1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 1/21/08 05:24 AM, KupaMan wrote: No, I think it's just because he's black.
If Barack Obama was white, he would never have made it to the Senate. He is an unimpressive nobody who has nothing to his name except "hope". Were he not black, we'd laugh him off the stage as a presidential candidate.
At 1/21/08 05:31 AM, Ravariel wrote: But look at movies like Requiem for a Dream and Irreversible. Would either of those films been as powerful without their rape scenes (ignoring for the moment that RfaD's one was sorta consensual)? Irreversible's scene was starkly disturbing... not at all arousing. RfaD's scene(s) were tainted with drugs and a sense of spiralling out of control.
I'll be flat out honest. I didn't make it very far into Requim for a Dream. It was boring, poorly written, and terribly directed. After half an hour of hearing a constant dream beat, terrible dialogue and mediocre acting (I liked almost all the actors in the movie, so it was teh script, not them), I gave up and conceded that Requiem was a movie that people liked because it was different...not good.
I've never heard of Irreversable.
Other movies, that hit a little closer to the topic of children in sexual scenes, like Kids, Bully and Ken Park all (with of-age actors, though an underage theme) have depictions of underage sex... some of it is pornographic (Ken Park)... some is horrifying (Kids). Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of any of those movies, and the scenes therein... but I doubt the stories would be as complete if all of the sexual scenes were only implied. There can be artistic merit in graphic depicted sex... it's just hard to do convincingly.
I've never heard of either of those either. Looking them up, they seem to be in the mold of "HOLY CRAP! It's different and I have no clue what's going on! This is GENIUS!"
At 1/21/08 04:21 AM, fli wrote: Wait a sec.
You cannot condemn the movie as simple pedo smut with out know its artistic and political merits.
One of the best movies and books I have seen which brought tears into my eyes was Mysterious Skin... and it's hardly a pedo's fantasy film. (It's about two boys who got sexually abused by their coach.)
I know zip about "Mysterious Skin". Did it have a nice several minute scene of the boys crying while their coach raped them?
I've seen several movies about rape that made me feel teh victims pain. Not a single one delved into the rape itself. Everytime I've seen a movie about rape that shows it, I've always felt as though the director is trying to sexualize or glamorize it.
At 1/21/08 03:20 AM, CaptainPoncho wrote: Well, it's pretty obvious you don't follow politics but I guess I'll allow you to absorb some of my wisdom while you're still learning.
Yea, I don't follow politics.....RIIIIIIGHT. You don't have any wisdom.
At 1/21/08 03:02 AM, WolvenBear wrote:All his plans are laid out in great detail in this long PDF file. If you have any questions about his plans I can explain them to you so you don't have to recite talking points in place of facts.
He claims he has no dealings with lobbyists, which is a clear lie.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl es/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_wi th_lobbyists/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl es/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_o bamas_rise/
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lobb yists-on-obamas-08-payroll-2007-12-20.ht ml
Yawn, after page 12, I was bored. He is proposing nothing that is either
a. not already in place
b. new.
But hell let's look more at it. I'm bored anyways.
UHC cannot be achieved by a partnership between the gov't and the industry. Obama is the only candidate who doesn't get this. People will choose to opt out. A purely voluntary program will not guarantee ME a plan. (I'm 24 and won't buy one even if it's 5 bucks a month,)
"I won't give taxc breaks to companies that give jobs away."
Um, yes he will. He doesn't have a choice. There's not a single thing he can do about it. Jobs sent out of country don't pay taxes. Sending a jo0b out of country IS...a tax break.
Taxes. He will lower payroll taxes, even as he...raises other taxes. The average American will pay more in taxes. GREAT.
Why did I say Obama doesn't have a plan? Oh right...he doesn't.
Promising=/= having a plan.
Huckabee? Source? Every time Paul said this in the debates, Huckabee argued with him. I'm going to call this as a lie unless you source this.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/h uckabees_middle_east_policy.html
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101fa essay87112/michael-d-huckabee/america-s-
priorities-in-the-war-on-terror.html
"The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.
American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists. "
If only we weren't so arrogant! And more modest!
Romney isn't pro-choice. He used to be, but he stated that he made a mistake and is now pro-life.
And Guilliani says he'll appoint Constitutionalist judges. I look at record, not rhetoric.
Romney used to be pro-gay marriage, but he changed his opinion on that as well.
Having signed gay marriage into law....see above.
Paul is the most small-govt Republican running. He wants to eliminate basically every major govt. organization. I'll assume you just forgot him.
No, I look at people who have reduced government. Paul has never done that. Paul has voted against every bill (that I am aware of) that reduces the size of government. He voted against welfare and social security reform. He is the only "constitutionalist" who has EVER voted against decreasing gov't.
Both counts where you used Romney were blatantly wrong (where are you getting facts about this guy), and I'm 99% sure you're wrong about Huckabee as well, and you didn't make a very strong case otherwise except on two issues.
I didn't go into detail. But both of my examples of Romney are correct.
If David Duke came out tomorrow and said "I love black people, vote for me!" no one would ignore his decades of white supremecy. Yet you demand I ignore Romney's record and focus on his BS "I love fetuses" talk.
At 1/21/08 03:57 AM, CaptainPoncho wrote: You can not be a Christian and still believe in God.
Of course you can.
Jefferson along with many others were deists but were not christians. I'll give you a chance to give me new arguments now that I've stated this, because you've given me quotes from Jefferson indicating that he believes in a God, but not that he is a Christian. Jefferson believing in God does not make him a Christian.
I never claimed Jefferson was Christian. Your claim is that the founding fathers were all hostile to Christianity. I definitively proved that false...including with Jefferson.
At 1/21/08 03:34 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: The idea of the separation of church and state completely disallows a certain religion from imposing its belief system on others via authority of the government. If Huckabee followed through with what he said, he'd be doing just that, he'd be tying religious authority and governmental authority into single authority... thus creating a rudimentary theocracy.
While we can agree that letting Huckabee decree what is and isn't constitutional is bad...that hardly addresses my point. The 1st amendment was made to protect Christianity. It was a wholey religious amendment.
It forbids a religious influence to the exclusion of others.
No, it doesn't.
Religion A says slavery is ok. Religion B says it's not. Amendments 13-15 outlaw slavery. They are not unconstitutional just because religion A is excluded.
This would be forcing Americans who don't believe in the Bible, and/or disagree with the Evangelical interpretation of it, to be subject to a nation whose highest authority... the constitution, is changed to favor and reflect the beliefs of a single religion. And this is would be an ATROCITY given the fact that this very constitution formerly protected people from that very situation.
That's highly speculative. It would depend on the changes made. As teh Christian bible amended much of the old, I can't think of any part of Christian doctrine that (if made law) would infringe anyone. I'm unconvinced.
Just because Christians were the ones who thought it up doesn't mean it is exclusive to, or proprietary to Christianity.
