefficiancy. The cities starved, as always, due to ridiculous agrarian reforms.

I assume you refer to Salvador Allende. For the first year of Allende's term, his economic policies were very sucessful, and the average quality of life of the Chilean soared. However, copper, the main source of income for Chile, lost a lot of value, thus crippling Chile's economy. Exports declined, and food began to rise in cost, negating the raising of wages that had helped the Chilean people. When the price of copper was steady, Allende's economic plans were very succesful. The fall in price of copper was what hurt the Chilean economy, not Allende. This didn't last long though. A military coup d'etat backed by the CIA ousted Allende and forced Chile into a military dictarship till the 1990s.

CaiWengi is kinda right, the ideal form of government is Democratic Socialism. However, I'm no democratic socialist. I don't see it ever becoming a reality anytime soon, but fundamentally it would be the best government for everyone. Good for the people (democracy, freedom, equality), and potentially good for the nation. Problem is, it's unrealistic. Everything is subjective. Depends where the system of government is established, when, how strong the nation was before the government was implemented. Too many x factors to call a single best form of government. Of course, in ideal circumstances, democratic socialism takes the cake, but when are there ever ideal circumstances?

Communism is not a good idea. Personally I favour a small-government, capitalistic democracy with a limited social net to protect (but not suffocate) its citizens from misfortune.

---

At 9/7/08 09:31 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote:

At 9/7/08 09:25 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Also, I don't like it that McCain is shifting to the right to appeal to his base.

But he's a maverick! :P

McCain '04 anyone?

I think you mean McCain '00 (that's 2000, not 1900 ;P) And he used to be a maverick. Notice I said "shift" as in that's not the way it used to be, but he shifted that way.

---

Well, you really should use the search bar, there's like a thousand other topics about this, but I'll reply anyway.

I'm voting for Obama. I've been on the fence till recently. I really hate McCain's VP, the though of her in the White House if McCain kicks the bucket disturbs me greatly (and it's not because she's inexperienced, I believe the experience issue is crap, but because of her position's on the issues). Also, I don't like it that McCain is shifting to the right to appeal to his base. Don't get we wrong, I'm not against conservatism. I'm only really liberal socially. Foreign policy wise I lean to the left, and economically I'm moderate but lean right. But I'm left wondering who McCain is. What are his real positions? Is he the maverick who was willing to challenge both parties that I once liked so much, or is he this new, generic right-wing Republican?

But I won't spend the whole post criticizing McCain (I was just explaining why I'm not on the fence anymore). I agree with Obama on Iraq and most social issues. However, I favor McCain's plans on energy and the economy, which is a subject I think Obama shows ignorance towards. I also don't like that Obama has changed some of his liberal stances on social issues to appeal to the religious. Still, I side with Obama on the social and foreign policy issues, and some of the economic issues (like universial healthcare), so I'll be voting for him come November. Of course, considering I'm a dual Canadian-American citizen, I'll have to focus on the Canadian election (which is October 13th) for now...

---

At 9/7/08 07:14 PM, Del-Toro wrote:
Stuff

I agree with everything you said exept this:

Of course I do believe you should never just give up or all those lost will have died in vain.

I think we
should listen
to the families
of the soldiers

about how to best honor their memory.

---

At 9/7/08 05:24 PM, fuzzles1992 wrote: one very big post here is the 'science vs religion' post.

if you have no clue what this post contains then here it is long story short:

two sides constantly bickering over whether or not there is a god.

the atheists are oppressive in their views and see the religious as inferior idiots.

How? All I've seen is atheists stating their views and arguing in favor of them. Am being oppressive in my views if I say "Obama 08" or "McCain 08" and then defend why I support that candiate. Of course not. It's called debating. That's what this forum is for.

on the other hand ,the religious are easily offended (too easily) and instead of ignoring what is said on them ,they feel that they HAVE to retaliate.

More generalizations. What's wrong with retaliating? There's absolutely nothing wrong with defending your views.

sometimes this is even the otherway round!

