1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 4/24/07 05:05 PM, AzureFenrir wrote: I haven't seen any statistics on this issue, and while it's not hard to imagine mass murders being committed more frequently with more efficient weapons, there's also individual murders to consider, many of which add up to exceed the damage caused by these mass murders. These individual murders are committed with a lot of things, and equally stopped with a lot of things.
It's also a lot easier to kill a single person than it is a group of people. With a knife, you can sneak up on the person, and by the time they notice you, they're trying to hold their throat together. Trying to walk up to a crowd and stab multiple people to death is a tad trickier.
A lot of individual criminals are deterred by GUNS. When confronting a little old lady, she's just not as scary with a knife as is the 6'5 280lbs guy with a knife. Nor is she as dangerous.
http://www.handguncontrol.net/fear_of_the_arm ed_citizen.htm
Criminals don't want confrontation. They choose what they think will be weak, easy victims.
Guns are also a reason why many crimes are aborted. As many as 2.5 million crimes a year (probably a tad bloated) are stopped by lawful gun owners every year.
http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm
I've also not seen any statistics on people with guns stopping mass shootings exceeding people with other things. In my opinion, when faced with desparation, almost anything can be used as a defensive weapon, even against opponents bearing AK47's. If a person is courageous enough to take out a gun when hard-pressed, wouldn't he also be courageous enough to throw a flower pot at the attacker's face?
Well, your opinion isn't supported by fact. How many incidents of mass shooting have been stopped by people with flower pots? Hockey sticks? Frying pans? Can't find any you say?
The people who take on shooters are generally not desperate. They are cool and collected, because they are prepared to defend themselves. And they have the means. Of course people aren't going to grab a flower pot and rush the killer coming down the hallway. They'd be dead before they got halfway to him.
And, of course, they are a valid argument against gun BAN. Gun control involves lots and lots of other things that has nothing to do with a ban. For example, requiring a drivers license-like permit to carry guns? I never denied that there are evidence against a strict outlawing of firearms, whether in part of in whole.
But what you don't say is how demanding a permit would help. Most street punks break the laws we have in place, so demandign they do ONE MORE THING that they will ignore won't really help.
Perhaps it was also because of Virginia's lax gun laws that Cho was able to get his hands on one so easily. Perhaps even if the student body was armed, they would be too afraid to shoot back, just like they were too afraid to hide behind a desk and collectively throw textbooks at him in an attempt to knock him out. Perhaps if the student body was armed, there would be even more chaos.
Perhaps space monkeys will decend on Cincinatti and kill us all with nickles.
That's stupid. I tell you what. I'm gonna come and start shooting at you, but I'll be nice, I'll let you throw a book first. Doesn't sound too attractive does it. At best, you're going to piss me off before I kill you. You're certainly not going to knock out a killer with a text book. Heck, in the time it takes to expose yourself, cock your arm and aim, you've been shot 6 times.
It wasn't Virginia's lax laws, because they made Cho wait two months to do his crime. He ordered clips and ammo online from Iowa. Cho was going to get his guns.
There are no examples of shootings going WORSE because the victims are armed. None. All there are is examples of the shooter being shot by an armed citizen.
As I said before, the Virginia Tech shooting has too many factors that could support both sides of the argument. Besides, gun control, once again, does not mean gun ban, NOR does it mean incremental gun ban, which is the same thing as a gun ban.
There was one factor in VA Tech: Cho was armed, his victims weren't. The results: 32 dead, 29 (maybe more) injured. You can speculate all you want, but if VA Tech was not a gun free zone, we wouldn't have the massive body count that we do.
Thank you for not reading my posts, and thanks for that ad-hominem attack.
Ad hominim means personal attack. I was attacking your argument. (And yes, I didn't read through multiple pages, but then again, they weren't terribly relevant.) When I mentioned that the multitude of examples support my claim, and by proxy cellardoors, you called it "card stacking" and said it meant nothing.
No ad hominim.
But if we're not allowed to look at the general trend of events, the thousands and thousands of actual events that happen in real life...we're just arguing theory.
I give you this one. I need to do more research on Cho himself before I can say anything about it.
He'd been planning this for quite sometime. The media likes to peddle the idea that he came up with this idea the night before, ran out and bought all his stuff and did the crime. But Virginia's "lax laws" made it to where he had to wait two months to get the guns he wanted. The "one gun a month" law didn't work here. The background check didn't work. The gun free zone didn't work. These are three laws that while not quite bans, are gun control. None worked.
Surely one should also be brave enough to realize that they can throw stuff at the shooter to distract them. Books work pretty well, and so do chairs, since all you need to do is inflict enough pain so that Cho drops his weapon. There's other what-if debates there, but there's nothing conclusive that would show that the massacre would be stopped if the students were allowed to bring guns. Every argument that we could make is nothing more than speculative.
That's not a debate tho. You're not going to make a shooter drop his weapon with a book. Dude kicks in the door and starts shooting, and you're gonna grab a copy of Harry Potter? Either you don't have much real world experience with guns, or you care more about theory than reality. Gun beats book every time. Read above on why this silly argument fails. I can shoot you from much farther away than you can throw a chair or book.
It's not speculation here bud. Cho knew he had defenseless victims (he gloats about it on his tape) and he took advantage of it. He was a coward. The very arming of VA Tech students might've been enough to dissuade him. If not, one of them would've shot him dead or injured him. We never see a mass shooting where all the victims are armed. It just doesn't happen. Ever.
At 4/23/07 11:47 PM, Korriken wrote: actually, Slander is perfectly legal, as long as what is told is factual. LIBEL, which is lying to harm someone's image, is illegal.
Slander is the act of saying something you know to be false. And it is illegal. For example, if I tell everyone who lives near you that you're a pedophile, I have committed slander and you can sue me. Ironically enough, even if you are a pedophile, you can still win because I was spreading what I thought to be lies.
Slander isn't factual. That's why it is Slander.
Overall, this guy doesn't have a case. I believe Wiki has a disclaimer that says that they are not responsible for changes to entries that they are unaware of. If they took these postings down once alerted to them, the guy has no case.
At 4/24/07 03:15 PM, fli wrote: I'm not sure what you're saying in here--
If a doctor tells you that you have a case of "whatever"-- most likely, you have a case of "whatever." But there are exceptions.
But to depend on the exceptions?
You're just setting yourself up for huge disappointments.
Well, let's look at cancer. Doctors will tell people they have three months and they live ten years. They'll tell someone the tumor is benign, and three months later they're dead from the tumor spreading.
