1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 9/22/06 05:22 PM, Begoner wrote:At 9/22/06 05:09 PM, Humbucker740 wrote: This wins the award for funniest thread ever posted by gullible people.Yes, you are a much better scientist than the entire scientific community which has reached a consensus on global warming and its consequences for years now.
There is no concesus on global warming...either that it exists or that it doesn't. And among those who believe that it exists, there is no consensus that it is or isn't man made. Once again Begoner, you prove yourself to be a one dimensional character on the policial stage.
At 9/22/06 05:27 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote:At 9/22/06 04:34 PM, Stolzer-Amerikanisch wrote: Liberal propaganda is full of lies. Ex: Al Gore, that fuckwad will do anything for attention.Global warming is not, I repeat, NOT liberal propaganda. In fact, it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with science. Countless scientists have proven time and again that there is a correlation between human activities and the warming of the atmosphere. I don't see how you can dismiss global warming as a lie even given heaps of evidence that corroborate it.
The hard science of the fact is simple. The temperature of the Earth has risen less than a degree (average) in the past 20 years. That's not per year, that's period. Bottom line, that change is so insignificant that it is hardly worth mentioning. By this logic, we had better pray nexy summer never comes, because the temperature will be more than 30 degrees more than it is now. LIFE WILL END!
Countless scientists may have proven that global warming does exist, but countless scientists have also proved it doesn't. The small ice age not that long ago is a good counter example. Most global warming "experts" rely on the now discredited hockey stick model that has been proven absolutely false. It also hurts the "global warming cause" when fools like Gore make bad documentaries with easily disprovable "facts", and the celebrities that support the cause own nothing but SUVs and travel in private jets.
At 9/22/06 09:03 PM, IndianaJamie wrote: There’s a wall of ice in the north pole holding billions of gallons of water from the ocean (kind of like an underground lake) and when that brakes in about 10 years it will cool down ocean and as you know it isn’t the sun that heats the air directly its the ground. Oceans get colder, cools the air causing snow and so on.
This is nonsense. Of course the sun directly heats us. That's why it's hotter in the sun than in the shade, and hotter in the day than during the night. Also the change in temperature in the water would be neglegible for two reasons:
1. it would be very, VERY gradual.
2. The ice would be melting, i.e. heating up.
At 9/22/06 11:59 PM, fasdit wrote: That might be a bit of an overkill description and the time scale is way too short for the occurance. But anyone that says global warming is fake liberal propaganda media bullshit is stupid. Both republicans and democrats agree that global warming exists and it has been proven with tons of scientific data and research in countries all over the world.
Both republicans and democrats ALSO agree that if we play nice and don't offend the Muslims, then they'll stop hating us. Both Republicans and Democrats ALSO believe that the way to fix school systems is to pour millions of more dollars into a failed system, etc.Politicians agreeing doesn't mean a damn thing.
However, there are liberals and conservatives who agree that global warming is fake.
I hesitated to put that, because I'm afraid that with your fragile world view, that might make your head explode.
At 9/25/06 11:54 PM, fasdit wrote: Well I think coastal cities flooding and the extinction of various animals might fall under the word "bad".
Not to mention that in the past ancient civilazations have "died out" becaus of climate change. In more recent disasters the Etheopian drought comes to mind.
Water expands when frozen. It contracts when it goes back to it's liquid state. For the same way that when you have a glass of ice water and the ice melts, your glass of water doesn't overflow...so too are we ok if the ice caps melt some.
I dont understand why no one thinks Liebermann will win the primary. The system is slanted in favor of the incumbant. If the people who voted for him don't hear anything negative about him, andI haven't heard of anything ACTUALLY bad said. People's sheepish natures will cause them to vote for him. And just because a couple of vocal whiners are saying he's a turncoat doesn't mean anything. Look at how much criticism McCain gets, and he's still around. If anything, this publicity will help attract more Republican voters than it'll cost him Democrat ones.
My humble opinion of course.
At 8/2/06 11:00 PM, Anti_Noob wrote: No I am not describing communism. Communism does not persecute or discriminate people. You are thinking about Stalinism, a form of socialism in which the CIA labels as Communism.
Well, if the CIA labels it that way, it MUST be false....
Bravo, game set and match.
You need to stop such bullshit and get straight with the facts. Who told you this peice of shit?
Every communist society ever has lead to genocide. Since you offer nothing but "you're wrong", to counter my claim, we can stop here.
You are a fucking moron. Feminazism does not thrive off of socialism. It thrives off of anti-socialism.
Feminism thrives on endless government programs designed to "equalize" the sexes through endless legislation such as Title IX, quota systems, and when all else fails, sexual harassment lawsuits. That is the very definition of socialism.
Hey, if you're going to be a jackass to someone, at least TRY to prove them wrong.
Reagan sucked. Bush sucked. What the fuck did either of them ever do that was truly so great for our country? Reagonomics? Cutting taxes on the rich, in which they have the option of using that wealth to hire more people?
Well, I see, you dismiss the validity of an idea by describing it....BRILLIANT.
What did Reagan do? Well, he implimented Reaganomics (which if it is everything you said is a PERFECT thing) and ended teh USSR.
Bush is at least not Clinton and is willing to go to war with our enemies.
You are mentally challenged, that is what you are. STFU and read a book.
You're a jerk who doesn't even try to put forward an argument other than, "you're stupid". Thanks for your contribution.
At 8/2/06 11:07 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Honestly, the Bible has just as much wierd as shit passages as the Quran.
Granted. But weird as shit does not mean dangerous. My aunt is weird, and I love her to death. My father was weird and violent. Clearly I favor my aunt. This doesn't mean that my aunt was perfect. No where do I have to pretend that she hasn't made any mistakes, to acknowledge not only how much more of a screw-up my father was, but also that he was a threat to me.
At 8/2/06 10:49 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Honestly, I dont believe you. I really dont. I have never met someone who would read someone elses religious texts because they want to feel superior and better than their religion.
Yawn. Sticks and stones. I bought the Koran when I was trying to find what spirituality was right for me. I also have a Bible, a book of Mormon and several other religious texts.
And I've never before met someone either so stupid or so self righteous that they admit they have ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of a subject, then purport to be an expert and defend it.
One instance thats my complaint. One. The call to Christianize the Middle East is by far the stupidest fuckin thing I have ever read.
Your opinion. Little more. I always agreed with the first two parts, the third was the cruz, and now, I believe it too.
You have totally read a whole lot into a tax that is not there. Did you know that non-Arab Muslims had to pay Jizya under the Umayyads? Did that mean they were making them feel subdued as Muslims under Mohammed?
Wow, um....the tax isn't there, but non-Muslims had to pay it. I don' even know how to respond to that.
The tax had historical roots, none of which you bothered to look into. The Byzantines did the same thing, early Bedouins did the same thing. But you dont care.
Yawn. Nope, I really don't. The tax is just one more instance of Muslim transgression. And is directed by the Koran. As opposed to the lack of Jesus saying "tax the crap out of those who are heathens." There have also been a couple abortion clinic bombings by those claiming to be Christian. Hardly an indictment of the faith.
Historical context.
You dont know what your talking about. Sharia is a human construct that also violates the Quran.
Right, with your vast Koranic knowledge, you'd know all that.
So just because you claim to have read it over an internet forum you are somehow an expert? Give me a break. Not only do you not read Arabic, you dont know Islams history or the context of anyhting in there. Its like if I went through the Bible as a Chinese guy looking for all the most terrible things God did to prove how terrible Christianity is.
Yea, but at least then you'd have at LEAST read the Bible and would have a little more on your side than "nu uh". And I repeat, since I HAVE read it, and your only idiotic defense is "no you haven't", we're about done debating Koranic verse.
I HAVE talked to experts on Islam and the Quran. You are not one.
Well, gee, I'm hurt.
Besides the Quran counsils lying if it is in your best interest.
Pope Urban II speech to the Franks
OK. Is that your source of the Pope telling them to kill the Jews? Kill the turks....AH BUT HE MEANT THE JEWS TOO!