Okay...

read:this only applying to those who participate in the argument

Okay, it applies to me then I suppose.

the fact is that the argument can never truly end and that all beliefs (including atheism) are incredibly unlikely to be true.

Some people don't agree that all beliefs are incredibly unlikely to be true, what's wrong with them arguing that.

by that i mean that a certain deity specifically worshipped is unlikely to exist

Okay.

but then of course it is unlikely that existence popped out of nowhere

Which is what the religious people say.

really ,the only beliefs that should be disliked are those that directly opress others

Kinda like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and pretty much every other religion, besides maybe Buddhism.

You still have yet to show me that atheism is just as unlikely as the other beliefs.

thank you for readiing

Your welcome.

reply and tell me what you think.

I did.

---

What do you mean by "best"? Best for the people, best for the economy, most succesful? Dictatorships can be good for the country (like it improves the economy or global influence or something), but bad for the freedom of the people.

---

I don't know if someone has already mentioned this (the quote gets tossed around a lot, sometimes quite stupidly) but Ben Franklin said:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Well there you go. Your giving up the liberty of Muslims to obtain temporary safety (it is only temporary, as the terrorists will eventually find a way to get around it). You deserve neither liberty, nor safety, so haha.

---

At 9/7/08 03:03 PM, homor wrote:
thats "YOU'RE" you idiot.

'That's "YOU'RE" you idiot.' would be the correct way of saying that...

---

At 9/6/08 10:16 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
I think you pretty much proved his point.

Winning isn't everything.

Translation: "I want out country to lose, but in order to hide my true beliefs, I'm going to pretend that I'm actually concerned about people's lives even though if we are defeated those lives will be wasted".

Yah sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

The military is useful.

A military is useful, a outrageously expensive military is not.

Because the US military has more responsibilities than the rest of the world's militaries combined. Still though, it's only about 5% of our GDP that we are spending every year.

I don't see why the US military should have more responsibilities than the rest of the worl'ds militaries. And percent of GDP doesn't matter: that's still a lot of money down the drain.

They depend on the US. They live under a blanket of protection provided by the US.

If this was 1988 I would have agreed. But this 2008, that no longer applies.

Because of the presence of the US military.

Once again, that no longer applies.

so why spend outrageous amounts on something that isn't really all that helpful.

It is really helpful, and pointing to Europe as an example is just about the dumbest thing you can do considering how dependent they are on the US. The reason they can have low military spending is because they are not carrying the weight of their defense. In absence of the US, things in Europe would be much different. Either the Europeans would have had to dramatically increase their defense spending, or they'd have crumbled by the hands of the Soviets/Russians a long time ago.

Alternate history is foolish. You have no idea what would have happened if the US hadn't been there, so don't try to predict it. Classic fear-mongering. How are the Russians anymore likely to invade Europe than the US?

In fact, looking at Europe's history, it's a surprise that western European countries haven't started going to war with each other since WWII. A large US military presence, and a military alliance that the US is the foundation of is what has allowed Europe to be stable and to avert another European war.

Exactly: history, not present. We're talking in the present here. Stop trying to divert the subject to past events.

What a cop out! So since they have free speech we can't criticize what they say, just because it's free speech? So only leftists have the right to free speech and free expression to the point that they can say anything and be as unpatriotic and treasonous as they want without anyone being able to say anything about it? Notice how you managed to make two completely hilarious fucking oxymorons?

Who said you can't critize. You can critize all you want, and I can point out how stupid the critcism is. That's the wonder of free speech.

- Leftists hate the foundations of the US, and our military, which are what PROVIDE them the free speech that they abuse to convey that hate in the first place.

Once again, if thinking that helps you sleep, then fine, but you still have yet to provide anything that would make that even remotely true.

- You use free speech as a shield to make liberals immune from criticism, and in the process you are basically being guilty of the very same thing you're accusing people who make that criticism. Not only is criticizing someone's beliefs not violating their free speech, but if it was, then you'd be doing the same thing.