That said, the wide variety of tests that a doctor can perform on a human being outside of the womb far exceeds what the doctor can do on an infant insidethe mother.
Cut the beligerent act. It doesn't get the point across, unless your point is to be hostile.
Than stop parroting nonsense like "it's a hard choice but one that's always neccessary".
It's blatantly ridiculous to say that having the baby would be harmful to the mother, but birthing the baby all the way except it's head poses no problems.
And a common reason to get an abortion (for defect in the child) is Down Syndrome. Down syndrome is not threatening, and the child can live a long and happy life, and even become a movie star (the Ringer).
At 4/24/07 06:33 AM, AzureFenrir wrote: There are also tons of mass murders committed by people with guns, and tons of mass murders committed by people with weapons such as autos and baseball bats. There are also hundreds stopped by ordinary citizens brandishing baseball bats or heavy objects as well as hundreds of murders stopped by ordinary citizens with guns. Card-stacking isn't a valid argument in support of gun control.
There AREN'T tons of mass murders committed with baseball bats. A baseball bat would break after beating one or two people to death. A baseball bat mass murder isn't feasible, whereas a gun or car one is.
Likewize there aren't hundreds of examples of people with baseball bats stopping mass shootings.
What the mound of evidence shows is that mass shootings that rack up a large amount of victims do it in "gun free" zones, an against unarmed populous. Card stacking (or looking at the evidence and seeing that it supports your theory) is indeed a valid argument against gun control.
Besides, gun control does not equal gun ban. Even if that argument isn't card-stacked, it only offers evidence against gun ban.
If a gun ban in and of itself isn't going to work, then banning guns incrementally isn't going to work either.
Er...you aren't serious, right? Virginia Tech was located in a state with extremely lax gun laws, and the killer even used a legally obtained gun to commit the massacre. I see almost no reason how that event is any evidence against gun control.
Because the rest of the student body was unarmed, following the rules of the university. To people who don't want to be expelled or fired, they will follow the rules. To someone who plans on...oh say...murdering 32 students then killing himself, a ban is irrelevant.
I would like to see this "mounds of evidence," since none of the gun proponents that I encountered had offered anything close to actual evidence yet.
Sure they have. You call it card stacking. Normal people call it evidence.
For example:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/latestnews/200741 8/45560.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/2628397.s tm
Wow! Shootings happen in places where guns are banned! Miraculous!
No no, really, take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying "lalala".
Oh wait, you'll probably just say "card stacking", right?
At 4/24/07 08:02 AM, AzureFenrir wrote: The "what if" can also be applied in other ways. Assume that Virginia were to have, for conveinence, the gun control policies that I support (namely, requiring permits to possess guns, since that is the most relevant here), Cho may not have been able to secure a gun to use in the shooting. He may have been able to get one from the black market, but he may also be discouraged and decide to commit the massacre using a melee weapon instead, which can be stopped by people.
Everything that we know about Cho says that he was very determined. He found that he was able to only buy one gun a month. He then waited long enough to buy at least three guns (the two he used and one found in his room). He bought clips on the internet. If he'd have been denied on one front he'd have found another.
There's also the "what if" of - even if the students were allowed to bring guns, would they be able to gather the nerves to shoot back in such a situation? If they had such courage, wouldn't they also be able to mass jump Cho and disable/disarm him with manpower? There's too many "what if"'s in VA that it could not plausibly be used to argue for either side.
It's not so much a "what if", because out of a thousand people, surely one would've been bold enough to shoot back. We have plenty of examples of people taking down shooters when they themselves are armed. There's no reason to believe that this is different, especially given that we had some people brave enough to block the doors with their bodies, knowing this would be certain death. If the RA had been armed...this would've ended in teh dorms.
Interesting, although that's not really relevant to the argument.
No, but it is interesting to see where the debate started.
And it's interesting to note that everyone of the liberal elite that harps on how we need to ban guns, have guns for their own protection or have armed guards.
At 4/24/07 02:28 PM, fli wrote: This is an exception because I will tell you that I've heard more stories where it ends tragically. This is purely up to Luck--
The basic idea is that doctors aren't able to tell full grown people that they can examine in detail what is going to happen to them. They are foten wrong. But of course, they're 100% right when it's an unborn baby. bunk.
Extraction and Dialation procedures are very rare. It's always the "last thing"-- because usually the circumstances that lead up to that procedure are nearly always severe.
Riiight. That's why the doctor who INVENTED PBA says that most times the procedure is done for purely elective reasons.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.ht ml
You can stop parroting a line that we all know is BS now.
I don't personally favor all kinds of abortions.
But this decision is not mine. When I'm either a woman, or when the mother of my child (biological or legal) gives me consent... That's when it becomes my decision.
I'm not a parent. However, when I know that the parent next store is abusing his child, I can do something about it.
This argument is little more than trying to exclude men from the debate (or a way to be morally neutral).
Otherwise,
I'm against this ban. Those procedures are so rare that the circumstance that leads to it is always something that puts a family in desperation. With that in mind, I was always against this ban.
Bull. There's not a single reason to have a PBA. And since it's done SOOOO infrequently, it barely scratches that "right to have an abortion" thing.
At 4/22/07 08:15 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: You could, if it wasn't for all the people in fluorescent vests somehow being shot in hunting accidents every year. If it wasn't for family members being shot dead as somebody mistook them for a prowler. If it wasn't for poeople thinking they're William Tell blowing their friends' brains out. If it wasn't for people cleaning their guns accidentally shooting themselves. People getting drunk and thinking a game of Russian Roulette is a good idea. If the person didn't drop a gun with the safety catch off and it discharged when it hit the floor.
Most people who are shot in hunting accidents are NOT wearing bright orange vests. In fact, the common occurance is for the idiot hunter to dress in brown and wear antlers to "trick the deer" then get shot cause they're an idiot. The rate of people "accidently shooting themselves" is very small, and anyone who wants to play russian roulette has none of my sympathy thanks,
Though I'd like to see all 6 cases of Russian Roulette world wide last year. More people die from paper cuts than Russian Roulette.
You know, a lot more people would avoid being killed and injured every year if they didn't have access to gins in the first place, and that's before we get into the murder statistics.
And the death statistics from driving accidents in the US supercedes world wide gun murders )ignoring Middle Eastern dictator ships of course).
Is that fair? Depends, when will there be a Constitutional Amendment to say that Americans should have the right not to be shot at?
What a stupid argument.
