1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 3/1/06 05:05 PM, Engelsman wrote: if you mean no USA then from 1700 onwards (or whenever that independence shit was) there would probably be no slave trade as there would be no major demand for slaves.
There's still slave trade today in the Middle East and Africa. Nice try though. America didn't start nor was it the biggest receiver of slavery.
At 3/2/06 04:57 PM, SIMPLYB wrote: OK I'm supposed to be upset because some rightwing nut job thinks I'm a left wing nutjob.
Well, I was just going to be nice and say you were ignorant. But obviously you're stupid.
You just keep blindly following your King.
I'm not a Bush fan. Thanks for the try tho. But unlike you, when I say something bad about him, I know what I'm talking about and have valid criticism.
tax cut for the rich.
All tax cuts are tax cuts for the rich. Anyone who has any knowledge of taxes knows this.
failed healthcare
What? Are you retarded? Republicans don't even believe in state sponsored health care? The last president to try and pitch gov't health care would be....Clinton. And his plan was met poorly. It failed. One of the reasons Republicans got more offices. You're going to mock the Republicans on something failing that they opposed? You have no place in this forum.
failed education programs
Education has been failing for 30 years. Nothing new. Bush's plan will either bring mild improvement or mild failure. It'll take 5-10 years before we have any clue.
lying aout Katrina
along with Nagin, Blanco, Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus. Bush fucked up, but he was far from alone.
failure in Iraq (it's been a civil war now for over a year and people are just now starting to see it)
People have been bitching about a civil war since before we went over there. Welcome to the real world. Just because you just realized it's not all sunshine and roses, some of us have known that for quite sometime. The civil war has been going on for coming up on three years now. Welcome to the party.
outing undercover CIA agents
Quite right. Inexcusable. And he's taken a hit for it. Tho it was probably the piece of human filth Rove.
selling ports to a forein governments
While this is a valid point, due to everything above, and by the way you worded it, I'm willing to bet you don't have any idea what it's about.
spying on US citizens without a warrent
One of three things I've agreed with Bush on during his five year Presidency. Again, doubt you know anything about it.
holding US citizens without a trial
Didn't happen. Moving on.
torture
And those who committed torture were SEVERELY punished. Oh well.
I really could care less that the NEO-CON experiment has failed and is stating to self destruct the republican party.
As opposed to the liberal experiment?
Like I said. Don't blame me I voted for Gore!
That's not why I blamed you. I blamed you because you're a conspiracy theory moron who throws out a lot of shit he doesn't understand. And on top of that, when someone who knows what they're talking about counters you, and provides you LIBERAL sources to show you you're wrong, they're a right wing wacko. Come back here when you grow up a lil junior. Til then, shut the hell up.
At 3/2/06 09:12 PM, swedekid wrote: A few weeks ago we had a massive tornado yet the gay government couldn't find it in there cold hearts to give us any money at all to help pay for the damage. Nearly 2 million dollars in damage. Theres proof the government doesn't give a crap about its citizens.
The government is gay AND cold hearted. Gee what an adult conclusion. It's not the government's job to make sure nothing bad ever happens to you. 2 Million dollars? Hell that's nothing. I wouldn't be surprising if it didn't even make it to the governors attention that's so small.
At 3/2/06 04:50 PM, Iron_Butterfly wrote: In my opinion the USA PATRIOT act is a rape of privacy and due process. It was passed with the same tactics the Nazis use. “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering, before committing suicide at the Nuremberg Trials.
The fact that you compared it to Nazi tactics makes your opinion invalid. I doubt you have any remote idea what the Act does. Come back when you know k?
At 3/2/06 04:17 PM, suilenroc wrote: obtianing these numers is invading that right.
No, it's not. It's called police work. You obviously have no clue what is or isn't legal. Do you think tapping phones is illegal too?
also this act hasn't been used only for terrorisum but has been used in non-terrorist relatied activities. fact that most cases are random searches
You can't name a single case. As of this date, no one has found a case of clear cut abuse.
one more thing is; What kind of numbers are conected to terrorisum and if we can find what they are, why not takle those places that the numbers are conected to?
We have been infultrated by people who desire our demise. If we get a phone number associated with terrorism, wouldn't it make more sense to monitor it and get people who call it from America? If we have an in, why waste it? Use it to catch as many of the monsters as possible. Policing 101.
Normally I'm not a grammar or spelling fiend. But when you have something like 12 errors in three lines, to where it makes it almost unreadable, at least TRY to type a little better. C'mon.
At 3/2/06 08:41 PM, mackid wrote: Give me one.