As the Byzantine Empire in the 11th century struggled to hold back the Seljuk Turks, Emperor Alexius I appealed to the West for aid. This plea did not fall on deaf ears and in 1095 Pope Urban II delivered his great speech to the Council of Clermont in which he exhorted Christendom to go to war for the Sepulcher, promising that the journey would count as full penance.
This is basic history bro. You dont know what you are talking about.
So, to refute me, you put forward a source saying the exact same thing I just said..."Christians are being attacked. We must fight the Muslim. Etc. Etc. Etc." Now TRUE, it doesn't say DON'T kill the Jews, but gee, I don't see the ringing endorcement there.
I dare you to edit the Crusades article. Tell me how long it will take to be revered. Go ahead, honestly. And the call to action was against "infidels" and "Persians" and "Sarceans" and "Turks." Basically, everyone.
Yet, he CLEARLY calls it in response to the suffering of Christians. Persians, Turks, Sarceans, and infidels would all be indicative of "Muslim". I think I liked it better when you didn't cite text that didn't support your theory and then claim it supported your theory.
YEAH!!! Thats my kind of G-D. Go Yahweh.
Yawn.
LOL that is pretty funny. Never thought I would hear people called radicals in that context.
LOL, it is pretty funny. Cause they're being largely ignored.
Lest also not pretend God didnt commit genocide, didnt make fuckin stupid assed rules that are STILL in the Bible that should be read as literal as every single other rule. Lets not pretend Christians didnt do abhorent things in the past like Muslims are doing now, all in the name of religion. Lets not pretend Christians dont still support doing anhorent things in the name of religion.
And let's not pretend that the Bible counsils needless agression against EVERYONE as the Quran does. Let's not pretend that Christ COUNSILED his followers to commit violence. Let's not pretend that those who committed crimes in the name of Christianity didn't have to ignore massive amounts of Scripture to justify themselves. And let's not pretend that all violence is equal.
You are such a naive fool.
And you're a buffoon defending a book you haven't read. I'm sorry, but the BEST thing that that is...is naive. You have effectively said "I have no first hand knowledge of the book....I would never read OR give consideration to anything critical of the Quran, but despite all this, I have a wealth of knowledge on the subject, and I have a source that contradicts what I assert! Yet you my friend, are naive."
I USED to defend Islam. Hell, I even used to take a position more extreme than yours. "Sure the Quran preaches a lot of violence, BUT that doesn't mean it's violent." But at least, I had read it at that point. And attended Muslim services. And studied it at least a little. All things you not only can't claim, BUT ARE PROUD OF. Terrorism..every religion has it's extremists. Honor killings? A perversion. Encouraging pedo..it doesn't...we'll maybe it does, but it must be taken out of context. Etc. After a while (about the time of the Muhammid cartoons), I finally said, you know, I'm ignoring a lot of stuff to hold up my theory, and there are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of Muslims who are destroying my theory as I watch. Kinda stupid to keep pretending there's nothing wrong here. Well, it must just be a problem with the dictatorial countries...no, no it's in Europe too....crap. Back to the drawing board.
And as for a Muslim perspective...Ibn Warraq "Why I Am Not A Muslim." Ex-Muslim, knows the Quran.
At 8/2/06 06:48 AM, DiabloCloud wrote: i said fund the army not the government. there's the solution. and the army is controlled by Hezbollah too!?
The government runs the army, and since Hezbollah is part of the government, YES, it gives them control.
why do they need to support her if Israel will not be punished?
Becuase Israel's having reckets fired at it. If it wasn't for the lack of intelligence in your posts, and your inability to type....I'd really begin questioning whether or not you were stupid.
why does it exist then? only to condemn... what does the security council do?
It does absolutely nothing. At least here you're admitting you don't know what you're talking about.
how does the UN plan to solve the Iran nuclear problem than?
They'll issue a STERN WARNING. And if that isn't taken seriously, they'll murmur a little then WRITE A LETTER.
i'm Lebanese... how can you know more than me in these things???
Well, your complete lack of any sort of knowledge...
i told you your media isn't showing a thing about the casaulties and you justify your argument with informations from the same media?
http://www.foxnews.c..,2933,206514,00.html
Yea, that media, that talks every day about how many civilians are killed in Lebanon. The CNN media that gives airtime to people denouncing Israel, like John Kerry. Yea, it's ok, you have nothing here. You can admit it.
are you a dictator or something!
MY GOD! You've cut me to the quick! Dictator! Buffoon.
At 8/2/06 06:17 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: If it's got a malformity that would kill it soon after birth OR when born, why carry it to term? I see no point in bringing more suffering into the world. If you feel you can raise a disabled child, do so. But if not, I'd rather not see tons of disabled and "discarded" living children.
DISABLED PEOPLE ARE ICKY! GET EM AWAY! GET EM AWAY!
Refer to the second Baby Doe case. A doctor says the kid's gonna die doesn't make it so.
Point being, don't abort just because the fetus is going to have Down syndrome, but if you feel unable to care for it, at least consider other options. The point of abortion is, IMHO, to protect the mother and to allow her reproductive choice. Her choice- not mine. My ethics, not hers. I wouldn't abort just because of a disabled fetus, but it is not MY choice.
Sure it is. And depending on whether or not the new court could hear it, you may get to vote on it!
At 8/2/06 06:46 PM, Elamdri wrote: Well lets put it this way.
The essense of the conflict is right to life vs. right to liberty.
Right to life trumps right to liberty. Your liberty to drive drunk for example is trumped by the fact that you become a danger to everyone else's right to live.
You have the mother's right to do what she wants with her body, a Lockeian principle.
It's not her body. Basic science 101.
You also have the unborn fetus/embryo's right to life, Also Lockeian principle.
Now, if we examine those 2 statements, we derive our conflict:
Does the right of the fetus trump the rights of the mother? Or do the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the fetus?
The conflict boils down to this...the right of the fetus to live is being trumped by the mother's right to convenience.
First lets validate the truth of the 2 statements to see if we can solve the conflict.
1: Does the mother have the right to do what she wants with her body?
Yes. Absolutely. But the child is not her body. It is a seperate entity. Even using the "parasite" example, that in and of itself ackowledges the baby as a seperate entity.
As long as it is not harming herself or another person physically, yes. Legally preformed abortions are a medical operation and thus aren't harmful to the mother. However, they are obviously harmful to the fetus. Thus comes the real question, is the fetus a person?
Science says yes. some people try to confuse the issue by asking "is it sentient", "is it aware", "is it intelligent", when the question is really "is it a person?" And that one, boys and girls, has been solved.
2: Does the fetus have the right to life?
Yup.
Again, this comes to the question of whether or not the fetus is a person.
Yup.
Both questions require the same answer to be proven true or false. So, to re-examine the conflict: Is the fetus a person at the time of abortion, or is it not.
It is a distinct human being, with all the scientific qualities of human life, so yea.
At 8/2/06 10:03 AM, DarthTomato wrote: in america, we call that self defense.
You can still get charged with assault for it.
That can be ANYTHINGwhat?
What's hard to understand. Words can be threatening behavior, leaning over someone, giving them a look....etc
where I come from the cops actually ask the parent if they wants to press charges on their own children.
Same here, but the judge can still issue leniency depending on circumstances.
At 8/2/06 02:41 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Naturally. Most legal gun owners, I would think, own some form of legitimate hunting or plinking weapon. While illegal guns ought to be gotten rid of, we need to stop concealed carry laws (they endanger everyone) and get high ROF guns and high capacity magazines out of the country.
There's less crime in states with conceal and carry laws. I see no reason to ban concealed weapons.
At 8/2/06 05:43 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Florida's handgun homicide rate has decreased somewhat in the past few years - part of this may well have been a result of the strong gun laws enacted during that time. As the following chart indicates, the handgun homicide rate in Florida increased considerably after passage of the CCW law in 1987. Decreases in handgun homicide occurred only after tough new gun laws were passed:" (Brady Campaign)
Yea, the Brady campaign used a lot of misinformation in its info.