Once again you make something up. I never said liberals should be immune from critism. I was critizing the critcism.

I guess someone can just say "FREE SPEECH!" to get out of defending their views.

Lol, because I'm not defending my views right now right.

The use of what you would call torture HAS saved lives by getting information that led to the capture of terrorists and prevention of terrorist attacks.

Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was waterboarded, and the information that he gave that he otherwise wouldn't have given was incredibly useful.

Link, then I'll totally believe. I'll change my position if you can provide a reliable source. There's no shame in admitting your wrong, IF you are actually proven wrong.

You can't negotiate with people whose goal is first and foremost to kill you above anything else. Not trying to appease them and negotiate with them is not being unwilling to listen, it's called simple logic. Negotiating with terrorists only gives them a huge propaganda boost and a means to extort.

Yet you have clearly stated before that your goal is to kill everyone of them. How is that any different then them wanting you kill us? I don't see how it gives them a proganda boost: quite the opposite, it might make those not fully devoted to their cause or those who are considering joining but haven't have second thoughts about the "evil US".

Saying things are wrong with your country when they aren't actually wrong, and when you're motivated by hate and disloyalty rather than an actual objective quest to make things right, is bad.

Bullocks. How are liberals anymore hateful or disloyal to there country than conservatives: you have yet you explain. All I see is another idiot spouting consipiracy theories about how liberals hate there country: you're no different than the 9/11 consipracy theorists.

Hating your country is fucking retarded.

Good think I don't hate my country.

Patriotism does not mean blind loyalty. You can be patriotic due to a logic and reason, because you can be proud of actual measurable achievements of your country, its current policies, and its position in the world. Patriotism is usually a result of thankfulness and appreciation rather than just pride.

Yet you would say that people shouldn't be allowed to critize your country at all. Seems like blind loyalty to me.

You seem to be the one not using your brain because you're anti-patriotic, you hate your country and at the same time you're continuing to live in it and benefit from it. That's called biting the hand that feeds you.

Is that what you really think? You really are quite delusional...

If you fundamentally despise the country you live in you really should leave because by continuing to live in it you're contradicting your own words. That would be like a 30 year old man living with his parents while simultanously professing hatred for them, for everything they stand for, saying the house sucks, the food sucks, and that everything about it sucks.

More delusions. You should go see a doctor or something. I don't know what wrong with you, but something isn't quite working up there in the noggin.

Being born in the US may make you a US citizen but you're not really an American if you despise everything about the country. If you only identify as American because you were physically born there, but you are ideologically opposed to the US, you're not an American.

Because critizing a single aspect of the country (it's foreign policy) automatically means you despise it? How illogical.

AHAHAHA... do you have ANY idea how hypocritical you are?

Ad hominem much?

When he said that liberals hate the foundation of our country you defended it by mentioning free speech as if his criticism was violating free speech.

When did I say that? More delusions.

Now you say he's pissing on the memory of the founding fathers? You apparently think only liberals deserve free speech.

And you think only conservatives deserve free speech. I doubt you actually believe that, but by your logic it's true.

Yet.. you don't find nothing hypocritical about using a right that is provided to you by the foundations of this country and the military, yet you take a stance against both?

No, "I don't find nothing" wrong with it, considering I haven't yet taken a stance against this country.

Don't forget to take your meds before you post, or else the delusions can be rather unpleasant.

---

Now the fact that all you people believe that abortions are wrong is fine and dandy, but the fact that we are even having this discussion about if a fetus is a baby or not proves my earlier point: an abortion law is unjust. Why? Because not everyone agrees when life begins. Those that believe life begins at conception are a minority, but an abortion law would force that minority viewpoint on the majority. Is that really fair? Of course not. So whatever your personal views on abortion are, an abortion law is fundamentally unjust.