Sure it does. If you design a kickass car and I copy that car, it doesn't mean that you weren't the reason my car got designed.
The 1st Amendment was basically designed to protect minority religions from the majority, by preventing the majority from using government power to consolidate religious power, or vice versa. So the way of going about this is to prevent the government from giving preference to any religion.
No. The 1st amendment was designed to keep the federal government out of establishing a state religion. One only has to look at the fact that almost all of teh original colonies had official state religions to confirm that the law was meant to keep a single uniform religion from dominating.
Personally, I like the fact that no state can establish an official religion, but this was clearly not the intent of the law.
If we were to change the constitution today to favor a certain religion, we'd be giving preference to, and governmental authority to a certain religion.
IF we named a specific religion as right. If we said (just for the sake of argument) that Christians had it all right...which ones? The Lutherans? The Episcopalians? The Catholics?
Hell it gets even worse, if we say teh bible is law...that means that BOTH Jews and Christians are ok. And even, by inference, Islam. By no correct interpretation of the 1st would this be unconstitutional.
That would be irony and hypocrisy of the HIGHEST caliber.
Except nothing you said would be codified into law. You're being melodramatic.
If that were true, that wouldn't mean that Christians are entitled to take away those very rights from other religions within our country just because it was Christians who proposed the idea. It doesn't mean Christians can impose Christian influence on the country through the constitution to such a degree as making it fit the Bible, just because there was minor Christian influence on the constitution before.
And no one has proposed any such thing. In fact, looking at Huckabees record, the only "freedom" taken away would be abortion. If anything, laws would become more lenient under Huckabee, not less. And the tax code would icrease, to take care of the poor, you know. Nothing different than your everyday liberal.
No, it's really not. Religious beliefs influenced the individuals that founded this country, some of them, not all of them. But they were enlightened in their religion, they never intended to model the country to be Christian, and they didn't do this.
All of the founders praised Christian beliefs (even Jefferson). The country was undoubtable Christian. Out of the 13 original colonies, (I believe) 10 had official religions. And everything they put into our system of gov't was Christian in nature.
We are not modeled after Christian beliefs, we are not a Christian nation. We are a secular country whose founders and current population are predominantly Christian, but with varying interpretations...
Bunk. We are a clearly Christian nation that didn't decide upon a national Christian religion. If 300 Jews decide to make a government on Jewish principles, but don't agree on everything...it's still a Jewish gov't. Same thing here.
That violates the 1st Amendment, period.
Perhaps you missed something here. The first half of the Bible is Jewish. So by "governing by the Bible", we STILL aren't favoring a single religion. And it doesn't violat the spirit of the 1st.
There are AMERICANS in THIS COUNTRY that do not believe in either the Torah or the New Testament. There are people who have their own religious texts or simply want nothing to do with any religion whatsoever.
So? Does this have a point?
They are entitled to every right that you have. This means that you would be violating their 1st Amendment rights, and be defiling the constitution, if you were to change the constitution in order to fit YOUR belief system, and YOUR religious text.
First, it would depend on what I changed. If I outlawed scientology or Kabbalhism...then ok...
If I didn't outlaw a religion, or try to inhibit it, then I'm not violating the first. You can try to rationalize this, but you're simply wrong.
I think you're misinterpreting it, or rather completely disregarding the universal interpretation of it.
The "universal" (there is no such thing) interpretation, that religion can have no influence on government is clearly wrong and cannot survive even the most basic scrutiny.
In fact, I'd have no problem with another armed revolution in this country if Huckabee became president and actually tried to pull some shit like that. The idea that some Baptist minister wants to change our constitution to fit HIS beliefs, that's grounds for a fucking overthrow. And I'm sure the framers of the constitution would agree.
The constitution cannot be changed without 2/3rd approval. So your minority opinion would trump the majority? What BS.
At 1/21/08 03:23 AM, CaptainPoncho wrote: The founding fathers felt the same way about Christianity (all by Jefferson):
Absolute fantasy:
Washington was a religious man who tended to be positive towards Christianity, but who had no problems with other faiths.
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. "
John Adams:
"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity...I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God"
"We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus"
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."
Ben Franklin:
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see..."
"I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did."
"How many observe Christ's birthday! How few, his precepts! O! 'tis easier to keep holidays than commandments."
While Franklin was not a devout Christian he believed Christianity was a beautiful thing. And he often railed that the Christian had no desire to follow the doctrine.
Jefferson too had deeply religious quotes. This mixes with the fact that he went to Church regularly:
They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Even in condemning Christianity, he admits there is something special about the gospels. While he doesn't believe it all, as he says, there is something to be salvaged from the texts...a remarkable man:
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
Indeed Jefferson has a phrase I have often used myself since I found it a year ago (and I used a similar idea before it):
I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. "
indeed, Jefferson was harsh in his treatment of the Church...going so far as to call their tenets athiesm:
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.
Quoting Jefferson as an athiest is absolute bunk. To be critical of Christians is not to be athiest. Otherwize I am an athiest myself. Jefferson at the very least is a diest, and, more accurately, is a Christian who believed in the teachings, but not the divinity, of Christ.
No one has ever gone through the teachings of Marx and cut out a few passages here and there. Jefferson was an avid Christian who just couldn't accept that Christ was teh son of God.
At 1/21/08 02:23 AM, FatherTime89 wrote: Can you give me a good reason why we shouldn't? Besides knowing Hollywood there's no way in hell it would be real semen, probably just milk mixed with something.
No one's arguing it would be real semen. The argument "why not" isn't much of an argument. But what the hell, here's several different reasons.
On a societal basis, it cheapens us to use children as sexual objects for any reason. The squirt gun thing isn't that bad really, but having a child perform semi-sexual acts debases us societally.
We have a number of children who have performed in these sorts of scenes, and as we've seen in nearly all of their cases (there may be a case I'm unfamiliar with), it causes trauma.
Artistically, it's tacky. Rape scenes are pornographic in nature. They bring absolutely nothing to the table. You can show that rape is happening without having to focus 5 or 6 minutes on it. The same way that sex can be shown without nudity (two kissing people walking in a room and a shirt flying out the door), rape can be implied without being graphic.
In the same way that movies like Wolf Creek and Hostile have turned watching murder into an almost joyfull experience, that seems to be what they're doing here too with rape. Instead of the Old movies like Halloween, which implied the death without being gory, we can imply sex without being shown it. It cheapens the act to make audiences vouyers to it.
At 1/21/08 01:44 AM, CaptainPoncho wrote: Obama's change isn't about policies as much as ending the politics of fear and partisanship.
Obama is a hallmark card. He has no plans.
Besides that, all the Republicans except McCain and Paul are running nearly identical platforms to Bush. Clinton is running a frighteningly similar policy position to that of bush. The only candidates that have proposed radically different ideas are:
Or...not. Except for Thompson and Paul, all are more liberal than Bush.