Self defense, my ass.
Here's another site.
http://www.ncpa.org/..i/i_selfdefense.html
From it's headline "Brady Law Did Not Reduce Gun Homicides"
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act has had little effect on U.S. homicide and suicide rates, according to a new study in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association.
The authors of the study, Jens Ludwig of Georgetown University and Philip Cook of Duke University, found "no differences in homicide or firearms homicide rates to adult victims" following implementation of the act.
The only really positive thing from the Brady Bill:
They did find, however, that the waiting period did play a role in reducing the firearms suicide rate for persons age 55 and older -- a segment of the population more prone to suicide, but less likely to own guns.
About children:
http://www.ncpa.org/../2002/pd032102f.html
The report fails to mention that accidental firearms deaths are very rare -- in 1999, more than 12,000 Americans died from accidental poisoning, while only 824 died from firearm accidents, only 88 of whom were children.
During the 10 years covered by the study, accidental childhood deaths from firearms fell by more than 50 percent -- much faster than any other major type of accident.
The idea that crime goes down with gun control is bogus:
http://www.ncpa.org/..e/pdcrm/pdcrm43.html
The rate of gun ownership in the United States increased by 45 percent.
The number of handguns increased by 110 percent, from 37 million to 78 million.
The national homicide rate fell by nearly 10 percent, and areas with relatively high gun ownership rates tended to report relatively low violent crime rates.
Social scientists agree:
http://www.ncpa.org/..me/pdcrm/pdcrm19.htm
In short, the Brady Bill site is bunk.
At 8/2/06 06:06 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: How about we just stop allowing concealed carry weapons, high ROF weapons, high capacity magazines and give law enforcement the means to track ALL weapons and know where they are. I don't think we should put the lives of law enforcement on the line just because you want to have your gun. The cops ought to KNOW.
No cop has ever been injured by someone with a registered gun, and in fact, some have come to the police's aid.
http://www.2asisters..ation/ninemyths.htm#
*%20Myth%20#9
Nationally good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it with a better safety record than the police. [3] About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are loss than 1 in 26,000.[27] Citizens intervening in crime are less likely to be wounded than the police.
At 8/2/06 06:04 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Banning abortion is useless. Any sort of banning of this legitimate medical procedure will just create more teen mothers, unwanted children and so forth. That, and women will die getting back alley abortions or trying to do it themselves. Honestly, let people do what they want, especially with something that is, essentially, a parasite inside them as well as not a person (human =/= person). And, it has no sensitivity to pain, so, fetal cruelty? Bullshit. Women- abort if you want to. Males ought to have NO input for this one.
OH MY GOD, NOT BACK ALLEY ABORTIONS!
None of your argument is based in fact. It is all cheap empty talking points thrown out by rabid pro-choicers since the science and the logic doesn't fit on their side.
But just to list the errors in your short paragraph:
Abortion is a medical procedure, but the validity of it is up for debate.
Banning abortion will NOT create more teen mothers. In fact single motherhood will drop.
Back alley abortions are a construct of the feminist's imagination.
Anyone who tries to do a medical procedure on themselves is a moron.
Babies aren't parasites, they're symbiotes.
Fetuses can feel pain at some point.
Of course men have input, that's a stupid assertion and you should be ashamed for making it.
Your name fits you well on this.
At 8/2/06 05:47 PM, Elamdri wrote: But to the state, it isn't technically a person, so it can't be afforded that right. Besides, you have to take into account other scenarios, such as minors in that situation.
Actually, there is no law that defines whether or not its a "person". Roe vs Wade flat out said "we can't define when it becomes a human being", then established a trimester system. Abortion laws only really allow abortion in cases of "neccessity to the mother" under "proper and informed medical advice". But then with decades of legal precidence, neccessity has been so proudly defined as to include in essence the mother not wanting it, and medical advice to allow the doctor to judge socio-economic status, both of which are ridiculous.
And regardless, abortion by rape was STILL allowed pre-Roe.
Besides a lot of the reasons that children are aborted for "their health" (what a stupid concept...promoting the health of the baby by killing it): down syndrome, being entangled in the cord, physical deformities (such as malformed fingers and/or toes), etc.To be honest, I believe that to be a shallow excuse rather than a valid reason, but thats just me. I believe its important in a debate to be neutral to one's feelings.
Well, to be honest, I see that as you being unable to counter either point so you try and say it's somehow lacking just because it has emotion behind it is silly. If we didn't allow anyone with "emotion" to debate, the pro-choice lobby would disappear. Yea, I'm attached to my cousin, but it is a source of humor that the doctors were soooo totally wrong. And it is a prime example of the fallibility of doctors. If you have some romantic notion that doctors are infallible, I have to question what you really have to bring to the debate.
At 8/2/06 05:01 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Where exactly is disarming the populace a tennet of socialism?
Russia, England, Vietnam, (every other communist country), France, England....etc....etc...etc
As we can see here, controls over private property are at the core of socialism. Nazi Gernmany embraces industrialists, and many became quite wealthy, making them not socialistm.
Uh huh. So the taking of property such as contraband doesn't qualify as the taking of property? Or the taking of property from the Jews, the Christians, the Poles, and all occupied people, not to mention those critical of the state doesn't qualify as controls over private property....ok. Basically in Germany, when the state wanted something, it took it.
Germany also had the belief system that your body was property of the state, which is control of it's people. The official state name of Nazi Germany used after 1933 was "German National Socialist Revolution". Hmmm... SOCIALIST?
In fact, since you like the dictionary...as defined by American Heritage:
fas·cism (fshzm) KEY
NOUN:
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Notice strict socio-economic controls. Fascism puts absolute control of EVERYTHING (including private property) under one person. Everything belongs to the state. It is IMPOSSIBLE to try and pretend that Nazi Germany wasn't socialist, as seizing of property was routine.
In the 20th century, the Soviet Union was the principal model of strictly centralized socialism, while Sweden and Denmark were well-known for their noncommunist socialism. See also collectivism, communitarianism, social democracy.
In the USSR, they had strictly centeralized socialism, In Nazi Germany, they had strictly controlled socialism, centered in Hitler. It was called National Socialism.
http://www.namyth.com/SocialismWORKS!/inde
x.php?sw=Nazi+Germany
Sounds like socialism to me Bert.
As we can se here there different forms of socialism. I will grant that the type that leads to communism can readily take on many fascist qualities, but the Denmark and Sweden are not nor were they fascist, so your point is blown about socialism being the slippery slope to fascism, which inherently is based on your definition of socialism as fascism.
Both Denmark and Sweden have limited socialism. In a long list of problematic socialism failures that I have listed, which all involve some degree of fascism, you produce two examples which havent been horrible failures. Hell, people sometimes get shot in the head and survive. It hardly disproves that "Getting shot in the head leads to brain damage, death, and the like."
Only by redefining socialism can one pretend that they were socialist.
Only by ignoring the Nazi movement can you pretend they weren't. Since the entire basis of your argument was that Nazi Germany (The National SOCIALISTS) weren't socialist....your entire argument falls apart. Nazis were big among unions specifically. And fascism by it's VERY NATURE is socialistic. Your contention is absurd.
I will grant you this so long as we substitute fascism for socialism. Usually when people on these boards talk about socialism wrecking something, they refer to economics. and I argued on that track. You are quite correct in your above argument.
Fascism IS socialism. We can pretend all we want that someone giving the complete control of an entire country ro one man (which, yes, includes the right to seize property, which he did) is not at all related to socialism, but as you said earlier "we can call it lollipops, but they're still guns." So no, we'll keep the word socialism in context.
All the evidence points to socialism in Germany, and you keep saying "NO, not socialism....DUCKS!" It is a popular misconception that Nazi Germany wasn't socialist, but it is still just that....a misconception.