At 4/24/07 05:57 AM, AzureFenrir wrote: And there lies your problem with understanding my post. You ASSUMED that my argument is to support gun control, while my ACTUAL argument, as I've clearly stated in the post, is that your proof is INSIGNIFICANT. See the difference between the two arguments? I never even said I was right. I only said that you, being the topic creator, were wrong.
There has yet to be a mass murder stopped by police. There are hundreds stopped by ordinary citizens brandishing guns. That is more proof than anyone demanding gun control every presented.
Now, I don't claim to be able to prove that gun control is a good thing. The whole argument is based on people's opinions, since I have seen neither side offer solid support for their case. However, since you made the topic claiming that you have proof that gun control doesn't work, I'm simply proving you wrong, as you, being the advocate of an opinion, has the burden of proof. I'm not proving anything, just equalizing the two sides.
Hmmm. That's a hard one. Virgina Tech was teh paragon of gun control, yet 32 people died and more were injured. Hmmmmmm.......
If you want to argue speculatively though, I can do that as well. Just don't claim that you have more "proof" than the other side.
Well, considering the gun control side can offer nothing to their credit and the pro gun side can offer mounds of evidence. I'll go with the pro-gun side.
But maybe that's just cause where I used to live, people wanted to kill me, and were terrified because I was better with a knife then anyone in the neighborhood was with a gun. And that's why whenever they robbed my house, they stole weapons first.
At 4/19/07 05:26 PM, JakeHero wrote: For those of you who do not know partial birth abortion is an abortion performed AS the baby is being birthed. This means it's nine months old, fully developed as a human being, and is indepedent of the mother's womb any further.
Um, I'm against PBA, but it does not mean the baby is 9 months old. It does, however, mean that the baby in in the late 2nd trimester into the 3rd..and is always viable.
At 4/20/07 02:36 AM, fli wrote: Sometimes people don't know about genetic defects and stuff until late in the pregnancy.
I read a heart breaking article years ago about an abortion at 8 months. The woman who had done the procedure wrote about it. Basically, her child had a rare genetic defect that was giving the baby seizures even inside the womb.
There's nothing that I know of that isn't detectable at the very earliest of the 2nd trimester....
Regardless. The idea that someone doesn't have the right to life because life won't be perfect is a silly argument.
And FYI, a woman who had an abortion at 8 months, can't write about a condition giving her baby "seizures outside of the womb"...becuase her baby didn't make it outside of the womb.
So the fetus was in great pain.
It wouldn't be able survive more than a few years, and it would be in agonizing pain in the meanwhile.
Blah. Blah. Blah.
So in the end, this woman did the most humaine act andmost importantly-- as a mother-- decided that she wouldn't let her child suffer horribly anymore and terminated her pregnancy at 8 months.
Sounds like bullshit to me Burt.
I don't like Dialation and Extraction procedure either-- but there are cases, such as the one where I read, where it is necessary and the best option for the child and mother. Those type of decisions should be between the woman, the doctor, and the woman's family.
There's not a single case where PBA is neccesary. Ever.
At 4/20/07 08:41 PM, fli wrote: But a draconian ban on it isn't the way to go either, especially when we're talking about the mother's life at stake.
Like I said.
This type of decision is something that belongs first to the mother, and then the family and doctors. The politician should stay out from such private family and health decisions.
It's not a "draconian ban", because by about 4 months, if the baby isany threat to the mother, the doctor has identified it. If birthing the baby is a threat to the mother, than birhting the baby to abort it is certainy not healthy for the mother. This argument fails on its face.
At 4/23/07 05:39 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Whose right to life? The mother has a right to life. The PBA law provides no provision for rape, incest or for protecting the life of the mother.
You don't figure out that you've been raped six months into it. Nor is PBA in any way safe for the mother. Try again next time.
At 4/23/07 05:49 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Oh, of course. I believe that the mother has the right to abort her fetus/baby/whatever whenever she wishes (before birth). About the health aspects, etc. I had previously read (or, perhaps misread) that the bill provided no way for a woman to get a PBA when her health required it. I was wrong on that, sorry. But my argument of woman's choice is what I stand behind.
There is no health NEED for a PBA.
At 4/23/07 06:36 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Hmm, maybe women would be more likely to detect the pregnancy before the third trimester if there was better health-care for people who can't afford it.
Of course. Because women don't know that they're pregnant until the 6th/7th month? Shut up.
Oh, but that's not the government's JOB is it?
Sorry, but I don't get how the guys who are normally opposed to the government helping the people are also here opposing abortion.
Because abortion is a bad thing. Duh.
At 4/8/07 12:36 AM, Ravariel wrote: Most folk (happy now) who believe that the flood story is literally true, also adhere to the dinosaurs and man living together at the same time.
Yea. No they don't.
Sorry, but EVERY SINGLE SITE I'VE BEEN TO WITHOUT EXCEPTION, admits that the majority of creationists do now believe this (as evidenced by the very site he linked).
That hill is getticng steeper
Yes it is. Did you not read the definitions of those books that put forth ID as a "scientific" theory? Irreducible Complexity is the linchpin of ID.
No, it's not. I've read hundreds of books on both ID and evolution.
Irreduciblecomplexity is not the lynchpin of either the case against ID or the case for it.
For example, the case that Darwinists most often use against IDers is that "life is not perfect, even though they never claim it is. ID doesn't guarantee p;erfectness.
No one has ever legitimately debated the origin of the eye (hint, ot appeared suddenly..damn those stupid creationists).
No, you can believe the FSM is the IDer, too. And this being the SvR thread, why not get into it? This is a discussion I've actually not had in a while... it'd be nice to see if the IDers have some up with anything new recently.
What evidence? The argument from incredulity "evidence"? Or the improper use of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "evidnece"? Or the completely irrelevant use of Occam's Razor "evidence"? Or the appreance of structure "evidence" which is countered by chaos theory and fractal math? Or just the Bible?
Yea, the theory that no one has debated for centuries is the lynchpin...pardon me while I check my cat box,
Cambrian explosion, try again.
Hmmm, evolutionists- zero evidence that alllife came from one celled organisms. Science: all major life forms appeared in the same period with zero precursors.
FUCKING EVOLUTIONISTS!
Stacking the deck in our favor
Hey, when prominent publications on creationism say it... claiming it's not the norm for creationist thought is a bit absurd.
Hey, when the Pope, the single most prominent Creationiat in the world says something...
You're right, because there is very little science in ID. There are more peer-reviewed articles about Evolutionary biology in a week than the entirety of them about ID.
And at one time the Earth was thought to revolve around the sun, and blood was evil to the body...
A) It can't be tested, thus it can't be scientific.