The differences are legion, but here's a few:
Huckabee and Paul believe out foreign policy is to blame for 9/11.
Romney and Guilliani and McCain are all pro-choice, pro-stem cell.
Romney, Guilliani, are ok with gay marriage,
Thompson is the only guy for smaller government.
Guilliani, Thompson, Paul have all put forward dramatic tax cuts instead of small 1% drops.
None of the candidates are Bush. They're all dramatically different from him and each other. Those who see them all as identical are looking through the Dem prism which makes them stupid.
At 1/21/08 01:37 AM, TheMason wrote: Now...I will grant you that you did not limit the Bill of Rights to a direct comparison to the ten commandments. However, you did link it to Christianity with no mention of European legal principles or issues with the English crown.
Which were ALSO based on Christianic principles.
And yes Thomas Jefferson used the quote "all men created equal"...however this is the President who spent time cutting and pasting (literally) the Bible so that it was more rational and made more sense (in his mind). Furthermore, this is the guy who gave us the notion of "seperation of Church and State".
Which was the idea that the federal government would not establish a national church. Nothing more or less.
We're talking about Republican primaries in states where there are moderates and conservatives when you leave New York, LA and San Francisco. I am absolutely correct to label these states as moderates within the context of primaries/caucuses since I am talking about a specific population rather than the general population.
Meh, there's no real data that I can find to support that. New York and California Republicans are far more liberal than anywhere else in the nation. If we're speaking strictly in terms of Republicans, these are still teh bluest of the blue states.
At 1/21/08 01:40 AM, TheMason wrote: 1) SadisticMonkey's argument had nothing to do with our founding fathers.
2) Many of our founding fathers were Masons. One of the things about Masonry is a tolerance towards the Islamic faith since they are followers/believers in the Abrahamic God. Many where familiar with the Qu'ran and while they did not quote it favorably; this silence should not be taken as a negative view either...
Yea, my bad, I misunderstood him.
And many of our founding fathers had negative things to say about Islam. Adams, Jefferson and Franklin had no illusions about what Islam was.
At 1/20/08 05:16 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: How are they the most important?
If you're basing it on numbers, Islam is more important.
Or not. None of our founding fathers were Muslim. None of our fathers quoted the Quran favorably. What a crock.
At 1/20/08 11:48 AM, TheMason wrote: In sum wolvenbear...I just don't see where you draw a correlation between the ten commandments and the first ten amendments...other than there are ten of them.
I mean sure the 9th Commandment does talk about bearing false witness in court. But court trials and perjury are not things that were at the time unique to the Bill of Rights...but were steeped in European legal traditions. Traditions that, yes are based in part on Christianity...but also upon Greek and Roman influences.
I never said teh Bill of Rights was based on the 10 commandments. I simply said it was based on Christian premises. Some of it is based on European legal code (which itself was from Christian premises). Many were coded because of English abuses of Americans. The religious part of the 1st was codified because of the Church of England. The 3rd was brought up because of the abuses of teh English soldiers. But all this came from the idea that people had rights that came from God not government. Which was my original, and completely understandable, point.
At 1/20/08 03:37 PM, TheMason wrote: Chris, if C-P is talking about in the general election you're right: they're not moderate.
However, if he's talking about during the primaries/caucuses...he's right to call them moderate.
New York and California are teh bluest of the blue states. They're moderate under no definition.
At 1/19/07 12:28 AM, fli wrote: It sounds like a serious movie and from what I'm precieving, such scenes aren't out of context.
Everybody poops. Never see that in a movie. Just because something is in context doesn't mean it needs to be shown graphically. There was a guy who went around with a squirt gun filled with his own semen. He'd then shoot it on underage girls faces. Shall we show that too?
A LOT of people were there, including child protection services, and I'm sensing that it will be shoot in such a way where it doesn't hurt the child actress.
The exorcist screwed Linda Blair up for YEARS. I don't think it will have long term effects for Fanning, but I don't believe for a second that it will have no negative effects.
Although, if I were the producers, they should had used a legally consenting adult who looked like a 12 year old girl as was in the case of Dominique Swank in the 1990s version of Lolita (a love story and abuse of a 12 year old girl.)
Dominique Swan was 15 in Lolita. She was underage. Hardly a consenting adult.
At 1/19/07 12:43 AM, StCyril wrote: But what about if the "wrong" person sees that? What if someone whos a little mentally off sees something like that and gets inspired?
No one has ever seen a movie and said "You know, I've never thought about that before, but bludgeoning a dog to death would be fun!" Movies may give people ideas, but only on the details.
At 1/19/07 04:09 AM, qygibo wrote: Didn't Brooke Shields act in a somewhat similar movie at the age of 12,
Isn't Brooke Shields fucked up now?
At 1/19/07 12:15 PM, Demosthenez wrote: Let me get this straight. You were not sickened enough at the scene where the two children were forced to have child sex to leave and werent to sickened enough at the scene where a baby got blown up to leave, but it was the scene where a limp bag probably filled with potato chips representing a dog was lit on fire.
You and her are both psychotic.
Yea, I can't find fault with that analysis.
At 1/20/08 01:55 PM, morefngdbs wrote: imbecilic rantings
Christianity in the world is incomparable to Islam. I don't know what bug went up your ass, but were it not for Christians, Jews would be a footnote in history. In World War 2, it was Christian armies who stopped the athiest Nazis from exterminating the Jews. Christian Richard Nixon rebuilt teh Jewish army to save Israel from the Muslim hordes.
Pull your idiotic Christian bigotry out of your ass, throw it away, and stop defaming those who share a common cause with you fool.
At 1/20/08 04:44 PM, AIDSextravaganza wrote: i agree about abolishing religion but the religion of Islam speaks of no hate. The followers of Islam peacefully coexisted with christians and Jews for hundreds of years, and even integrated them into their society
it was the instigation of Christian Europe that really changed all of this. The religious documents speak of nothing against the other faiths. They even acknowledge jesus and abraham as prophets.
In today's world, specially in christian nations, they are really brought up to accept one faith or no faith at all. This is where everything goes wrong. It creates a competition between religions. Who is right and who is wrong. let alone the fact that religions ahve been manipulated for personnal gain. No religion was intended to be taken viewed as the only right. Religion is only moral standards, and to give hope to those who have such horrible lives that they need to know their is someting better. this ideal has been lost
That's unmitigated bullshit. Islam, from its inception, was violent. It specifically targeted the Jews as those who have purposefully strayed from Allah (as opposed to the Christians, who have merely been led astray).
Islam preaches plenty of hate. And it was hateful and violent long before Christian Europe tried to put it back in line.
At 1/20/08 06:48 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Violence? No, but political? Yes.
Christians are at the forefront of human rights. There are no Christians causing "political problems" anywhere worth mentioning. As opposed to let's say...athiests...