At 8/2/06 03:03 PM, ChelSmith18 wrote: no,abortion should not be banned.half the time the decision to have an abortion is based on the welfare of the mother and/or child.I am not just talking about unwed teen mothers here.
If you want to define "welfare of the mother" as including a hit to the pocketbook or general inconvenience, then yes you are correct. However, if one definaes the "welfare of the mother" as threats to her life or health, then no, abortions are almost exclusively an elective procedure. Besides pre-Roe abortion was permitted in cases of medical emergency or rape/incest.
if there is chance the child may not survive, a mother would look at the sitauation and observe potential finacial burden and/or the main responsibilties that will have to be taken care of once the child is born if the baby survives.the mother will base her decision to get an abortion based on those observations.
There is ALWAYS a chance the child may not survive. What a lackluster observation. Complications arise. This is more a platitude than an observation.
the point is women have the right to choose.no, i am not saying it is okay to kill the baby simply because the mother does not want to be pregnant,
That is exactly what you are arguing.
im saying there are other reasons that she may not want to carry the child.almost every mother who does get an abortion feels a sense of guilt from it and recalls whether or not she made the right decision.if abortion is banned, then deaths could occur, illnesses could arise, and poverty will defintely hit an all time high.at times, the family makes the decision for the mother (i dont think it is right but it does happen) and the mother is forced to have an abortion.like i said the reason could be finacial, lack of responsibilty, and often times it deals with religous views.to alot of people, just like pre-marital sex is a sin, so would an abortion. im not about to argue religous views, but the decision should be left up to the mother and abortion should not be banned.
That's all nonsense. Deaths will not rise, poverty will drop (it rose drastically after abortion was legalized), illnesses could arise.....BABIES LEAD TO PESTILENCE!
That rant was pointless. "It's ok, but it's not. It's a tragedy but it's her choice. The world will end if abortion is outlawed and I'll kick a puppy!"
At 8/2/06 04:35 PM, Elamdri wrote: Your forgetting that not all abortions are carried out by people who simply have second thoughts about pregnancy.
No, I'm not. They are such a small minority. Yet it amuses me how people bring out "health of the mother" as if that somehow trumps the fact that the vast majority of procedures are done for little to no reason. And AGAIN, pre-Roe, abortion was allowed for rape, incest, and health of the mother.
You have to take into account.
1: Women who are raped and become pregnant.
Pro-choicer Larry Elder describes it this way. "But is opposing this really extreme? To the pro-lifer, this is a child, so does it matter what circumstances that it was conceived under? Does it not still deserve protection by that philosophy?"
2: Women who's lives are threatened by the pregnancy.
Legal pre-Roe. No one is arguing that this wouldn't be an exception. It is called triage.
3: Children who pre-birth are diagnosed with terminal conditions creating a scenario in which ending the pregnancy would be more humane that carrying it to term and waiting for the child to die.
Doctors are wrong A LOT. My cousin had one of those "terminal conditions", and we're still waiting at 20 for her to die.....but she seems more interested in going to school, working and buying herself a car. All the predictions the doctors made about her even AFTER her birth proved false: she'd be retarded, she wouldn't walk, she'd have high medical bills, etc.
Besides a lot of the reasons that children are aborted for "their health" (what a stupid concept...promoting the health of the baby by killing it): down syndrome, being entangled in the cord, physical deformities (such as malformed fingers and/or toes), etc.
At 8/2/06 07:14 AM, Tacitacial wrote: How old are these foetuses that scream? If that information is in the videos, then you'll have to tell me since my computer is having trouble viewing the videos.
You know, I'll cede that one, I'm not actually sure how old it is.
Terri Schiavo was once in the possession of a cerebral cortex, making the situation a bit different and making that debate a matter of what she would have wanted. Terri Schiavo has nothing to do with abortion anyway.
Was once. And since your argument is that a cerebral cortex is the defining characteristic of being human, that opens the door for examples like Schiavo.
By the way, I was not referring to your arguments, I was referring to "(And here I was getting excited thinking I was going to have a challenge.)" and the like. Which is manipulation of the reader.
Dude, I'm debating you, I could give two craps about someone else getting "manipulated". Or is my sarcasm manipulating you yourself?
I don't make claims about life. I admit the foetus is very much alive right from the start. I deal with sentiency and the ability to think. I don't care whether it's alive or not.
There's an irony in talking about whether or not it should be legal or illegal to kill something and not caring whether or not it's alive. And I reiterate, even your own sources say that the cerebral cortex is not fully functional even at birth. If functionality is the issue here, then it is not even fully human at birth.
Since sentiency makes us human, places above all other known lifeforms and gives us rights, I'm forced to place the bar elsewhere. If I start assigning rights based on whether it is simply alive or not, I'd have to extend those rights to all other organisms.
From a religious standpoint, it is above all other animals simply by the virtue of being human. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is above the other animals by process of being a higher lifeform. It may not be of equal status to "full, fledged humans", but to recognize it's humanity is to "have to extend" animals rights as well is unfounded. However, by the logical entention of your argument, since babies really aren't sentient, they don't have rights.
Abortion is the termination of pregnancy. After birth, there's no more need for an abortion since the pregnancy has already ended. Though I admit that, since these infants aren't sentient, they can't be considered human by cognitive standards either.
There's no "need" for an abortion in the vast majority of cases. It is no more pressing than buying a Lexis or getting a gold tooth. It is a purely elective procedure done out of convenience. And while there may be no more cause (a better word than need?) for abortion, it's not like it's prohibited. See: Partial Birth Abortion. So even when there's no more cause for it, it is still done and is justified as "reproductive choice". Or even FULLY after birth such as in the cases of the Baby Does.
But very well then, I'll restrain myself and not point out what I deem to be manipulations. It's clogging up the debate anyway, so I'll just suck it up and get over it.
It's sarcasm, not manipulation. Quite frankly, I look at your endless sources as what's know in legal circles as overdisclosure. It's, quite simply, where opposing counsil gives over th documents required by the case, by in effect buries them by supplying endless amounts of irrelevant material to bury the person in paperwork.
So you are a utilitarian bio-ethicist, which is disturbing. I won't argue morality. Scientifically, and legally, the practice is almost impossible to defend. Roe vs Wade was a joke, commonly referred to as "Harry's abortion". Abortion law doesn't even set up the pretense of being real law. If it is a seperate entity (which science says it is), and is human (which by scientific definition it is), then it is legally indefensible to kill it.
At 8/2/06 06:49 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: You still havent said if you read it. Do you or do you not? Have you read it page for page?
Yes, Fab, I have read it.
And I dont disagree with what Coulter said on the widows, her message. But the way she said it? Cmon, total fuckin loon. And she is some whore lady in some cocktail dresses everywhere with seemingly no ideas of decency and her market is supposed to be the supposed "Christian right." Do you see nothing ironic?
So your entire complaint is that she's not "playing nice"? Which, by the way, is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not she is right. Boo hoo. The whole point is that the left brings forward people we're not supposed to be able to question because they're sympathetic.
What was your point you want me to shoot down? About jizya and taxes and shit? What is it you were proving?
Jiyza is a tax made on the dhimmi to make them feel subdued as demanded by the words of Mohammid.
Sharia has certain laws which are regarded as divinely ordained, concrete and timeless for all relevant situations (for example, the ban against drinking liquor as an intoxicant). It also has certain laws which are extracted based on principles established by Islamic lawyers and judges (Mujtahidun).
It is a human construct put together by Islamic jurists.
Now, I'll be fair, I don't know all of the laws that Iran has put forward. I won't even pretend I do. And wikipedia is not a valid source. Any professor worth his salt will tell you that.
What exactly are you? Some jackass with an axe to grind against Islam and I am supposed to trust you more than every Professor or teacher I have had on these subjects I have ever taken? Every Muslim I have ever met? Every book I have ever read? Because you have a hard on for Ann Coulter?