Of course not. This is why every single article has said that ID is easily proven wrong.
Eye rollie.
B) All instances of irreducible complexity (the hallmark of ID, regardless of your claims) have been explained and reduced.
Really?
There'd not been a single solitary scientific eye explaination.
And those mousetrap experiments (in which it was proven that a mousetrap could be simplified as long as the object wan't to make the item still usable), are bunk.
I DARE you to give me evidence for ID that I can't tear apart.
Explain the eye.
Then I'll care.
I double-dog dare you.
Tell me how the flaggella formed.
Please,
Fine, point conceded. There ARE those who believe that the earth was created, and yet don't believe the literal truth of the bible. HOWEVER! When we argue about the logistics of the Ark story, aren't we assuming the Bible (or at least Genesis) to be literal? As such, must we not pose our arguments to and from that stance?
OK, fine. Then argue a logical BIBLICAL stance that says that Dinosaurs were still alive.
Since you can'y do it, I'm going to give you a mulligan...
Ok, then. Grant me why I should buy the fact that God flooded the world, yet, couldn't minutely alter conditions so tbat said animals could survive.
If we wwant to argue Biblical history, based on the Bible alone, it is hndreds (if not thousands) of years between each story. There are other societies that may have made boats once it started raining.
Of we want to believe that Genesis is true, theres not a single reason we can't beloeve that Noah (and his ark) is the only survivor of the flood.
If Adam and Eve wereb't the first people (if they were, there would've been no land of Nod), there's no reason to believe that Noah was the only one to survive the flood.
Sorry for the double post.
My net connection is being gay.
At 4/8/07 03:41 AM, Bolo wrote: 60-100K refugees is per MONTH is pretty fucking insane, considering that only 26,783,383 people lived in Iraq in July 2006.
If 1000 refugees are fleeing daily, thats 31k (max), YTou suck at math.
Furthermore the refugees are staying in Iraq, just moving out of Baghdad (according to his links).
It's ok, you can stop now.
At 60,000 refugees per month, it would take approximately 446 months to deplete Iraq's population. 37 years.
Wow, you suck at math. 1k refugees per day would equal 31k (max) per month.
Now, I know the entire population isn't going to leave Iraq, but that is a very significant percentage of the population. About the equivalent of one small US city becoming completely deserted in a single month.
Yet evey single city in Iraq is well populated after 4 years.
Od...
Why are they emigrating out in the first place, eh? To prevent from being murdered, right?
Because no Iraqis were murdered before our invasion of course!
Idiot.
At 4/8/07 03:41 AM, Bolo wrote: 60-100K refugees is per MONTH is pretty fucking insane, considering that only 26,783,383 people lived in Iraq in July 2006.
If 1000 refugees are fleeing daily, thats 31k (max), YTou suck at math.
Furthermore the refugees are staying in Iraq, just moving out of Baghdad (according to his links).
It's ok, you can stop now.
At 60,000 refugees per month, it would take approximately 446 months to deplete Iraq's population. 37 years.
Wow, you suck at math. 1k refugees per day would equal 31k (max) per month.
Now, I know the entire population isn't going to leave Iraq, but that is a very significant percentage of the population. About the equivalent of one small US city becoming completely deserted in a single month.
Yet evey single city in Iraq is well populated after 4 years.
Od...
Why are they emigrating out in the first place, eh? To prevent from being murdered, right?
Because no Iraqis were murdered before our invasion of course!
Idiot.
At 4/8/07 01:14 AM, Ravariel wrote:At 4/7/07 05:29 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
blah blah blah
And after all we did to Iraq, they did exactly what we wanted...
Is that crickets I hear?
Exactly.
Because obviously the cessation of their nuclear program is the only thing we want them to do...
Yea, because obviously if they won't stop doing the thing that pisses us off the most, we can truely expect them tio cutoff something we dont really value...
I hope you haver a point here...
See, this is why those of us on the left call you on the right war-mongers. You think that the only two possibilities are talking nicely (i.e. being a fucking pussy), and military action. Our economic sanctions on those countries is having an effect... their economies are floundering, they're losing money, they cant afford, literally, to continue on this path.
When one is dealing with Ahmendenijad, there are two possibilities (because there are only two scenarios people like him understand). One is: wer're not going to fdo anything if you piss us off (our current policy), or two, if you break international lw, we're going to punish you. We went with option A.
As such, Iran broke international law, took hostages, broke Geneva, etc, etc, etc, without reprocussions,
The bottom line remains intact, if military response isn't in the cards somewhere, our threats mean jack. Anyone who believes differently is an idiot ignoring the sum of human history.
Oh and before you come up with a witty response...Iraq endured sanctions for years. The reason is simple. Saddam didn't care about his citizens, only himself. Punish a leader who can defray the costs by starving his people, and you're not punishing the leader.
Savage is right. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
"If only we;ll talk to them...
At 4/7/07 07:41 PM, LardLord wrote: I'm pretty sure what they [the media] are trying to do is portray the feelings of anxiety and fear that characterize the streets of Baghdad where perhaps one hundred thousand people have died, and more people are dying every day. Small successes in the capital city are not felt by the citizens therein, and violence persists.
60k. And don't even ty to pretend that pre-war that killing were unheard of there.
The immigration rate out of Iraq is staggeringly high, and as more citizens are leaving, terrorists and ethnically motivated fighters are emboldened to harass the remainder even more fiercely.
Now that they can immigrate out without being murdered that is...
At 4/7/07 08:22 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: We would, and so would 80% of Iraqis .
*0% showed disapproval of Iraqi and American forces. Wow, that's staggering.
Especially considering the Iraqi forces are incompetant.
And most Iraqis feel US forces are going to leave before the job is done...
Damn that figure kills me...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8403994/
At 4/8/07 02:22 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: links about flight
Before we invaded they dealt with it or they died. Period.
Have I made my point yet?
Nope. Not even close.,
At 4/7/07 06:50 PM, LardLord wrote: Indeed, That IS good news.
Thank you for solidifying my position.
Shit tends to solidify when left out long enough. Your position has been solidifying since you first spewed it.
Your position is still wrong and still stupid, but way to stand by it!
At 4/7/07 06:49 PM, Demosthenez wrote: I repeat, how did she break the law?
If you dont get it, this rule is not prosecuted and not enforced then it is either not read that way by the courts or it has fallen out of context or use like the thousands of other laws that have been made that are not enforced anymore. You cant selectively decide when to enfore a law because someone is a big ole scary Democrat. Especially when no one has ever enforeced the act fucking ever.