At 1/20/08 07:43 PM, ForcedDj wrote: Well, I agree, but I heard that their book said that they HAVE TO TOLERATE Christianity and Judaism. So, I don't know how them extremist got the message wrong on the Quran. Still, there are hateful Christians, and some good-natured Muslims.
I heard, that when it rains...God's peeing on us. Doesn't make it true.
At 1/20/08 04:44 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I agree, but there has been quite a bit in Croatia and Northen IReland by Christuans, but no, not matching that of Islam
In Croatia, the violence is back and forth. There is a lot of Muslim violence in Croatia, just as there was Muslim violence in Bosnia and Serbia. But all that was harped on was the Serbs.
Sorry, can you reword that?
Much of what we see as "religious" violence has no basis in religious texts. The Salem Witch trials were based on Backwards fear of the unknown. Lying little girls started a witchhunt that was taken over by greedy landowners who accuse neighbors (who had plots of land they wanted) of being witches. It was an endevor based on superstition and opertunism...not Christian texts.
Not all. Quite a few, but not all.
There is NO mention of jihad as anything except religious warfare before the modern era. The concept was unthinkable that it meant "inner struggle". Jihad was war, and jihad was a part of a Muslims religious duty.
Is there anything about going ape-shit over cartoons of your prophet?
Yes. Notice that the outrage was not over cartoons, but instead over the insult of the prophet Mohammad. Mohammad had two poets in his own time killed for criticizing him: Abu 'Afak and Asma bint Marwan. Many Islamic societies have held that drawing the human body was Haraam (forbidden). There is some Quranic basis for this...tho very scarce.
At 1/20/08 12:21 PM, Redace9544 wrote: What about the great periods in history of the Ottoman and other empires? Sure, they took over other people to get to this, but Christians would have done the same thing if they weren't stuck in the dark ages, unlike the Muslims were. If it wasn't for them, Europe may have never came out of the dark ages. Islam was also tolerant of religions. Did they force other religions of the place where they conquered? No, they didn't. But the Christians did. All they had to do was pay a small tax for wonderous science and medical advances, but instead they decided that pluralism wasn't right, and that the Reconquista had to be done. AND once again, the Muslims conquered them. AND again, they fell. That doesn't mean that they hadn't done any good things while they had ruled. If the Reconquista hadn't been done, the whole world may have been ruled by Muslims, but with the concept of pluralism. That would have been better than all this war over things we don't even know for what we are fighting for. Islam does not convert. Other people convert INTO Islam. Increase your knowledge before you make false theories.
That's a complete whitewash. The Ottoman Empire was completely obsessed with conquest. For near 250 years, from 1326 to 1566, the main goal of the Ottomans was to expand and conquer. They deliberately sought out fleets to attack. It was only after the Death of Suleiman in 1566 that this began to turn back as Europe began to build navies to fight back. Indeed it was Catholic powers that destroyed the Ottoman navy in 1571, leading to the decline of teh empire. And let us not forget that it was teh Ottoman empire who had the first real genocide of the 20th cetnury in Albania.
The Ottomans also had in place the dhimmi system, in which Jews and Christians were second class citizens. It wasn't just that they "paid a tax". They couldn't be witnesses in court and had to obey a variety of rules. The punishments sometimes were as harsh as execution (following the Quranic command that they feel themselves subdued).
There was little developed in the Ottoman empire, as opposed to the Christian world. Most of their advances were in warfare. The Ottoman empire did absolutely nothing to end the Dark Ages, and the Christian armies of Europe did little to expand, despite having the means to. In fact, many of the Dark Ages battles were against the Ottomans who attacked their navies whenever possible.
At 1/20/08 11:16 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:If the words "change", "hope", "dream", and "alternative" were made illegal...Obama would disappear.That is totally innaccurate.
He wouldn't disappear, merely spend the rest of his life in solitary cofinement whilst in exile...
Fine, he wouldn't disappear. He'd just be silent for the majority of his speeches.
"George Bush says things must remain the same. I am for ---. It is time for ---. The government needs to ---. I have --- that my --- for --- in the government is not just a ---, that --- is actually possible in this lifetime. I have the audacity to ---. George Bush, I am the agent of ---."
Crowd: What the hell is wrong with this guy?
Arguing for change in an election where we neither have an incumbant or a VP running is stupid. No matter who wins, we will have a completely different administration with different priorities and goals.
At 1/20/08 04:45 PM, Musician wrote: Alright I'm glad you clarified that however the idea that consciousness starts at 10 weeks is also incorrect. Your link states: The cerebral cortex starts to form at 10 weeks, although at that stage it is isolated from the rest of the brain. I don't know exactly what evidence you're trying to push to pretend that consciousness starts at 10 weeks, but just because the cerebral cortex STARTS to develop at that point doesn't mean it is functional at that point.
Of course it's not fully functional at that point. It's not fully functional at 36 weeks. The human brain continues to develop into our teens.It's not like a switch comes on and everything suddenly works.
In his book "The Ethical Brain", Michael Gazzaniga (a renown neural scientist) claims that there isn't enough neural structure to justify consciousness until around 26 weeks.
A view which is rejected by most neurologists:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht ml?xml=/news/2003/03/10/nfoet10.xml&sShe et=/news/2003/03/10/ixhome.html
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. First of all I did provide a link directly to JAMA, secondly this supports the idea that fetus' cannot feel pain until 26 weeks (that's "so what").
Others disagree:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_book s/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_b oth_14.asp
-Abortion 100% legal before 26 weeks
-Abortion allowed in special circumstances afterwards (like mothers health)
This depends on where we are.
In the UK the limit is 24 weeks.
In the US, as defined under Roe, it's 24 weeks. In reality there is no limit.
You mean a cerebral cortex completely isolated from the rest of the brain and a undeveloped nueral network. Yes to me, and to any real neurologist that should be considered insufficient.
Not quite. It's almost universally accepted that a fetus feels pain by the 20th week. Many doctors feel it starts to feel pain sooner.
At 1/20/08 01:31 PM, Draconias wrote: I ask you all this: why do women usually want to have abortions? Most often, there is either a medical threat to the mother/child, or the mother will not be able to properly care for the child.
Women have abortions because they don't want the child. Her motivations for not wanting the child are irrelevant.
As is her financial situation.
In the first situation, a medical threat, no one can deny that abortion is a necessary freedom. For example, sometimes the child dies inside of the womb, and the mother faces a medical danger from giving birth to a corpse. Anyone who would deny the right for this mother to have the abortion procedures to remove the baby is obviously a cruel, morally unreliable person. There is no possible reason to not allow it in this situation.
There's no one arguing that a woman shouldn't be able to remove a dead baby from her body. And this almost never happens anyway. Straw man much?