No, you're supposed to know what you're talking about. And you clearly don't. So a professor told you Islam was the "religion of peace". And I'm pretty willing to bet that those professors haven't addressed the subject of the subjects of "honor killings", slavery STILL prevalent in the Arab world, dhimmitude, or even the fact that Islam was spread by force. How about the bans on depicting human beings? Etc.
I don't care what you think of me, nor do I even care if you believe me. But quite frankly, you arguing with me over a book you haven't read is assinine.
And just because you have a hard on AGAINST Ann Coulter YOUR criticism takes more weight?
I am not going to get in a passage war because I dont know the Quran and I have a feeling you dont know it either. You are just some ass who wants to take some passages out of context and try to show how bad Islam is because of it.
Exactly, you DON'T know the Quran. You have never read it, you don't know passage one. Yet here you are still arguing it, despite your complete lack of knowledge.
Ehhh, no? The Byzantines were being invaded, not the Western Europeans. The Western Europeans didnt like the Byzantines. They just used their problem to propel them to Jerusalem. They then used it to subdue heretical groups in Europe. The Pope then used to to cement his control over Europe. Defensive none at all.
Eh, yes. The Pope called the first crusade in response to Muslim hostilities to Christian pilgrims in the holy land (because if they weren't protected "the faithful of God would be much more widely attacked"), and they're sezure of Jerusalem and much of the Byzantine empire.
1) Source
http://www.crisismag../april2002/cover.htm
While not unbiased it hits on the call to action from the Pope against Islam, about halfway down. And at least it can't be edited by some random 12 year old at a whim.
2) Why does that matter when they were all massacred anyway and this massacre was encouraged by the Pope?
Their massacre was NOT encouraged by the Pope. Considering his call was to attack the Muslims ONLY.
But hey, you know, source this. And don't use wikipedia.
I am sorry, do you deny that God has committed genocide and crimes against humanity? Because thats what it seems to me. By his own admission, also.
By your own admission:
I dont read a Quran, I read one Coulter book, and I have throughly read the Bible. I cannot imagine how the people who read the Bible literally can take themselves seriously with the calls for stoning your children and whatever other crazy shit that happens in there.
Deuteronomy 10-21
Yea, in certain cases, God called his people to smite his enemy, always specifically named, and it was bloody and they usually wiped the enemy from the Earth. And there's all kinds of historical accounts of laws made not only by God, but by the Church at the time.
And then, for all that there's that whole Jesus guy. The one who said the crazy things about love and peace "Let he without sin throw the first stone." "Love thy neighbor as thyself." etc.
What I said was that the Bible and the Quran are not on equal ground. Even the Quran and the Torah (the Jewish texts excluding the new testiment) are not equal. Mohammid was a warrior who preached the spread of Islam by force and the death or subjugation of anyone who refused to convert. PC demands that we pretend that EVERY religion is equally violent...Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam. You yourself are trying this approach. In the words of Robert Spenser: "Perhaps aware of how absurd New Testament referrences are Islamic apologists tend to focus on the Old Testament.
Now, let's be honest, Islam being violent doesn't mean that ALL MUSLIMS are violent. Many aren't devout. Some don't know what the Quran preaches. And then there are the radicals who are trying to fundamentally change the basis of Islam to be more peaceful. But let's not pretend that endless riots, the fact that almost every Islamic nation is a fascist dictator state, rules against apostacy in even Afghanistan and the proliferation of terrorism is just a large group of anamolies.
At 6/27/06 04:23 AM, Kenzu wrote: If you had a dictator, it wouldn't be communism anymore.
In fact you cannot have a ruler, who rules of you. (Only if no one is against)
Until it has a dictator it's socialism. Once it gets a dictator it's communism.
At 6/27/06 04:24 AM, Kenzu wrote: Maybe he should consider a certain person without arguments, whose only argument is to insult others. Am I right JadedSoB?
Yea, Arch, made that comment. You owe Jaded an apology.
At 7/12/06 04:30 AM, SicleOnASledge wrote: Democratic socialism is my ideal state. People would still be allowed to buy and sell stuff, but eg. power (elctricity, gas etc), major food production and other vital industries are controlled by the goverment, that is elected by the people.
Democratic and socialism do NOT go together. Certain things HAVE to be run BY the govt, (collective goods and services), but still...
Socialism is the absense of the free market. It is govt regulation of EVERYTHING.
But even in the current bourguoise democracy, I just vote for more progressive social policies, more goverment controll for trade and others, more personal freedom and less militarism.
It's because you're ignorant. Study a lil more. Socialism is the root of all evil.
At 8/2/06 06:24 AM, Jezzbo wrote:oh yeah, you can say that again. although, i do think he is responsable for the deaths of all the US soldiers sent to afghanistan, and the deaths of all the US soldiers sent to irak, not to mention the thousands and thousands of local victims...long live GW Bush, leader of Dumbfuckistan!!!
Bush ain't, the greatest...but he's the best we've had since Reagan.
Yup, every leader who sends troops into every war zone is in a sense responsible for their deaths. That IS the nature of war.
Less people have died under Bush than under the last year of Saddam's rule...
But, hey, you're just a dumb kid, unable to vote...and probaly WILL NEVER vote. No one cares what you think. Even the liberals who you side with.
At 8/2/06 06:07 AM, Anti_Noob wrote: Well we are already fascism in America with the police.
Police enforce order. And do their jobs. Damn them for not allowing you to rob your neighbor! FASCISM.
In which communist ideology is forbidden. People that practice a certain faith are persecuted and discriminated. A people of a physical, geographic, or biological identity are persecuted and discriminated. And nationalism is spirited to a great zenieth.
You are describing communism, not the "lack" of communism/
In Feminazism forbids communism, discriminates paternalistic religion and ideas, persecutes men, and embodies a great spirit of nationalistic pride.
Feminsm THRIVES on socalism. Thats why the majority of feminists are socialists.
People are always worried about a male figure, because we are so use to having horrible male political and governmental figures, like George W. Bush. Who would have thought that the Anti-Christ was a woman?
Bush ain't, the greatest...but he's the best we've had since Reagan.
At 8/2/06 05:36 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: You mean other than her calling the 9/11 widows the happiest money whoring widows on the face of the Earth? You mean other than saying we need to convert Arabs to Christianity? Haha.
Again, have you read the Koran?
And as for the 9/11 widows...the only distinction that ANYONE can make is that they are enjoying the PUBLICITY on their husbands' deaths, not enjoying the deaths themselves. A minor distinctiuon. And since I'd bet 100 bucks you haven't read Godless, don't lecture me out of it either.
I highly doubt you have read the Quran. More likely surfed the web for random qutes it it. But if you did, whatever. I still doubt it though. People dont read others religious works to feel vindictive about them.
OK, well ,you totally got me. Way to shoot me down. By not supplying ANYTHING to prove me wrong. But whatever. GO YOU.
That was a political move by early Muslim leaders, nothing more. They needed the skilled craftsmen of other faiths so they let them stay. And they needed money for armies. Plus everyone and thier brothers mothers had discrimatory legislation against other faiths back then. Tough, but true.
Hmm. Did everybody and there mother have legislation calling for the deaths of those who didn't accept their faith? No. Did everyone and their mother refuse to let others build temples to their God? No. Etc.
And Sharia is a human construct. It is not in the Quran.
Excuse me? The Sharia is DIRECTLY from the Koran.
I dont read the Quran to misrepresent what it says. I will leave the Quran to the people who know the Quran. Seventyone will be on here sooner or later or someone with more than a very basic level knowledge of the Quran to comment on your accusations.
So in other words. "I haven't read the Koran, so I trust complete strangers to tell me what it says." Gotcha.
Why not just call the tax by its name instead of calling people some name? Jizya. There said it. It is a tax. Something that many countries did back in the day like that. Not until Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was any legislation passed we would recgonize today as valid.
Ok, fair enough. The tax was calle Jizya. And i was instituted on the DHIMMI.
Hey and a fun fact. Christians burned witches (all tolled hundreds of thousands of them over the years) and killed Jews and Muslims and even other Christians during the Inquisition. BASTARDS!!! FUCKING BASTARDS!!!