So, you ask how she broke the law, then acknowledge that she broke the law, but it's no big deal. Thanks for answering your own question!
The idea of the law is that it keeps politicians in line, and is often used to threaten those who ignore it. The democrats had no problem asking could Delay be charged with it. The law is brought up all the time to put people back in their place when they forget it.
When yall wanna get off your high horses I will get yall a step stoll.
Psht. A liberal breaks the law and we need to get off our high horses.
Typical liberal thought. Bush needs to be impeached for starting a war with our support that we no longer like...but Democrats shouldn't be punished for breaking actual laws.
Savage is right on one thing: Liberalism is a mental disorder.
At 4/7/07 05:59 PM, Demosthenez wrote: Arlen Specter did the same thing last year with the same pronouncements against him from the government. Where was the media shit storm then? Where were the conservatives bashing him then?
Arlen Specter is now a media darling, who they never fail to use to Bush Bash. "LOOK, it's the anti Bush Republican!"
Again, the reason Pelosi is getting so much more coverage is that shes a Democrat. The Republicans who went over made sure to tell Assad they sided with Bush...that's not good anti-Bush fun. And at the end of the day, they're still filthy Republicans, even if they're good for a quick sound bite to show that the President's own party poked him in the eye. Now Pelosi, she's one of them Dems that the media loves so darned much. The most powerful Dem ignoring the President, circumventing his authority and trying to FURTHER usurp his powers...now that's good news.
At 4/1/07 01:16 PM, Dre-Man wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh sorry, the fact that you would compare us liberating ourselves from British oppressors, fighting for land rights from Spain, and fending off an attack on our nation to going over to Iraq in search of WMDs that never existed in the first place is oh so absolutely fucking HILARIOUS.
We didn't have to be independant. We could've stayed as colonies and avoided A LOT of unneccessary blood shed.
There's a better case to disarm a dictator with WMDs (yes he had them, yes we found them) who was murdering his own people and financing terrorists, including al Quida, than there is for starting a war over the Stamp Act and overtaxation.
BUT OMG YOU TEH PWNED US ALL L33T!
At 4/7/07 04:32 PM, WRB852 wrote: We shouldn't be arguing about the WMD's, how bout the supposed "connection" between 9/11 and Iraq that Bush claimed there was.
You're right. We know he had WMDs, and his connections to al Quida are proven. And Bush never said Saddam caused 9/11. Three strikes in one sentence. WOW!
At 4/7/07 04:44 PM, WRB852 wrote: You want more evidence of justifiable reason of impeachment? I'll give it to ya.
You haven't given me any yet, but SURE, hit me again.
Outing of the covert CIA Agent Valerie Plame
Valerie Plame wasn't covert. And Richard Armitage outed her. Armitage by the way is not a Bush fan.
Stealing the Election in 2000
Winning the electoral College is how you win an election...even if you lose the popular vote. That Gore guy, however, did try to circumvent the laws and steal it himself, tho.
Stealing the Election in 2004
Bush is a Republican. The guy who runs DieBold is a Republican. Therefore the election MUST'VE been stolen. A more solid case there has never been.
The same Diebold that was used when the Dems took back Congress...odd.
Planning 9/11
Or not.
Putting an expert on horses as the leader of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina.
Stupidity isn't impeachable. If Blanco and Nagin had done their jobs, it never would've made it to FEMA.
The firing of 8 Federal Prosecutors.
As opposed to Clinton's firing of 92...
Completely legal.
Attaching the ability of Hiring Federal Prosecutors without a Congressional Hearing to "The Patriot Act"
What? The President has always had the ability to hire/fire Prosecutors.
Sending our troops to Iraq without adequate Armor.
Bunk. The troops shot that down years ago.
Funding Tax Dollars to "Faith-Based Initiative."
And? Great idea. And even if it wasn't...still not impeachable.
Gave Tax cuts to the Rich during a time of "war", or whatever you want to call it.
JFK gave tax cuts during Vietnam, also a time of war.
No one hikes taxes during a recession.
There's some ideas to throw out there.
They're all wrong.
I'm just sick of people who constantly cry "We're losing!" everytime I soldier stubs his toes, but ignores it when we catch the bad guys or killthem, rebuild a school, improve their economy, hold elections, et. al. Those who complain that we're losing aren't looking at what's going on, but what they want to be going on.
At 4/7/07 02:51 PM, Ravariel wrote: And that's part of my point. If god creates the flood, and then guides all the animals to Noah, keeps them alive during the Ark trip... why exactly did he need the Ark in the first place?
Why did God need Moses to go to the Pharoah? I mean, he obviously was quite good at making his own point. Why did God need Jonah to travel to Nineva when he could've done it himself?
Maybe God's a bit of a dramaticist?
Exactly... the belief that everything was created, as they are today, without any evolution (greater than on a sub-species level, for the less-idiotic of them). If that is true, then dinosaurs (which we know lived in the past) which went extinct, could not have existed except side by side with man, unless multiple creations were done. But this is not how the bible describes it, as it describes only a single creation event. Or maybe it was the flood that killed them... either way they would have lived side by side with mankind.
Incorrect. Any belief that the Earth was created by a higher power is creationism. Just because those who want to minimalize religion try to paint with a wide stroke doesn't make it so. There are dozens of different views on creationism, some which believe in evolution, some that don't. I listed a ton of them, and they're all creationist views, your refusal to accept them as such being irrelevant to the debate.
So again, no, your rather worthless assessment that the dinosaurs HAD to be involved is still bunk.
That's an oxymoron if I've ever heard it. I'm sorry, but you cannot be an atheist and believe in an intelligent "something" guiding evolution. You're lying about one of them if you claim as such. Anyway, ID is nearly as BS as Young-Earthers... EVERY example of irreducible complexity has been reduced, completely blowing itout of the water.
IT CANNOT BE. BECAUSE I REFUSE TO BE WRONG.
But you are. It's cool.
ID is not creationism. Irreducably complex is not a hallmark of ID. Some people use it, but it's not a central theme to the scientific theory.
Stop being such a jackass. Just because someone believes in ID doesn't make them an idiot Christian. But again, not getting into Darwinism vs ID here.
But that's not founded in any biblical verses, which is the very argument you gave against dinosaurs to begin with. Listen, if one assumes the biblical story of the flood to be true (contrary to all physical evidence), then it is no stretch to believe that Genesis was the beginning of everything, and that dinosaurs must have lived at some point, and that because there's only so many years to work with, that they lived at the same time as man.
There's biblical verses to support that there was civilization (Nod) before Adam and Eve.