At the minimum, though, this establishes the need for abortion procedures to be available, because medical threats do exist and abortion can be necessary to prevent additional harm in impossible-to-fix situations. Thus, the real question is "Shoulid freely-chosen abortion be allowed?"
Abortion has always been available in the case of health of the mother. No bill has ever been introduced that would put such medically neccessary conditions in jeopardy.
Another strawman.
Now, if a mother is considering an abortion, two things are usually true: the mother cannot properly care for the child (hence the consideration), and the mother is willing to kill the baby. As a matter of pragmatism, why should you (a stranger) demand that the child be born in this sort of situation, to a mother who cannot care for the child and who harbors that sort of antipathy toward the child? Even if her feelings change after the birth, you are effectively consigning the child to live a struggling, disadvantaged life for the sake of some petty "moral" nuance. If a mother is not ready for a child, and thus the child is already guaranteed a negative youth environment, your "morals" are only harming the mother and child, and perpetuating negative circumstances like poverty, single parenthood, and ruined lives from early parenthood.
Well, to debate this:
1. The mother's financial situation is irrelevant.
2. After demanding we deal in reality...not potential, you delve into a ridiculous "What if".
3. That life is hard doesn't make it unworthy of continuance. Otherwise we'd just execute the homeless...you know...to make life easier on them.
4. The mother can give up the child. There's no shortage of families who want a baby.
5. The increase in abortion has coincided with higher rates of child abuse, single parent families, welfare states, crime, etc. The evidence that abortion would fix ANY of these problems is not only non-existant...it is counter to what we have learned.
What we, as a society should support, is the best possible youth conditions for our children, the best possible development, and the most upstanding and fulfilled adults. Forcing childbirth when we know the child will be in a negative environment is like intentionally shackling the child to a weight at birth. If a mother wishes a child, and is capable of raising one, it is much better to let her have a child when the most positive environment can be provided, and hence the most capable and successful child can be produced. In this case, it is not a matter of "killing", it is a matter of deferred life-- the child will most likely be born, just at a later time when the mother is better-prepared to raise it. Nothing is being ended, only delayed until it can reach a higher potential.
That's imbecilic. We cannot ensure children have a loving family or that life will be roses. The argument that if we can't make life great for the child that we should just kill it...is among one of the more assinine in the abortion advocate's arsenal.
My counter proposal:
We can't continue paying for people who are unable to find a job. These people obviously have a hard life and we cannot promise things will get better. Other than continue to let them suffer, we should put them down. Furthermore the homeless have it even harder. It's unlikely we can fix their lives, so we should put them down. Those with severe mental problems such as bipolar disorder, OCD, and others will always have to struggle. We should just end it for them. Children who are found in abusive households have had hard lives. It'd obviously be better if we just quietly put them out of their misery. Etc. Etc. Etc.
None of your "morals" look at the reality of the situation, and how important it can be to recognize the reasons behind a mother's choice for an abortion. If you blindly oppose abortion because of your "moral" stance, then you are intentionally ignoring reality in favor of blind ignorance. In some cases, abortion is a necessity. In many others, everyone involved is only harmed by a childbirth, including the child itself; much better then to deger tat child until a later time, when they can grow up in a positive environment. If the mother believes the child can be raised properly, she wouldn't abort it; if she believes that she cannot provide for it and it would thus suffer and live a stunted life, she should not have a child yet. It is our job as "society" to ensure that children grow up in a positive environment, not to force thier birth into a prison life. It is thus our responsibility to recognize the right to abortion when everything will only lead to harm for the child.
No child has ever been harmed by being born.
Theact of abortion should be criminal unless medically neccessary to save a mother's life. THAT is the reality of the situation. You can bullshit your way around the point, but abortion is murder. Your ramblings don't change that.
At 1/19/08 12:03 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: In fact, the VERY FIRST Amendment in the Bill of Rights specifically forbids religious preference:
1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
--------
That would prevent it from being religiously motivated in the first place.
Not hardly. The first amendment prevented Congress from establishing a national church, or making laws which would favor a branch of Christianity over another.
This HARDLY precludes a Christian influence. The first Amendment was made because of those who fled England over the state run church. As such, that part of the 1st is Undeniably Christian in origin.
But please, pray tell, what part of the remaining sound ANYTHING like the 10 Commandments other than the fact that there's 10 of them?
The Bill of Rights was based on the idea that God granted certain rights to the people that could not be abridged by government. Among these were the right to defend oneself (2nd), the right to legal protection in court (4th-8th), the right to property (3rd and 4th),the right to speak ones opinion (1st) and the protection from government in non-specified areas (9th and 10th).
That's fucked up.
Our entire government is formatted on Christian beliefs. I fail to see why that is fucked up.
Other than Huckabee getting to decide...
It depends on what is changed about the constitution, and for what purpose. Our constitution can be changed, but it should not be changed in order to appeal to a single religion, especially when the first first amendment to the constitution, the 1st of the bill of rights, specifically forbids preference to a certain religion.
Christianity is based on Judaism, and most (85% or so) of our beliefs come from Judaism. So it's damn near impossible to claim religious bias when the two most important religions in the world agree on it. Furthermore, claiming the 1st (constitutionally) means you must prove one specific religion (Catholicism, Mormonism, Lutheranism) is to benefit. That is nigh impossible. People misinterpret the 1st so easily.
At 11/15/07 03:37 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The fact of the matter is that violent, horrible people do exist as a result of religion, whether they were the religion's intention or not, and as such should be held fully responsible
I'm sorry, after reading this masterbatory thread to Islam, this was the perfect quote to attack.
Simple facts:
1. No religion in the world today is generating violence on any meaningful scale other than Islam.
2. No religion that exists today can compare to Islam in it's violence.
3. No "religious" violence has ever been predicated on the holy tests of that religion, other than in Islam.
4. No religion has a history built on Militancy, other than Islam.
5. At no point in it's history has Islam ever been interpretted as non-violent.
6. All teh great theologans of Islam see violence as an integral part of the religion.
7. Every injustice we see in the Islamic world has it's origins in the Quran or the Sunnah. There are no exceptions.
Those 7 facts shoot down most of the bull in this thread.
How about we don't elect the schmuck because he's a walking Hallmark card. "Having the audacity to hope" is kickass and all...but it doesn't translate into policy.
If the words "change", "hope", "dream", and "alternative" were made illegal...Obama would disappear.
At 1/19/08 04:54 PM, Imperator wrote: I got yours, and I've agreed with you on certain issues, I've shown that I at a minimum hear the other side out.
You have made it clear, through your own words, that you can do no wrong. You KNOW what's correct, what's "fact".
Of course I do. Between the two of us, I have done hours of research of Paul and you...well, you have no real clue what his record is. I put a whole slew of problems with Paul down. If the AUMF was Paul's only problem, I might overlook it. But his abortion record is all over the map. His refusal to amend social security and welfare leads to teh inescapable conclusion that in his mind (Constitutional=what I like!).