---

At 9/6/08 02:50 AM, RadioactiveRabbit wrote: People like you call for our nations defeat in places like Iraq through withdrawal and spout propaganda to create dissent.

So what if we are "defeated" in Iraq. I'd rather lose the war than sacrifice more lives.

You wish the cut funding for the military.

To spend money on things that are actually useful. America spends more on it's military than the rest of the world combined. What about all those European countries that spend next to nothing on their military: they haven't been invaded or conquered, so why spend outrageous amounts on something that isn't really all that helpful.

Many extreme leftists truly hate the foundations that the US government is comprised of.

By exercising freedom of speech and expression?

You wish to protect the rights of terrorists over the lives of people.

Yah, sure. How is not wanting to torture captured terrorists sacrificing the lives of people?

You wish to bring peace and understand to fanatics who will never listen or try to negotiate.

You call them fanatics who will never listen or try to negotiate, but at the same time you refuse to listen to the opinion of others and won't even try to negiotate. How hypocritical.

Very few of your kind are proud to be Americans in the first place, so how is it even an insult?

Realizing what's wrong with your country is good, not bad. Patriotism is fucking retarded. You didn't choose or work towards the country you were born in, why be proud of it and just going along with everything it says, instead of using your brain. Or do you not have one?

So really, what would make someone on the left an American?

Um...the fact that they were born in America, just like you.

Your the anti-American. By saying stuff like this your pissing all over the memory of the Founding Fathers and the Consitution.

---

At 9/6/08 04:41 AM, GallitoMix wrote: Beware of these "changes, changes, changes!" speeches pronounced by Obama that often don't have any substance. Make sure to know for real what those changes that Obama talks about are.

In 1917, Russians wanted a change.

Yah, and they ended up better afterwards. Believe it or not, the Soviet Union wasn't any worse than Tsarist Russia. Almost immediatly after the revolution, standard of living increased. And they were no less free. Tsarist Russia could be considered a lot more oppresive than the USSR, considering the USSR was the first country to give woman equal rights, the first country to allow divorce, and the first country to allow abortions (whenever you agree with them or not, that's still freedom), not to mention the end of anti-Jewish pograms.

In 1922, Italians wanted a change.

I don't know enough about fascist Italy to argue.

In 1933, Germans wanted a change.

And the Nazis ended a deep depression and improved the quality of life for all Germans. So, for the German people it was a very good change, except for the Jews. Not gonna deny that was terrible, but the election of the Nazis wasn't completely bad for the Germans.

In 1959, Cubans wanted a change.

Fidel Castro was a lot better than the military dictator (forget the name) that came before him. You do know how much they love Castro in Cuba don't you? If they had democratic elections in Cuba every year since the revolution, Castro would have won them all, and you can't blame the Cubans for liking a guy that improved there quality of life so much.

In 1979, Iranians wanted a change.

A change from an authoritarian monarchy to Islamic theocracy. To us, they both look pretty bad, but if you ask the Iranian people, there sure as hell gonna pick the Islamic theocracy. Both were/are pretty brutal dictatorships, but at least one represents the will of the majority of the population.

All the "changes" you've listed so far may not have been good for us in the West, but they were good for the majority of the population of the countries you mentioned.

So please, ask Obama what his changes are all about. Its your right as citizens to know them specifically, so that you can cast a responsible vote in these upcoming elections.

You know, I can't understand how people can be so stupid as you be ranting and raving about how Obama hasn't told us what he's gonna do, then a few minitutes later bash his policies on Iraq, healthcare, taxes, abortion, social security, and energy. Obama policies are no less clear than McCain's. Just because he focuses on a slogan a lot of time, doesn't mean anything. People don't like Bush. They want change. So by appealing to that, Obama is just running an effective campaign. He is winning, after all. Slogans are slogans, he's not trying to hide a sinister motive behind it.