No... believing that God created all life as it is, birds with feathers, reptiles with scales, is creationism. Just as atheism is the positive assertion (knowledge) that there is no god, not the belief that there is none, which is agnosticism.
No, believing the Earth was created by God is Creationism. You can keep tap dancing in circles all you want, but you're stil lwrong. LITERAL CREATIONISM (or genesis Creationism) is not the only kind.
For example, the Catholic Church teaches that the creation story in the Bible is oral history, and as such innaccurate, but they still say that God created the Earth.
Potayto, potahto. He STARTED out as an atheist, but obviously that has changed, and he's deist now (i.e. believes in a deity, just not the Abrahamic one), and as such cannot be both an atheist and a believer in ID. Also, ID IS CREATIONISM.
He's regarded as a diest because he believes in ID. He looked at the evidence and was convinced.
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Biology and Creation 1986, FTE 3015, p. 2-10)
TO HELL WITH EVERYONE WHO SAYS IM WRONG. THERE IS ONLY ONE TYPE OF CREATIONISM. FULL STEAM AHEAD.
A rose by any other name would smell the same... to paraphrase.
The debate of ID vs Darwin is not a scientific one. I concede this not because there is no evidence of ID, but because everytime someone makes their case a Darwinist comes along and starts screaming their fool heads off. "CHURCH AND STATE. CHRISTIAN BUFFOON. THIS ISN'T SCIENTIFIC BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE TESTED, AND BESIDES IT'S ALREADY BEEN TESTED AND PROVED FALSE."
Honestly, I see little difference in you refusing to acknowledge that there's more than one kind of Creationism. You're wrong and you know it, yet you just keep harping on about how all of them are exactly the same and idiots to boot.
Not all Evolutionists are Darwinists, they don't all believe in the tree model or a common ancestor, and not all Creationists are literal Genesis Creationists.
If you're not willing to acknowledge even this small point, then you're not willing to have an intelligent discussion.
At 4/7/07 03:00 PM, Ravariel wrote: Actually, Korean neegotiations are making some headway. The US only this week unfroze some N. Korean assets that had been held in a bank in Macao, as incentive to stop their Yongbyon reactor... If they do, then that's a huge step in the right direction. Negotiations are also proceeding (slowly) with Iran... there was a low-level meeting between our two countries a while ago that will probably lay the groundwork for resumption of higher-level negotiations in the near future. Combined with the tightening of sanctions on the country, there is bound to be some movement on their part.
Yea, last time we went through this Yong Il promised us extra nicely that he'd stop building nuclear weapons. He then went on to continue to build nuclear weapons.
Iran has said repeatedly that no matter what is decided during the talks they would continue their nuclear program.
SUCCESS ALL AROUND! I'M BUYING THIS ROUND AS A CELEBRATION!
Who ever said diplomacy was "just asking nicely"?
Well unless we're willing to do something militarily if they refuse (we aren't) then it's little more than asking nicely.
At 4/7/07 04:58 PM, Demosthenez wrote: Republicans were with her. Republicans visited Syria before this. Why the media shit storm now, why. Because Pelosi is a more significant person? Bullshit excuse. Its because she is a Democrat that Republicans/conservatives dislike.
She took a convoy of Democrats. The Republicans went seperately. The Republicans were told not to go and rebuked. The reason it's such a big media shit storm is that the media loves Pelosi and she's openly defying the President. It's seen as a huge slap in the face to the President from the most powerful Democrat in America, and the media can't get enough of it.
This debate is evenly split down left vs. right. Yall are retarded, she wasnt setting policy, she wasnt contradicting the President or his message, this shouldnt be significant since lawmakers go visit other countries all the time to dally with foreign leaders. I repeat, all you partisan hacks are all crazy.
The President said we're not going to negotiate with Syria, she negotiated with Syria.
Yea, nothing contradictory there!
Nancy Pelosi is a crazy bitch but this has nothing to do with that. The most you can say is she was headline searching and who would EVER expect that from a politican *feign shock*
So because she was trying to stir shit, the fact that she openly defied the President and most likely broke the law...WHO CARES?
Now, THAT'S retarded.
At 4/7/07 04:20 PM, fli wrote: Barack Obama?
We don't need another White guy for president...
I'm for the Black canidate--
Hilary Clizzay for da pizzle--
Bill Clinton showed how much he cares or black people...when he stood by and did nothing during the Rwandan massacre.
Drakim,
The educational system in general has a very liberal slant. I liked most of my teachers, but during my college years I have yet to encounter a single teacher who didn't put a liberal slant on whatever they were teaching us. (And I'm discounting classes that had no possible way the teacher could bring politics into the class...like Algebra).
For example, Journalists are highly schooled individuals, and are mostly Democrat. Does this mean more learning made them smarter and they became Democrat because of that? Of course not. Journalists are some of the stupidest people in this country.
Conversely, to use an example that will appeal more to you, the professionally religious undergo more education than anyone in the country except for doctors. Does this make them smarter than everyone else?
At 4/7/07 06:18 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: Perhaps not, but every creationist I have ever debated with believes that dinosaurs walked the earth 5000 years ago and where on the arc. Every time I confront them about the flood they always seam to call up AiG. So this is the stance I usually attack first.
And the creationists you're speaking of believe the Eath to be 5000 years old. They also believe the Bible begins at about 4000 years ago.
I've been pissing off Christians of all stripes since I was 5 and have gotten into debates with thousands of them. I have yet to meet a single person who believes dinosaurs were alive during the time of Noah, Dinosaur deniers are more common.
Again I didn't wright -5 I wrote ~5, the ~ indicates approximately 5*C or 41*F.
Oops, my bad. Sorry.
Again I'm not misstating anyones view of all the people I've meat who call them self creationist this is what they believe and argue. Your saying that not all believe in creationist flood the same way so fine then, tell me what they specifically believe, why they believe it and how the bible (or what ever there holy book is) fits around it and I will shift my argument to include them.
The strict creationists (I assume that's who youre targeting here, believe that Noah gathered all the animals into his ark. There's no popular belief that Noah had the dinosaurs on his ark. The site you list says that creationists don't know how to fit dinosaurs into the Bible, admitting that this is a very obscure belief. Either you have had the ridiculously improbable odds of meeting all 30 people that subscribe to this dude's odd biblical interpretation...or you'redeliberately using this weird view to paint all creationists as dummies.
I won't discount either possibility.
At 4/7/07 06:19 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: No it's because they where suppose to have lived during Noah's time and according to Gen. He was ordered by god to take ever land animal that moves on board.