Well if you KNOW what's fact, then I by logic cannot. What's there to debate? Would you rather I just said "I lose by default" and stopped? No, you want me to debate. But debate what? If you've got all the right answers, I'm losing by default, am I not?
What are you debating? AUMF=ok if against a non-state (even if it allows war AGAINST states...with no evidence) , AUMF= not ok if against a state.
On what substantive level is a Declaration of War different than a AUMF? Both are Congressional approval of the executive branch to attack an enemy. The name is the only difference.
And once we get beyond that...Bush didn't HAVE to go to Congress to attack Iraq.
Provide a REASON Iraq was evil...that's not absolute semantics.
MY STANCE:
It's an unconstitutional bill which Ron Paul voted for. The reasoning behind him voting for it (according to me) is because 1.) He's a politician. He votes against it, and he becomes the guy who hates America.
2.) It's closer to a Letter of Marque, and his own bill.
He voted against the second bill because: 1.) The case against Iraq was weak. he doesn't feel they were a threat, nor were they related to Al-Qaeda.
2.) It's an attack on a specific country, unlike the first AUMF. This means the precedent is to have a Declaration of War.
IT'S NOT SIMILAR TO A LETTER OF MARQUEE. God, this is so tiring. Why is it similar? Because I said so! Well then, by that logic...Dog the Bounty Hunter must be a cop. Because he apprehends criminals.
YOUR STANCE:
It's an unconstitutional bill which Ron Paul voted for. There is no reasoning behind him voting for it other than he's inconsistent with supporting the Constitution. This bill is similar to the second AUMF, which he voted against, again with no reasoning.
That was never my position.
My position:
1. The original AUMF is unconstitutional because it allows Bush to attack whoever he wants without Congressional approval.
2. Ron Paul is lying when he says that the second AUMF (which designates a specific target) is unconstitutional.
3. There is no functional difference between a Declaration of War and an Authorization to Use Military Force.
4. While the Marquee act is spectacular, it is NOT even similar to an AUMF or DoW.
5. Paul has never tried to reign back the original AUMF.
6. Under either the original AUMF or the ceasefire, Bush did. not. need. to. consult. Congress. to .invade. Iraq. PERIOD. So, the claim that the 2nd AUMF (which wasn't even needed) is unconstiutional is ludicrous.
7. Whereas hundreds of influencial liberals (who originally supported) have come out against the Patriot Act, Paul CONTINUES to defend his vote for the AUMF. Let me repeat:
He defends his vote for one of the most unconstitutional pieces of legislation ever passed....yet has the balls to demean the 2nd AUMF which PASSES constitutional muster.
At 1/19/08 04:54 PM, Imperator wrote:
I understand how it works FINE.
Yet, you continue to compare it to the AUMF. There. Is. No. Similarity.
Yes it does, and that's what makes it unconstitutional. HOWEVER, it is a closer match to RP's bill. Unfortunately, bill's still contain pork. He votes against it, and Ron Paul becomes known as the guy who voted against going after the people who committed 9/11. He votes for it, he votes against the constitution.
You're just making excuses. "If Paul voted AGAINST the AUMF, then he wouldn't be around." OK, but at the very least that means he's willing to put his ambitions above the constitution. That means...(drumroll)...he's not a strict constitutionalist.
And it also means that his rant against the 2nd one is absolute crap. Bush didn't have to go to Congress by PAUL'S DECREE! Yet he did. And Congress Authorized him to Use Military Force. There is no substantive difference between Authorizing Military Force, and Declaring War.
Not to mention, Bush didn't even need to ask (even if the first AUMF hadn't been in effect), because Saddam was violating the ceasefire.
Ron. Pauls. Stance. Is. Unadulterated. Fallicy.
I'm hearing nothing as to why Paul's stance is not what I claimed it is.
#2 was against IRAQ. Period, end of discussion.
#1 was against "terrorists".
That's not end of discussion. That's dodging the question.
Using your words:
:Yes it does, and that's what makes it unconstitutional. HOWEVER, it is a closer match to RP's bill.
You're trying to create a distinction where none exists.
To those groups? Peripherally.
Are you fucking kidding me? There have been MAJOR constitutional challenges to Bush over his interpretation of the AUMF.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/2 4076res20060206.html
Myth #3: The AUMF authorizes the NSA wiretaps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrant less_surveillance_controversy
The Bush administration maintains that the authorized intercepts are not domestic but rather "foreign intelligence" integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
Ignoring who is right on this issue...to claim the NSA wiretapping as Peripheral is assinine.
Nor was Hamdan vs Rumsfeld "Peripheral".
Once again, he votes against it, he's the guy who hates America.
Barbara Lee voted against it and is still around. Larry Craig refused to vote and is still around.
I have no problem with Ron Paul disliking the war. That's fine. His characterization of it as illegal is nonsense.
Letter of Marque Act:
attack Al-Qaeda.
AUMF#1:
Attack "terrorists"
AUMF#2:
Attack Iraq.
Guess which one looks closer?
Answer: Neither.
The target is irrelevant. The legislation is. Not. Similar.
One is allowing the president to use the military (war). The other is civilian (marquee). The similarities are superficial. The differences are legion.
Counter example:
Your hometown passes a bill to arrest you.
Someone else hires a hitman to kill you.
I hire someone to kill my neighbor.
Options 1 and 2 concern YOU, whereas 3 doesn't. Does that mean one and 2 are similar because the target is the same? Of course not.
No, Letters of Marque ARE though. Which is why when you look at the act, and look at Paul's Act, you can see the correlations.
See above.
Remind me not to approach you on accident. I might do something you take as a hostile act, and get hit. There's no formula, it's common sense. I just got kicked in the shin.....gee.....maybe asking WHY is a good idea?
Don't walk up and kick me. It's that simple. Unless there's a freak accident, if we're walking by each other, you're not going to kick me in the shin. You may bump me accidently. You may kick my foot.but the likelyhood of kicking me in the shin is small. Furthermore in my example, someone walks right up to you and kicks you in the shin. You have applied this so liberally as to make it meaningless. "Well, if I'm in the same room, and I sneeze on you...." That's not what I said. You're trying to exaggerate to make my example seem unreasonable.
If that's too "complex" for you then....well....it explains a lot about you.
My example was simple and to the point. You dragged it out and added elements...then called me violent. By the end, your example and mine weren't at all similar.
Just like voting for a candidate. You don't get to choose which issue you vote for, you take the candidate as a WHOLE.
And on the whole, Ron Paul sucks. I didn't just take a single issue I disagreed with. I looked at his whole record. That's why the list I gave you has some 15 points on it....and that's not the entire list of things I dislike.
No. I wave it aside with I don't care.
The economy is one of the most important issues in any election. Saying "I don't care" that he sucks means you're not a terribly reliable voter.