MY GOD. Actually I'm happy you brought this up. The Inquistion made itself the direct conduit between God and man. It elevated itself above the law and religion, and barely tried to justify it's actions. The crusades were mostly defensive and reactionary conflicts. And as for those who killed Jews during the crusades, they were villified by the Piope.
Ahh, shit, hold the presses fools. Look what I found in the Bible. What terrible people. I bet they support such terrible governments that want to kill, like, everyone.
HAHAHA. Wow, ya'll I'm like totall gonna call you an idiot, but not actually show how you're wrong...look at me!
By your own admission:
You don't have a koran or read it.
(Most likely) You don't read Coulter.
Yolu found "something" in the bible" that "supposedly" puts the Bible and the Koran on the same page (you haven't).
At 8/2/06 05:02 AM, Tacitacial wrote: You should first prove that the foetus actually does scream before you ask me to discount it. You haven't produced a source with this information yet.
There's a beautiful book written (including severa lsemi-pro-choice views) called "The Cost of Choice". It's well written and hard to refute.
And fo a pro-abortion site:
http://www.plannedpa..on-silent-scream.xml
Here's the skivvy:
Sure it's all true. But it's propeganda designed to turn women away from abortion clinics!
But assuming it is true and that you will indeed give me your source, I'd consider screaming a primitive physical response as well, like kicking. Screaming does not mean sentiency.
Sceaming means feeling pain. Which is exactly the argument that most pro-choicers use...fetuses can't feel pain. Your very own source discounts this. Yup...feeling pain and responding is a primal instinct. EVEN IN DEVELOPED humans. Your point?
An attempt to manipulate the reader, which does not belong in a proper debate. Please stop that.
I'm sorry. But your entire debate focuses on the brain working properly. Even in the Terri Schiavo debate, the quesrion wan't whether or not she was still conscious, but what she would've wanted. And since Terri's entire cerebral cortexwas damn near gone, it invalidates your point legally.
The rest of my source is all about pain perception. My argument doesn't involve pain perception, but revolves around sentiency. I have neither claimed that the foetus doesn't feel pain nor is pain perception relevant. So why did you involve pain perception?
Because that's the ENTIRE focus of that argument.
This is just more about other parts of the nervous system, providing the foetus with the basic physical responses. This bit isn't about the ability to 'think' at all, but only describes more primitive physical behaviour which does not elevate it above an animal.
However, there is not a think in any of your sources to suggest that "life" begins at 20 weeks, as has been your claim. You give us several "this is how the brain works arguments. Cool, cool. So what? Then you provide us with a pain study. Which if not seeing at what point the infant feels pain, then I fail to see the point of it. Then you give us a study that says that an even an infant doesn't exhibit higher brain functions.
Not. a . single. one. of. your. sources. backs. up. your. claim. of life. at 20. weeks.
I meant it can't think at all and suspect you knew very well that is what I meant. And again you attempt to manipulate the reader with subtle attacks (Am I proud of myself?).
Yet the evidence shows that brain function occurs earlier than you suggest. I honestly don't know WHAT you're suggesting. Does life begin at brain activity? (before 20 weeks) Or after sentience? (after birth) Either way you have nothing to back up your position.
By the way, I am indeed proud of myself, but not because of my contribution to the abortion debate.
I'll give you this...you are INDEED more inteliigent than most pro-abortion candidates, but so what? You seem to be getting mad at me for calling out obvious weaknesses in your argument, such as saying 20 weeks is the limit, then producing nothing that supports that point of view.
And outside of the abortion debate Icouldn't care less how you view yourself.
Ah, new information. It seems then that I'm forced to reevaluate my views and adopt a horribly unpleasant position. I guess we now have sufficient grounds to legalize abortion during any stage of pregnancy and well beyond the 20th week.
Abortion is already legalized beyond the 20th week.
You are not FORCED to adopt a "horribly unpleasant position". That is your choosing. Don't pawn it off on me.
Your rude and manipulative demeanor is inappropriate and misplaced. I kindly ask you to stop with these cheap and meaningless attempts to manipulate me and other readers. Please start debating like a gentleman. I would very much appreciate it if you were to show me the same courtesy I showed you.
No, no ,no. You more or less defines life as intelligent thought. As evidence by your above "now I have to push the bar further forward" bs. Your ENTIRE argument is that life does not begin until cognative thought is achieved...which depending on the child, comes as late as 2 years. I say nothing manipulative. Hell, you even admit that now, you don;t know where you stand because the bar that you though put life at 20 weeks doesn't exist. You have zero room to gripe. I'm being polite to you (ask Begoner, Penal, etc). But I have no time to baby people who throw their opinions out there and then complain when they're used against them. You claimed the ba for personhood was set at sentiency (repeatedly). Don't whine that now that I've provided evidence that sentiency doesn't really occu until after birth that you somehow your posiion doesn't extend to infants.
As sad as this sounds, at least Peter Singer is consistant with his views.
At 8/2/06 04:03 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Watch out, Ann Coulter in training. Give it space, dont feed the animal kids.
WOOT. MILLIONAIRE STATUS HERE I COME!
Never ind the fact that despite her second book "Slander", no one really has anything to mock her on.
Fab, Read the Koran, then get back to me.
I have a copy right here, yourself?
Sharia law:
For the disbelievers there are three choices:
1. Accept Islam. If one hears the call of the prophet, they are to be spared. (Coincidentally, OBL violated this policy on 9/11. He demanded we join Islam AFTER he bombed the WTCm but he should have done it before.)
2. Accept dhimmi status. We refuse to accept Islam, BUT admit we are pathetic ridiculous underbeings and pay a tax for being "heathen".
3. Death
Your turn, Fab.
And I'm sorry, but if you are going to contradict me, quote the Koran, (or paraphrase it), or don't bother.
Dhimmi status has been instituted by every single Muslim culture since the religion's inception.
Qur'am 9:29 for example:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Hey, and to dd a fun fact, leaving Islam is a CAPITAL OFFENSE, in even the newly free Afghanistan.
Hey, call me Ann Coulter all you want. Cause she's accurate about 80% of the time.
It's ok, you have nothing. It's alright.
At 8/2/06 03:43 AM, -Dooks- wrote: Im straight but i think people should do what there happy doing its there decision not any one else's ok.
were all created equil just be happy right?
increase the peace we allready have a war goin on let people be happy
I'm going to have two children....I refuse to work btw.
Is my decision any of your business?
You damn right it is. Why? Because you pay for it.
At 7/31/06 09:41 AM, Slizor wrote: No, it's not. It used to have some standing before the behavioural revolution in the 1950s and before the continual erosion of the US's left wing meant that "[you] are all liberals now". Your moralist whinging is a common theory in the US, but the people who do it I wouldn't describe as academics.
Academics are left wing. There's not a single person of any merit who denies this. In fact, by most left wingers it's taken as a sign of pride.
At 7/31/06 01:17 PM, Slizor wrote: The problem is not that Americans reject structuralist thinking - I, myself, reject a large amount of it - but the problem is instead they do not discuss it. Politics has moved onto post-material concerns and ways of understanding without having dealt with material concerns. The agenda in US politics is elite-led.
Oh please, don't even try to console yourself by pretending that NO ONE in America talks about how the poor remain poor. Your theries are harly new. None of this is absent in American discusssion. Hell, a lot of it is the CENTER of discussion, tho we focus it around race.
It always annoys me when someone says the same old bs then claims it's a "taboo" subject in America.
At 8/2/06 02:55 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: I'm only going to partially agree with this statement. First, many middle eastern states that fell to facist idealogies didn't usually first go socialist. Iran fell directly to Islamic Fundamentalism without any claims to becoming socialist first.
No, most Islamic states fell to the idea of ISLAM, which while not fascist, is dangerous in and of itself.
Second, you seem to imply a cause and effect relationship where one does not exist. We have highly socialist countries in Europe such as Switzerland that few would deem fascist. They arm their population.