Again, according to what? Certainly not the Bible.
Yeah, thats possible if god can intervene, but when a creationist is assaulted along the lines of not being scientific they can't take that path; And they'll go all over the place trying to sound sciency and correct.
Pardon me, but are we not arguing that the Earth flooded, and then arguing the logistics of the Ark? We're taking a ridiculously improbable event and then arguing about the logistics of the boat, right? It seems quite silly to me that we're accepting that a world wide flood is possible then arguing about a couple of inches from there.
Most of those who say there creationist take the biblical non errant point of view, and so when you talk or argue with some one about creationism they usually take the stance that your a literalist.
I'm a creationist. As is almost everyone of the Christian faith. Believing that God created the Earth is creationism. I'm not sure what circles you talk in, but there are some pretty interesting creation theories. Considering I've debated thousands of Christians and have heard thousands of different positions on creation, it's simply not possible in my mind set that every single Creationist you've talked to has the same exact beliefs. Now you're crossing into the line on BS with me.
There's less dispute in the Darwin camp than the Creationist camp.
I would really like to know what atheist believe in ID. Also according to IDers they aren't creationist and don't want to be grouped with them.
Antony Flew for one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
IDers aren't creationist, as creationists believe in an all powerful being, and IDers believe in an intelligent designer for Earth.
If god wiped out the dinosaurs it couldn't have been in the flood (again according to a literal interpretation) as he was told to take every animal on board.
Right. And since there's no reason to believe that dinosaurs were alive during this period, it stands to reason that there were no dinosaurs on the ark.
HOORAY LOGIC!
stuff about size
It's amazing how much stuff you can fit into a small space when you try. For example, a three story house can fit into a small moving van (including space for cloths to protect the valuables). 30 mexicans (or bosnians) can fit in a one story house. So let's say he had to take two of every kind. Let's decide how picky we're going to be here. Did he have to take two of every different type of Elephant...or just two elephants? Did he have to take two of every different type of Dog? Or just two dogs?
Some friends of mine actually worked out how much space you would need for all the animals in the world, they ended up with about 1050 acres, and they didn't take into account any movement space, food and water storage, or structural supports. If I can find the actual calculation I'll post it, or I might just work it out my self later.
Please do. I'd love to see it.
From the middle east? Maybe, it be craped but maybe. You see every one forgets the smallest creatures end up taking the most space, I'm not sure how many species of insect and arthropods are out there but it's got to be around 10k, probably more. Figure a cage size of 1 x 2 feet, and you suddenly you just loss 20k squire feet.
However, the only animal he was require to take from the air was birds. So, even assuming your calculations are right...who cares?
Maybe not but they're the most vocal and the ones who believe in Noah's flood.
I don't particularly like young Earthers, but they're not the most ridiculous, nor are they the most vocal. For example, the previous Pope (the most vocal creationist in the world) was not a young Earther. He was a curious theistic evolutionist. And the Pope is more vocal than every Young Earther in the history of the world combined and multiplied by 47 billion.
At 4/4/07 04:54 PM, TheBeagle wrote: So then we ventured off into the janitors closet and did it really fast, so that I still had a minute in passing period to get to Government class. I even had time to stop by the vending machine and get me a twinkie. I was like "Yeah, I pwn."
So you only last about 2 minutes.
That's fucking pathetic.
At 4/6/07 05:04 AM, LardLord wrote: Oh come on. None of the democratic candidates are proposing anything as outrageous as making the US into a theocracy (*ahem* Sam Brownback).
Except Brownback's not proposing a theocracy.
OH MY TEH GODS! HE ES UNA CHRISTIAONI REPUCKLICAN! HE WANTS TO TEH RESTORE THE CHRITSIANI TALIBAN!
At 4/7/07 01:33 AM, LardLord wrote: Three words.
J.
F.
K.
Obama is the closest thing to JFK I've seen since Bobby K. If how JFK acted is any indication of how Obama will be received, then America's future as a superpower is, indeed, solidified.
JFK believed that tax cuts were the best way to stimulate the economy, Obama believes in tax hikes. Whereas Kennedy believed in stopping the spread of Communism and helping fund those who stood against it, not to mention the overthrow of Castro, Obama is an isolationist militarily. Whereas Kennedy continued to fight Vietnam believing it to be good for both Vietnam, and a loss terrible for America...Obama would retreat from Iraq. Kennedy had no problem with the Death penalty and refused to grant clemancy, Obama hates the death penalty. JFK believed in some government spending on social issues, but he believed cutting taxes would end the recession.
The politician most like JFK today? Bush. Not Obama, and certainly not either of the Clintons.
At 4/7/07 01:42 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: Clinton was pretty close to JFK...although he banged fat brunettes rather than hot blondes...maybe Obama will bring some redheads into the mix?
Two men share an affinity for adultery. Doesn't make them alike.
I think Obama is too smart to get the white vote, and too light skinned to get the black vote in the usa...i almost hope he does, but in reality i hope that the republicans win it, and take back congress and the senate, because if anyone's is going to bring the usa down on it's knees, it's definitely the crazy republican party and their magic number accounting. "Yes, owing the Chinese a trillion dollars is a good thing! We have them right where we want them!" lol
It's Democratic regulations that are driving business out of the country. The economy always does well under the righties!
Not to mention they believe in defending themselves...always good when you don't want the last words you hear to be "Allahu Akbar"
At 4/7/07 03:14 AM, Ravariel wrote:At 4/7/07 01:23 AM, WolvenBear wrote:There's also nothing biblically specific to Duckbill Platypi, Cheetahs, Kiwi Birds, Emus, or Unicorns (I was going to link to the far side cartoon where the lions eat the unicorns, for a fun little joke, but I can't fucking find it to link to...) either. But when one takes a stance that EVERY mammal on the planet can fit, and survive on the Ark for months (as Memorize has tried to do), then one must assume that they do mean "every". And also, when taking a literalist stance (as Memorize must in order to make the claim he is) on the flood story, one must also assume that dinosaurs were part of it. Even if they weren't... Elephants, Hippos, Rhinos, etc, as well as those animals with specific habitat/climate requirements would require so many acts of god to survive that one person building an ark seems a bit redundant.
So because dinosaurs once existed, we must believe that they were on the arc if we want to take the story literally? Sorry, doesn't fly.
But ok, I'll bite. To believe that Noah had all the animals of which you are speaking, one must believe that God brought them to him. If God is going to go to the trouble to bring Noah all the animals, (much less flood the Earth), then it's kinda silly not to assume that he took precautions to keep them alive. Drowning the entire planet is a bit of a feat...the rest is childs play compared to it.