I support Kucinich?
News to me, I don't even follow the guy.....
I'm pretty sure that it was you that claimed a Paul/Kucinich race would be the greatest thing ever.
If I'm wrong...my bad.
Damn you people to hell. What part about "I don't debate econ" aren't you getting?
I've debated you on the AUMF. I haven't looked at his abortion stuff yet, but hope to get to it this weekend. I'm NOT debating his econ policies.
Econ was one more example. I was talking about him on a whole. The only thing we've debated...poorly I'll add...is the war.
When we're a nation based from Roman standards, developing in similar ways to the Roman Republic, we're gonna follow that trend: Empire, and Fall.
Except...we're not much of an empire. And explicit knowledge of ancient Rome doesn't matter much to governing. I don't need to know the history of Rome to know certain things are bad ideas.
History can tell you a lot when you bother to look. Unfortunately when I point out we live in a Demos Kratica Res Publica no one seems to care. It's "NOW" that matters, because this shit's all "too old" to be relevant.
It's not that it's too old to be relevant. It's that extensive knowledge of Rome is hardly comparable to being a leader as is economic knowledge.
I find it hard to believe you say you're being nice while simultaneously calling me a moron and jackass. I'll be nice to you too prick.....see, it just don't really work.
The post where I said I was going to be nice...I was a hell of a lot nicer than I was before.
When in Rome. I can hit just as hard, and I'll hit HARDER. I saw no ceasefire. I saw a claim of ceasfire, while still keeping up the attacks. If you think you succeeded, you succeeded in having me distrust your word.
It was the last thing I said fool. I don't read posts that I respond to in their entirety first. I read them AS I respond. I got about 3/4ths thru your post and decided to respond. Then, the very last sentence was a call to be nice. I had a change of heart and said I was sorry, I'd try to be nice. You responded with "Fuck you asshole." I tried to be nicer (despite that) for one post, and you were still a prick despite me toning it back. So, the gloves came off again.
One of my best qualities is to mock the person I'm debating by formatting posts to THEIR style. You reap what you sow.
You're not even thinking about my position, fuck; You probably don't even know what it is.
It's incoherent. I've read dozens of your posts. You're not consistant. You're not informed. And yet, anyone who opposes you is a fool.
The ONLY thing we've debated is the war. You're clearly wrong. I find it hard to believe that your post is so vapid and you're unaware of how terrible your argument is. The AUMF and teh Marquee act are both focused to al Quida....THEY MUST BE THE SAME THING!
Finally, Imperator,
This is one of the many reasons I don't respect you. You actually got me to back off. You presented a case that made me say "Well, fairs fair. I should step back and give the dude another shake." And I proceded to step back and try to not mock you again for being a terrible debater. And, I succeeded for a post. In response to me announcing I'd step back, you wrote quite possibly the single most profanity laden post I've ever read on this board calling me every name under the sun.
Surely you didn't think that would do anything but piss me off? And so, instead of proving you wrong in a polite fashion (as I was prepared to do), I did it in an abusive fashion (as seemed fitting of your reply). I've never claimed to be a nice guy, but when someone calls for a time out, I have always given it to them. You abused yours by being an even bigger douche than before.
That's flat out amazing.
At 1/18/08 03:42 AM, Imperator wrote: I cede nothing.
1.) I don't know much about econ. You could be right, you could be totally wrong, you could have talked about soup.
2.) I still don't give a fuck about econ.
3.) I could care less about econ.
This is a major policy problem. And you wave it aside with "Who the fuck cares?"
THIS is my point. Everytime you are presented with a problem with Paul you simply say "Who cares?" or "Fuck you for pointing it out."
History major. Find an Econ RP supporter to bitch at next time if you want a proper defense on that issue. I don't do 9/11 Conspiracies either. Because I don't, go ahead and declare victory by default. Ain't gonna bother me, there are some issues I just don't debate on.
You're not doing so good on the history either.
Because he wants to diminish government substantially, and open a new brand of foreign diplomacy.
Which makes your support of Kucinich curious....
Regardless, reducing government is not always a good thing. There are some legitimate roles of government. Protecting the populous is one of them. Paul just seems to think that any governmental cut is a good thing. That's problematic.
Dr. Phil again?
Actually, he's got you there.
And it's the same thing as I posted. When confronted with Paul's problems and downright BS about his record, your answer was ALWAYS "I haven't looked into that."
No.....I just don't care about econ. Just like you don't care about Rome. I don't expect you to, and I don't say you've "ceded" the issue if you don't care to debate 3rd century Emperors.
There's a difference. 3rd Century Rome matters to no one. Econ matters to us all. One is irrelevant., The other could cripple the nation.
Thanks Dr. Phil. Economic platform is a minimal importance to me when picking. You forget, I live in a state where we've been dipping for 30 years and finally fell. Michigan has NO economy. Economically both parties have screwed this state, and none of their reforms or platforms have ever succeeded. At best all I've noticed is a delay in the inevitable under certain policies. Frankly I think the President's role in the economy is overrated anyways; shit tends to happen that negates his role in any major degree.
It's funny how when presented with things you don't like...you ignore them.
At 1/17/08 06:51 PM, Imperator wrote: God damnit!
First one:
War against a target group. Precedent is Marque and Reprisal: Authorization by Congress without Declaration of War.
You don't seem to understand how it works:
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Letter+of +Marquee
I've explained this three god damn times. Open your fuckin ears.
OK, I'm going back to treating you like a jackass. You're wrong, and you fucking know it.
As I explained to you, the original AUMF authorized Bush to attack any COUNTRY that he reasonably felt was responsible for 9/11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorizati on_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Ter rorists
That means, as it stands now, Bush could attack Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, or even teh Balkan Islands if he so chose:
a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Bush can attack any COUNTRY he wants. He does not have to explain himself to Congress.
So, as I correctly said, the original AUMF is a blank check. If the second AUMF is illegal, so is the first. You ridiculously comparing it to Letters of Marquee is bullshit and we both know it.
OMG, ZOMG, and wild speculations are your response? Who is this "everyone" and how do they have the authority to outlaw the President's edict? Secondly, why is it the President who's making this edict?
You're claiming the executive right of Letters of Marquee to defend Paul's completely unrelated vote for teh AUMF. It's not "wild speculation". Many of the things Bush has done with the original AUMF have indeed prompted cries from groups like the ACLU, the CRC, and others. Do you not pay attention?
The first order of business is to be elected. A politician has no power to do anything if he's not in office. There's a good quote about this somewhere, but I forget the author.
Well, I'll remember this the next time YOU accuse ME of saying the ends justify the means.
Get bent.
Oh, stop your bitching you stupid little shit.
You have defending clearly unconstitutional behavior and have the gall to damn others of the same thing you exonerate him for. You bring up unrelated tidbits.
Three damn times.