---

At 9/6/08 06:23 AM, Enishi wrote: I think that abortion is wrong. I think if a mother is raped or there is danger to the mother she should be able to have one. But not being responsible and having an abortion is wrong. Morally. But in this country women do currently have the right. I believe that it is between a woman and god/deity. If a oman can be a slut and kill her child she will be punished for it. I dont see how abortionists sleep at night but that is between them and god/deity.

Because most of them (abortionalists) don't believe in a god/deity. I agree with them. Who are you to force your beliefs on me?

I think that people should use adoption as a method of getting rid of a child rather then sucking it out through a tube. As far as people saying birth control kills babies. It doesnt if you are on a normal dosage. My girlfriend and I had a very emotional time because she is on a very low dose of birth control just used to regulate her monthly. So me and her had sex I used a condom but it broke. She kept feeling odd after a couple weeks and she thought she was pregnant the month after hving sex she took a test it said negative. She started thinking she was pregnant but didnt know but she started being irregular and other stuff im not going to go into.Well she still kept feeling weird and when she went to her female doctor the doctor told her she had a miscarriage and was about 2 and a half months pregnant. The low dosage of birth control she was on caused her to have a miscarriage. We was both very upset because had we of known she was pregnant she would have stopped taking the bc. Thats one reason why it makes me sick because irresponsible sluts can go have their kid thrown away.

Who are you to judge. I hate it when people try to pin abortions on "sluts". You don't know the circumstances, maybe there married and they just don't want a baby. Maybe this is there first time and they hadn't learned proper safe sex proceeders. Don't make bullshit generalizations about people that have abortions, you don't know them, stop judging them.

But a couple that wouldnt mind to have a baby but was just being safe has to feel emotional pain like that. Now though my gf off her bc but still we using protection hoping it doesnt malfunction but if it does we are both finanically stable enough.

Now I respect your view. I don't hold it, but I respect it, but why should everyone have to adhere to your view. You believe an abortion is wrong...why? Because you don't want to kill the baby, right? But what if I only believe a baby is fully alive when it's born? Why should you stop me from killing something that I don't even believe if fully alive? To your earlier point, why should I have to answer to your God/Deity, if I don't even believe in God? See how illogical that is.

Think of it like this: a ban on abortion is taking away consituational rights: freedom of expression, freedom of speech (more like freedom of thought, not really literally freedom of speech), and freedom of religion. Why? Because a ban on abortion stops us from voicing are opinion: that babies are only alive at birth, or whatever other reason you don't feel an abortion is wrong. And why do some people feel abortion is wrong? Because of the church. So there goes a freedom of religion, because we're being forced to adhere to a Judeo-Christian value we don't nessicarily hold. Now, I don't believe there's anything wrong with having a Christian view on abortion, but pro-life people are a minority. And allowing a minority to force it's views on the majority is wrong.

---

It's plainly obvious what this is an analogy for. Rudi Giulliani made a point of something I've been thinking for days: if Sarah Palin was a man, would the media be asking the same question if she was a man (and I refer to the question about if she'll be able to take care of 5 kids while VP)? Of course not. But to say the Democrats are doing it is even more stupid. The media and the Democratic Party are different things. Last I checked, Barack Obama or Joe Biden haven't said anything about it, so why blame Obama and his Democrats. The media's a bitch, but they do what they have to do get viewers. It's capitalism.

---

At 9/5/08 06:04 PM, anottakenusername wrote:

At 9/4/08 11:06 PM, OMFGZOMBIES wrote: Science is good, but i need to know what this science will accomplish before I would like to take the chance of everyone dying if it will cure every disease or stop global warming or some such thing sure why not, but if all it's supposed to do is look at some more stars in the sky then no, I Like living. though I'm not sure I'm good with it at any point.

Lol. Another genius who thinks global warming is real. No offense but if you did enough research you'd know how absurd the idea of global warming is. I'd tell you to read books more often but that's too hard for most. God forbid you go to a library.