The rocks they usually sit on are refrigerated, and usually the water is kept as close to freezing as they can get it (it should be noted, that it's salt water, which freezes at far below 5 C). polar bears could not survive in zoos without these precautions. That they do live and longer than in the wild (not surprising, veterinary care, regular meals, no natural hazards, etc) is testament to the amount of trouble we go through more than to their hardiness for warmer climes.
I understand about the rocks, but they're still exposed to the elements. And they survive. I dont know the net temperature...but on days when its 100 out, that cancells out a lot of the effects of the Rocks.
Creationists ARE idiots. So are those who believe in ID, a Young Earth, and a Literal Bible. Believing that God sparked the process that started life on this planet millions of years ago doesn't mean you're a creationist... to be so you need to believe the literal (or damn close to it) word of Genesis, 7 days, yadda yadda.
Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity (typically God), the existence of which is presupposed.
See: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and more...
The majority of people are Creationists to one degree or another. Some take the strict Genesis view. Others don't. Labeling them all stupid is assinine.
And there are some exceptionally intelligent people who believe in ID, including athiests. So, again, whatever...
Moreover, the Old Earthers (again creationists) had no problem ratifying the idea of Dinosaurs with their beliefs. They predated the relatively recent New Earthers by quie a bit. Considering in the Bible, there's evidence that Adam and Eve weren't the first people alive (the booming Land of Nod, populated by people that Cain was afraid would kill him), and that there were throwbacks from another Era (Leviathan and Behemoth), it's not a stretch to say that the creation story was the 2nd Creation. Hell for all we know, wiping out the Dinosaurs was part of God's making of the Earth.
True... however, that's not the argument he's making. Memorize tried to argue that the ark could carry a pair of every mammal (his words, though the bible mentions unclean animals as well as birds) on earth, not just from the region. And while they might fit, there would be no room for things like food and water for them to survive.
I forget how deep the ark was. But the width and length were huge. Water was all around them, so that's not a problem. all in all the boat would've been as big as your average football stadium, so it'd be a stretch, but I can guarantee none of us want to do the Math on it.
Obviously not, but if it was a global flood, then all of them would have to come, and that's a horse of a completely different color, now isn't it?
A different color, but still a horse. Because you could fit all the animals from the mid-East on a football field no problem and have plenty of room. Add the height and the claim is not as ridiculous as you all are making it out to be.
Devils advocate is fun.
Most true creationists do believe dinosaurs and men lived together at the same time... I can link you to several other sites, as well as AiG, that will confirm this. We even have a couple of Young-Earthers here on this forum.
Young earthers aren't the majority of all Creationists though. There's teh Old Earthers, Thiestic Evolutionists, Judiac and Islamic Creationists, etc, etc, etc...
At 4/7/07 03:30 AM, Ravariel wrote: Negotiation and diplomacy is the ONLY way we're going to get even the semblance of stability there, and someone has to extend the olive branch. If we don't, I doubt Syria will. Pelosi may have overstepped her authority, but she wasn't the first politician to go there... she just happened to be the highest-ranked and a Dem, so it's easy, especially for the right, to try and demonize her for it.
SOMEone has to start diplomatic relations with Syria if we expect anything there to work out... Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine. Bush may not realize it, but apparently congressfolk on both sides of the aisle do.
And lets not forget our staunch middle-eastern ally Saudi Arabia, from whence came most of the 9/11 attackers, and is also a harbor for and sponsor of terrorism. Now it may be in the Pres's power to declare one terrorist nation an ally and another an enemy... but that doesn't make it right. And I think arguing about whether or not Pelosi overstepped her authority is missing the forest for the trees.
I think those of us who pretend that peace with Syria is possible are missing the dirt for the ground. You cannot negotiate with a nation that has among it's goals, the distruction of it's neighbors. It didn't work with Germany. It didn't work with Russia. It's not working with North korea. It failed with Iraq. It's failing with Iran. You cannot negotiate with non-reasonable people. This is something we all got as children. If I ask the bully nicely to stop hitting me, he's going to hit me twice. Once because he was going to anyway, and a second time just to be cruel and mock my request. Multiply that byuu a million.
It is the height of stupidity to believe that he's going to stop financing terror and assassinating Lebanese politicians if only we ask nicely.
A long trip to share a cup of tea will only leave us with the bill for the trip...and the tea.
Since all we ever get is the negative...
Here's a balanced look at Iraq yesterday
SUICIDE VEHICLE DETONATES OUTSIDE POLICE CHECKPOINT IN RAMADI
IRAQI SECURITY FORCES ENFORCE "RULE OF LAW"
NATIONAL POLICE DELIVER SUPPLIES, HOPE TO IRAQI SCHOOLCHILDREN
At 4/7/07 01:40 AM, LardLord wrote: Electricity / resource consumption has been so intrinsically linked wiht our culture that its impossible for us to separate the two. Come on, don't pull that bullshit argument.
Oh, don't be a dunce. The fact that GW advocates are some of the most wasteful people in the world energy wize is more than enough to turn intelligent people off to their crap. Gore, when presented with the choice to use less because he believes GW is real and manmade, and help the Earth...flat out refused.
Unless the conservationalists move to Africa and live among the tribesmen, they cannot fully give up resources. What they're trying to do is stop consumption early in the development of these countries so they don't fall into the same trap that we did.
They don't have to fully give up resources. How about just cutting back?
The environmentalists want laws that will affect everyone but themselves. It will kill our thriving economy which will lead to mass poverty, and in the third world it will lead to starvation, disease and death (our green policies are always wonderful in Africa).
Perhaps we can find alternative methods that will work in both these devolping nations, and our own nation of wretched excess.
Yea, the global warming environuts can live like normal people. They can use mass transit airliners instead of using their much bigger ones. They can drive moreenvironmnetally friendly cars. Etc.
At 4/7/07 01:24 AM, LardLord wrote: Conservationalists tell EVERYONE to reduce natural resource consumption. Not just 3rd world countries.
And refuse to do so themselves. Most GW supporters drive huge SUVs in convoys, have their own personal planes, and use 20x more energy than the average household.
Perfect example:
Look over the descriptions of the following two houses, and see if you can tell which one belongs to an environmentalist.
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern “snow belt,” either. It’s in the temperate South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps, which draw ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE # 1 (20-room energy guzzling mansion) is outside Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
The only problem with the above example found at www.theothersideofkim.com is that it should say House #1 is ONE of Gore's many mansions.