All three incorrect.
Country vs non-country. Attacking a soverign nation and attacking a group that has no country are different enough that the Old People whom you THINK you know about made a separate document called Marque and Reprisal to distinguish.
The AUMF is not a Letter of Marquee and Reprisal. They're not even similar. The letter cannot be used to grant the military unlimited oversight. That Paul voted for the AUMF AND the Marquee act doesn't make them related.
If that's all you are ever gonna extrapolate from my responses, I'm through, here and now. Fuck your ass, I offered a response and my reasoning behind the difference, as well as evidence showing there's a CONSTITUTIONAL PRECEDENT! You say it's the "same thing" to a formal Declaration, but the Constitution writes in BOTH TERMS, as if they are NOT.
The AUMF is not talked about in teh Constitution. You've given me a clearly bullshit answer that I have already shot down. As always, I'm correct and you're a tool/
Get the drift?
No, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. If someone walks up and kicks you in the shin, and you have to go through a complex formula in your head, you're not very bright. Could it be accident? Of course. Then the person will probably say "I'm sorry. But if someone just walks up and kicks you in the shin, you at least guard yourself.
**Punches you in face**
Cuts your throat to have syrup for my pancakes.
Your stance is "Caesar crossed the Rubicon, ergo he was trying to buy a cheeseburger", without giving me any indication as to why you think that way, other than this crossing.
Oh, that was never my stance and you know it, you imbecile.
Here's a few snippets:
"Ron Paul claims that abortion should be a state's right. Yet he voted for the PBA ban, and has proposed a law that would establish a national understanding that life begins at conception."
Do I agree with the 2nd part? Yes. Is it consistant? No.
I say "well here's his memoirs as to why he crossed; to correct something he felt was unjust". You say "it's just BS! He crossed for a burger! That's just semantics on his part!".
You haven't posted anything! You just said "You're not looking at everything." I said...OK, what am I missing? I have his Congressional releases on my favorites, so if tehre's one I'm missing, tell me the date, and what issue it makes me wrong on. Granted I've only read about 70 of the 300 he posted, but I'm pretty right on on his record, and his motivation. It's not like I picked up the [paper and saw "Ron Says America Deserved attack" and hated him there. I have gone terribly in depth into his record. I have dozens of his articles in a file as endnotes to a paper I'm writing if he, heaven forbid, doesn't go away.
This isn't a god damn math class you prick, your "objective truth" is fuckin worthless if you don't know how to handle it. Knowledge is not power. APPLIED knowledge is power.
Now try again, and stop being a dip shit. You're pissin ME off now.....
Should I care?
At 1/18/08 09:28 PM, WishStar wrote: Fucking pro-lifers, why do we debate abortion by moral standards? I don't believe whether you personally find it ethical to kill a fetus should impede a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy to end it. Assuming abortions were legalized across the board, people who were opposed to them, simply could chose NOT to have them while still leaving the option open to those without moral scruples regarding the matter. The only thing I see accomplished by criminalizing abortion is taking away a woman's right to her own body, making it instead government property and leading us down a path toward fewer freedoms.
Other than moral standards, what do we argue abortion on? Both sides use morals to argue the debate.
Right: It's not moral to kill a human being for no reason.
Lft: It's not moral to make a poor person care for a child she can't afford.
Law is based on morals. But if you want consistancy. Several states can stop you from smoking. If they can make you stop smoking, on a logical basis they can prevent you from having an abortion.
Or, in other words, your argument REALLY sucks.
At 1/18/08 10:03 PM, Doublelinked wrote: Exactly, and going one step farther into this analysis is that the reason pro-life people want abortions to be illegal is because there trying to push there beliefs on everyone else. And abortion would just be the start what they really want is to push there religious beliefs on people. You think abortion is a big issue just because some people think its murder thats minor to the fact the its the gates that hold back the even more controversial topic of a religion being the right one. And nobody wants to have to deal with thousands of evangelicals trying to convert them.(I do like to argue with them but not when I'm hugely out numbered or I wouldn't get a word in edgewise.)
I think I'm going to but a slave tomorrow. And don't you dare say shit about it, because that would be pushing your morality onto me. And I think I'll but my neices alcohol. Anyone who tries to stop me is just a bigot trying to shove their morals down my throat! Then I might rape someone. And heaven forbid anyone try to stop me...because I'll claim theocracy!
Gee, when put like that....you kinda sound stupid, Doublelinked.
At 1/17/08 12:58 PM, Zeistro wrote: I'm pro-abortion simply because it's advantageous for the right. Every abortion performed is a favor for the Republican Party.
That's sickening. I'd prefer Democrats rule for the rest of my life if it made the disgusting procedure illegal.
At 1/17/08 05:31 AM, Drakim wrote: Don't even try it. You know very well what I was saying. Here, let me point it out to you anyway:
WolvenBear: There is no way to justify abortion and deny eugenics.
You are claiming that there is NO WAY to justify abortion and deny eugenics. I just pointed out a way, if the mother's life is in danger. Eugenics has nothing to do with it then, at all.
Here, let's have the whole exchange then (I'm lazy, so I'll use Me and You):
Me: There is no way to justify abortion and deny eugenics.
You: What about health of the mother?
Me: Health of the mother is less than .1% of all cases, and those can be avoided with things like C Section. You're being dishonest.
Or, to put it differently. 99.99% of the time, abortion is NOT neccessary for the health of the mother. If we factor in Incest and Rape, we have approximately 95% of abortions are elective procedures. Even if we justify that 5 percent, it means 19/20 abortions are for purely selfish reasons. They are procedures to remove an inconvenient life. On that basis alone, it is impossible to justify abortion and deny the eugenics. To use the exception to disprove the rule is ridiculous.
Furthermore, when we trace the history iof Planned Parenthood, and American abortion, we come back to Margaret Sanger, who was a radical eugenicist. She hated "the stupids" (usually the poor and blacks) and felt that they should be "snipped" to prevent more offspring.
So, current abortion, by it's very nature, is eugenics. The history of abortion in America is paved with eugenicists. And you're trying to tell me that because 1 out of every 10,000 women in America has an abortion for medical reasons (which could be solved other ways), that abortion is not based on ending inconvenient life? Give me a break.
At 1/17/08 04:46 AM, Drakim wrote: You do realize that it's possible to have an abortion for other reasons?
It could be something as simple as the mother's life being in danger.
Abortion got the life of the mother happens in less than .1% of all abortions. And most of those abortions can be avoided by other procedures such as C Section.
Abortion isn't neccessary. And by bringing up the "health of the mother issue", you're trying to muddy the waters.
At 1/15/08 08:31 PM, Kazuhiro wrote: Cute, but giving a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy isn't endorsing the murder of people who society considers undesirable.
Of course it is. Abortion is the removal of an inconvenient human.
There is no way to justify abortion and deny eugenics.