Arming their population is NOT socialism. Socialism seeks to disarm it's citizens. Switzerland is semi-socialistic, like the US.
Although I may be misreading you, it seems to me that you are implying a sort of evolution occurred when countries went from socialism to facism, as though the countries started out genuinely socialist and then became fascist. This was not the case as often as it would seem. In many instances the countries went almost directly if not directly to fascist states. Even when the change took a few years, in most instances the change to fascism occurred under the same leader, suggesting that it was more the leader becoming corrupt if not already being corrupt that brought about fascism and not the idealogy itself. Socialism was just one of the populist ideas used to rally people around a new fascist leader. In the middle east, Islamic Fundamentalism has been used in a similar manner.
Socialism elevates the state to the position of God. Leader corruption inevitably follows.It IS a cause and effect situation, without a single exception.
Third, in one of your later posts you assert group Gernany in with communist countries, thus conflating Fascism and Communism together.
I associate Germany with SOCIALISM, not communism. The theory is the same, the application is different.
While it is true that in many aspects Communism and Fascism resemble each other, there are significant economic differences which prevent you from interchanging the two so freely. Nazi Germany was not socialist. Yes, its true the Nazi party referred to themselves as socialist, but they were not. Corporations and private industrialists held great sway and made lots of money in Nazi Germany. Oscar Schindler is a prime example of this.
Nazi Germany was absolutely socialist. They took away guns. Outlawed religion (as every single fully socialist society has done), elevated the state above the individal, etc. Only by denying the facts can one pretend that Nazi Germany was not socialist.
Also, one more point on Gernamy. Socialism did not wreck Germany as you claimed. Until the Nazi's began WWII, they were one of the most technologically advanced nations with a booming economy due to war time build up.
A technologically advanced society that practiced genocide, infanticide, massive imprisonings and deportations, book burning, persecutions, etc. Socialism wrecked Germany.
I do agree with you that socialism can lead to fascism. As I have mentioned ealier, it is one of the populist movements that have been or can be used to jump start fascism. Such movements are required to gain support for the new regime before it is firmly entrenched in power (assuming of course no intervention by an outside power propping up the aspiring fascist regime). It is also needed to overthrow the old order. This said, I could see Christianity being used in such a way in this country, specifically the fundamentalist strains that believe the end times are near. I do believe it would also take cataclysmic event, one in which the United States were decimated, before they would engage in such actions. To be fair, there are factions in the left that could be used this way as well.
However, every instance of evil in the history of man is the state taking on God like power and declaring themselves superior, which is absolutely inconsistant with Christianity. If one studies the inquisition honestly, the state took the powers of God upon themselves and dispatched with even pretending to be serving a higher power. It is impossible (at least right now) for Christianity to be used as this "jumping point", because too many Christians would oppose it.
I agree with most of what you said before this, so I ommitted it for brevity. However, the patriotism card was thrown around a lot more than it is currently. Anyone who questioned what was going on in 2003 was sure to do so in private, and many were to throw epithets at those who disagreed publically. Don't forget Bush's "You are either with us or against us." Let us also not forget how many threw around the grand "if you don't support the war, you don't support our troops." It's not happening nearly as much now, but at one point it was happening in an attempt to stifle and constructive debate.
Bull. The DAY AFTER 9/11, Churchhill, released his little Eichmann statement. He didn't get criticized for months. Many were too shocked still to debate him. If you look at political books mocking Bush between 2001-2003, there's no shortage. Sorry, this claim doesn't hold muster/
1) Illegal Immigrants. Bush wants to tighten borders but grant amnesty to those that are already here. I agree with this plan as long as it is not used to lower wages for american workers. In otherwords, pay them the minimum wage so they don't get an advantage over American workers.
If by tighten borders you mean create a financial incentive to either a. work in the country legally and never leave or b. jump the border quick before the law passes, then yes.
2) PC claptrap on Israel.
Why in God's name should Israel (or us) try to negotiate with Hezbollah. Their vvery public goal is the destruction of Israel. Screw that noise.
3) Iraq. (edited for space)
True things have gotten SLIGHTLY worse in Iraq, but this is after years of things getting better. And the media has distorted the actual situation in Iraq.
Not to mention...Bush wants NO change of plans in Iraq...which is why even the right criticizes him.
At 7/29/06 10:27 PM, TonioMiguel wrote: Recently, our congress decided to make English the official language of the United States. My concern with this is it does violate the first Bill of write which is the freedom of expression.
No, it doesn't. Don't be dense.
:To me, people do need to learn English out of logic for living in a primarily English speaking nation. On the other hand, I know that language and culture are synonymous which means for someone to loose their first language is to loose a part of themselves.
Yea, um, if I live in France....I better learn to speak French. Doesn't mean I can't ever speak English again.
PC bs
Because someone HAS to learn English must mean they are no longer whatever race they are. Your post is lacking of any value whatsoever.
Please only serious non-biased English Only and Bilingual people.
I speak enough Spanish to get me by, which means I can also understand a lot of French. By facial movements and body gestures and common words, I can catch some: german, russian, italian. However, as all intelligent people realize, if you plan to live in a country, you learn the language...period. End of discussion.
At 7/30/06 06:13 PM, Kasualty wrote: Why is English the worlds lingua franca, it ranks fourth as a first language, after Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, and Hindi.
Well, mostly because America and England are the two most prosperous countries in the world. The UN is entirely financed by the US, most world aid comes from the US, etc.
But guess what....they still speak Chinese in China, French in France, German in Germany...etc. If you go to a foreign country and don't speak the language....you're going to have problems.
At 7/30/06 06:33 PM, Der_Pandar wrote: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo protects the Spanish language in the United States. Because of this decision, the government is under no obligation to print votes or any other government-issue paperwork in Spanish. This not only constitutes a violation of an international treaty, but a major departure from over 200 years of international precedent regarding the rights of parties in treaties.
No it doesn't. The treaty basically says that we can't force them to stop speaking Spanish...not that we have to print every gov't document in two languages. The only country that does that is Canada...who has TWO official national languages.
At 7/30/06 10:58 PM, Anti_Noob wrote: We should have both English and Spanish to be the primary and official languages of this nation.
No we shouldn't.
Having English as a primary language is situated by aristocrats and businessmen and has nothing to do with the wide range of people that speak English, other than for business purposes.
Having English as the national language is 100% because the majority of the people speak it, and most don't speak anything else.
Most people that speak Spanish are poor, so they are not going to have much a stand to fight oppression from the aristocracy.
Spanish is the second most common language in this country. Almost every major: politician, businesman, and higher up speaks it. In addition, it is the msot popular second language in this country. Making English the national language is the wish of the average man, not the aristocrat.
Florida, California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, Utah, Colorado, and a few other states were founded on lands dominated by Spanish Speaking individuals. In addition, practically everyone has Spanish decendents. So why should we argue further, it is in the blood, deal with it.
The majority don't have a lick of spanish in their blood. If we wanna go back into history for real, this deabte is moot as at one point, the entire continent was taken by Indians. However, it doesn't mean "the majority" have Indian blood.
At 8/1/06 06:48 AM, TonioMiguel wrote: Alright guys we've exhausted the first part of my post but what about the second part?
The second part is irrelevant. And not only does it not matter, it actually CONTRADICTS your first part. Learning English is good for foreigners. You said it yourself.
At 8/1/06 05:48 PM, Me-Patch wrote: Id'e like to hear a supreme court ruling on the constitutionality of a national language, the supreme court is duty bound to interpret the constitution without bias, and it is a bit of a grey area.
Yea, if you really believe that the supreme court "interprets without bias" you're sadly mistaken on the nature of the court. And the national language (if we want to be honest), isn't something that the court could actually rule on one way or the other, since its not in the consitution.
At 8/1/06 09:58 PM, TonioMiguel wrote: Actually not to burst you bubble but I have studied languages and English and Chinese are on the list of the hardest languages in the world to learn in a short amount of time. French is also a very difficult language due to its failure to pass a phonics test.