Lol. Another genius still in denial. No offense, but if you did enough research you can see almost all scientists, besides a few on the fringe, actually believe in global warming. But I guess you know more than the majority of the scientific community don't you. Probably because you go to the library so much (I go once a week, how about you?) and check out books by some discredited fringe scientists who care more about making a political point than real science and research. God forbid you actually believe that nonsense.

---

I don't believe there's anything wrong with being pro-life, but why force your views when life begins on others? That's espicially true when you consider those pro-life people are a minority. If I believe life begins at birth, and you believe life begins at conception, why should you be able to stop me from getting rid of something I don't even believe is "alive"? That's nothing more than forcing your personal opinion on others

---

The US was not the only ally in World War II. The war would have been lost had the US not intervened on the side of the Allies, but if Hitler hadn't made a dumbass desicion to invade the USSR against all logic, the Allies would have lost even if the US joined the fight. If the UK had kept on appeasing Hitler like they did before France was invaded, the war would have been lost, even if the US tried to defeat Germany and Japan. WWII was a joint effort between the allied powers. And saying the US ended the war is complete bullshit. The US wasn't the only one that stormed Normandy, the UK did that too, and they did as much to liberate France as the US. Really, the USSR won the war in Europe. They captured Berlin, they liberated the majority of German occupied land. The US won the war in the Pacific, but even there they had help, like the Chinese fighting against the Japanese in China, or the British fighting the Japanese in Southeast Asia. Maybe they didn't contribute to the direct defeat of Japan, but they drained resources and men that could have been defending the Japanese occupied Islands.

On the other historical subject your discussing, the Revolutionary War, all that sugarcoated crap about the nice little Americans and George Washington chopping down some cherry trees is bull. The colonists were known to tar and feather loyalists, aswell as publically excute them. Technically, weren't the Son of Liberty the terrorists of that age aswell? If you look at it in a different lense, you could come to that conclusion.

---

I think abortion should be a woman's choice. Considering different people have different beliefs about when life begins, it shouldn't be anyone's job to tell other people when their baby is alive. While those who believe life begins at conseption. Based on a CBS/New York times opinion poll (with a 4% margin of error): 39% of the total population believe abortion should be generally available, 38% believe it should be available, but with stricted limits than now, and 22% believe it should not be permitted. Another CBS poll showed 31% believe it should be allowed in any case, 16% thought it should be permitted but with higher restrictions, 30% said it should be permitted only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the woman's life, 12% believe it should be permitted only to save the woman's life, and 5% thought it should never be permitted. Meanwhite, in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 66% believe it should be legal in the first trimester, 25% in the second trimester, and 10% in the third trimester. A Harris poll revealed 49% support Roe v Wade, while 47% oppose it. A CNN poll found 45% of people polled considered themselves "pro-choice", while 50% considered themselves "pro-life". The most recent poll was done by Gallup, which produced the results that 49% consider themselves "pro-choice", while 47% consider themselves "pro-life".

Now that I'm done boring you with polls, does such uneven distribution of opinions warrent laws restricting abortion? It's unfair to restrict anyone to the moral views of a minority. I'd prefer people be allowed to make their own choice, rather than have a certain group's cultural and moral views be forced upon them.

---

This whole thing about which party is more racist is a extremely stupid pissing contest. The Republican Party was founded on the premise of abolishing slavery, which it did, and gave blacks voting rights and citizenship. But the Democratic Party, lead by LBJ, got rid of segregation. The Democrats are the ones that support affirmitive action today, which is why people get the stupid idea that Democrats are any less racist than Republicans. But at the same time, Republicans can hardly claim they are the ones that represent minorities more because of Lincoln, who was a big government liberal, hardly in line with the modern Republican Party. Point is, both parties care about minorities, they just go about it in a different way. Democrats want to use government-sponsered programs to lift inner-city impoverished minorities out of poverty, while Republicans want to encourage greater self-reliance so the impoverished minorities can lift themselves out of poverty without government's help. The myth that one party is more racist than the other is flaming heap of bullshit.