We're talking basic stuff here. When it gets into verb conjugation, spanish beats English. Having at LEAST 6 conjugations for every verb (just in the present tense).
At 8/1/06 11:50 PM, bradford1 wrote: The point is that we are closer than fascism than we usually are. We might go deeper unless we stand up and stop taking the crap.
GWB is trying to take away less of my freedoms than the average Democrat....and we're at war, so I'm good. Freedoms taken away from me by Bush? 0. By random Dems...I lost count.
After he got away with the Patriot Act it is dangerous to take your freedom of speech for granted.
I doubt you could actually tell me a single thing that the Patriot Act does (careful now...Congress made changes, and it's not the same as in the Michael Moore video). I'm confident of this because quite frankly some legal scholors have spent YEARS on this and even they get confused as to everything it does.
At 8/1/06 11:52 PM, bradford1 wrote: No, it is just that the cross can justify radical fascist actions to most Americans. It isn't bigotry, it is just that Americans believe that if it is done in the name of the cross it is good.
Yea, it's not like you actually have anything o back this up.
In your world, a ration al Christian sounds like this...
"Oh my God betty, LOOK. A cross. Let's go lynch an Arab."
Ridiculous.
At 8/2/06 02:20 AM, Der_Pandar wrote: If we're going to be staunch defenders of safety here, and are going to talk about taking guns away from people who have purchased them legally and learned to use them, then it would seem a horrible hypocrisy to not defend the safety of girls who aren't of legal age. After all, you wouldn't want to seem like a hypocrite, would you?
I see nothing hypocritical about mercy. There is no issue of safety here. There could be a dozen factors involved: she lied to him about her age, he was confused about the age of consent in that region, they're actually married with parental approval (people have been tried for this in the US), she is an emancipated minor, they have been together for a while and he just hit he cut off age, etc.
And since I haven't said we should take away guns from people, there is absolutely no hypocracy (or even appearance of it) on my part. Have a nice day! :)
At 8/2/06 02:08 AM, RedScorpion wrote: Ooo. Ooo. I can corroborate that.
OK, he's dutch and you're Canadian...yea, you really can't corroborate it. You can send me another link to the same ridiculous "research". It has never been observed before, it has never been observed since...and he has NO EVIDENCE. Sorry, this case reeks of bullshit. So he has a dead duck that's been screwed....we'll that proves everything. We have bodies in morgues that were found dead with semen in them...doesn't prove necrophilia.
The Ig Nobel prize is basically a mock Nobel prize (they give awards for smaller, odder achievements)
Another linkage. (full article in PDF link)
The Nobel committee also gave Arafat the Peace Prize. They gave the literary prize to the author of Topdog/Underdog....which was a ridiculously cartoony depiction of black men (she had the courage to "tell the truth about the black condiion").
What they did was take a guy at his word with no evidence that this occured...and gave him an award.
Well, hell if that's all it takes.....
Feces cures the common cold. You see, my neice was sick, then she pooped in her diaper and got better. Skin contact with feces cures colds. As proof I have her used diaper...and LOOK she's not sick! Oh, here's a video of a few days ago of her sneexing. MY CASE IS PROVED!
If this wasn't pushing some idiotic view on necrophilia being NORMAL in the animal world, it would be laughed out of the room.
At 8/2/06 12:19 AM, DarthTomato wrote:
Well, I'm in a mood to actually defend something liberal, for whatever reason...
letting criminals off with a 'caution'. i fell out of my chair laughing at this idea. theres a deterrent for ya. "We'll let you go this time, but you better not do it again!" whats next? 3 licks with a paddle? sending them to their room?
some of the offenses that can be let off "with a caution" include...
common assault,
If I throw a punch at you, and you hit me back, you can still be charged with assault...even though you were defending yourself.
threatening behaviour,
That can be ANYTHING
sex with an underage girl or boy, pedophilia? hey JMHX, we're goin to london!!
Yea, we should throw those people in jail for years who have sex with someone a week before they turn legal...
and taking a car without its owner's consent, auto theft..... cautioned? wtf?
kids who take the car without asking...leave it to the parent
Ok, you ban guns and knives, but the crime rises, and the next step is to let people off with a caution... this.....
That list actually isn't that bad. We let people off in the US for those same things.
At 8/2/06 01:46 AM, Ravariel wrote: I wouldn't think so. If a recognized religion was willing to marry a homosexual couple, then what basis would the government have to not recognize it as valid? There is not yet a federal law on gay marriage (nor should there be one way or the other).
If a respected church decided three people could get married, underage people could get married, etc, does the state have to honor that too?
How so? Marriage is a legal contract, and no contract can be voided based upon the (legal citizens of age) people in the contract.
I severely hope you're talking in theory here, because contracts are voided all the time by the gov't, especially the judiciary.
Do they "not support gay marriage" or do they not care if it's called "civil unions"? Either way, I'd like a source for that claim.
Unless you're willing to make the claim that all gay people believe the same way, you really don't need a source.
How so? It's right there in the first amendment. Sure the words "separation of church and state" don't appear, but it's obvious that the constitution forbids the government from meddeling in religious affairs.
No, it's absolutely not. The government is absolutely free to "meddle in the religious affairs" if those practices either: break laws, endanger the public health, etc. Seperation of church and state implies that the two are unable to interact, where as the first amendment just says they cannot be the same entity, but can certainly interact. "Seperation of church and state" is often used as a justification to ignore the 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Yes, I know the wording of the Amendment. It backs up my point.
And why, pray tell, should gays not be allowed to marry?
Cause the majority is against it. And it's not a right, normal, abnormal or inalienable. It's simply a priviledge, a nicity.
The government shouldnt be allowed to deny pagans parriage any more than they should be able to deny homosexuals, atheists, satanists, or anyone else.
He used it to strengthen his case. It was a bad argument. Make your case with him on that one.
But do they have the SAME benefits? Are the benefits EQUAL?
Access to health care, social security, medicare/cade, etc. Yea, the benefits are identical except for one. It can be invalidated by crossing state lines. For example, if one state has common law marriage set at 10 years, and the neighbor state has it set at 15, if the couple moves, their common law marriage is invalid for five years (and that's straight couples too).
Beyond that, why do you CARE that they get together and call it "marriage"?
I don't really. But as long as marriage is nothing more than society saying "OK, we think you're a good couple, have some money", no one has even a mediocre case to DEMAND society recognize it.
And on the flip side, why do gays feel the need to call it "marriage" and are not satisfied with the words "civil union"? A rose by any other name, etc, etc.
Because the entire movement is based on teh demand that we validate their union and force their agenda down our throat....which is the primary reason it has failed everywhere.
At 8/2/06 01:01 AM, RedScorpion wrote: Although, it's somewhat hard to tell (on a grand scale for animals). If homosexuality is based upon penetration, then documentation considering homosexual acts would certainly vary. It is possible that these animals are simply using the other same-sex animals as a basis for masturbation. They may be doing it for the purposes of just having something to hump.
On the other hand, have some animals developed an affinity for the same-sex over that of the opposite? I would be interested if there was some documentation on that.
Yea, the problem with wikipedia is that it can be edited by ANYONE, as when someone edited Bush's entry a while back to say he was a fag. It made some dubious claims. Such as fetishism evidenced by two very dubious studies (seemed designed to program that reaction into animals), the penguin thing (definately false), and necrophilia (reported by ONE person with no corroboration). I've got to question the whole article.
At 8/2/06 01:13 AM, RedScorpion wrote:At 8/2/06 12:25 AM, WolvenBear wrote: ...hits nothing but civilians.Not quite.
"Fifty-four Israelis have died - 36 soldiers as well as 18 civilians killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks."
http://seattlepi.nws..ael.html?source=mypi
Good call. However, it also attributes most of those deaths of soldiers to anti-tank weaponry, pointing to the soldiers dying in combat, whereas the civilians were bombed in their own country.