I did. When I quoted you. One sentence, that is correct by the way, we do need to kill their leaders, and you say "Well, that proves all the things the liberals say about the conservatives.
Name one thing that Franken has said that is stupid.
His last book. All of it. Supply side Jesus.
That sentence is nowhere in the Koran. Give me the sura number, and maybe, JUST MAYBE, I'll find it...oh, wait. I won't.
The Koran says: Kill the infidel wherever you find them.
LOOK. I tok one sentence and used it to prove Ann Coulter was right! Islam IS the religion of violence. You know, cause there can't be anything else in the rest of the book that explains that away, contradicts it, or mellows it at all.
(.....Why do you even try anymore? You're never right....)
Yea, you will.
Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191) I put infidel instead of disbeliever, my bad.
And in addition: http://www.primechoi../islamandinfidel.htm
Or: http://www.deception..hurch.com/koran.html
Here's even more: http://www.freerepub..eligion/842829/posts
But hey, some of them mitigate. Some of them talk about traitors. But hell, as I said before, if you just want to take one sentence....Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191) They must therefore want us dead and we should kill them now. Thank God some of us don't form opinions based on one sentence.....
At 2/14/06 10:22 PM, AngryToaster wrote: I do believe that if you are against gays in ANY way, you should be crucified. I really do.
I'm pro-gay because I'm not an ignorant, religious fuck. If you think marriage is more about listening to a "book," and not about love, then you're fucked.
No you're just ignorant period. There are a lot of religious people who are for gay marriage. Just as there are a lot of non-religious people against it. Screw your idiotic stereotypes. Getting married is about two things: a moral upbringing telling you you should get married and BENEFITS. So piss on you, and your stupid generalizations of Christians. Moron.
At 3/2/06 03:28 PM, fli wrote: Oh come on Reiper--
We all know some of these straight guys treat their cars better than their girlfriends or wives...
They would so marry their car if possible...
HELL NO! That tailpipe gets HOT. ...... Not that I'd know from experience of anything.....
......Just a guess......
.......STOP LOOKING AT ME!
At 3/2/06 01:12 PM, mackid wrote: You don't have, in simple terms, a right to privacy, but the USA PATRIOT ACT (an acronym, not a proper name, which means: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism") does allow law enforcement agents to arrest almost anyone by simply saying "You're a terrorist." Additionally, it permits habeus corpus violations and allows near indefinite detainments without explaining why you're being held and allows these detainees no rights-not even the right to legal counsel.
Actually, it's a bit more complex than that. There is a special court that has to convene where the case can be made that you are or are not a terrorist. If the case is made, the gov't gets a temporary warrent to search your house, and if they find proof, you can be arrested. However, once you are charged, you STILL must be provided with legal council. You are going off the view presented in the media, and not off the actual law.
At 3/2/06 01:39 PM, suilenroc wrote: the 4th amendment say that a person has the right to be sucure in there persons, houses, papers and efects agenst unreseable serches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrents shall be issued unless by probabl cause.
that amouts to privicy right?
No. Not at all. Unreasonable has A LOT of malleability to it. If you are calling phone numbers connected with terrorism for example. I'd call that pretty good probable cause.
At 3/2/06 03:30 PM, SIMPLYB wrote: Al Gore won the first election in 2000 and had it stolen by the right in Florida.
George Bush won the election, not Al Gore. Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral vote. Odd, but those are the rules of the game. And it's not the first time it happened. Read Al Frankens book Lies, it has the name of the first time guy. Gore wanted the law broken to give him more of a chance to win. Obvious on that one who was in the wrong.
Kerry had it stole from him in Ohio.
Ridiculous. Kerry lost both votes. James Carville, another Democrat, goes through all the things Kerry did wrong that cost him the election. The Dems loved the Ohio machines until they lost in Ohio.
We need paper votes and inked fingers like the Iraquis in order to protect against voting fraud.
Wouldn't matter. Nutjobs like you would be saying that the paper was rigged and the fingers were fake next time your guy lost the election. Grow up. Bush won. You get a chance to change that in two years.
At 3/2/06 01:00 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: But you can make an objective argument to end slavery, or for women's sufferage. As I hope to prove, you cannot do the same with abortion, nor is it purely a religious argument (eg Good Christians go to heaven cannot be objectively proved, 1 + 1 = 2 cannot be religiously proved). I do not believe the Us's stance on abortion should be ALLOWED to be decided purely on the basis of what the Christain right want, and I hope nor do you.
I was not making a Christian debate. But without morals, or "intrinsic rights", no you cannot make a good debate for ending slavery or women's sufferage. It was good for the economy. It was the "basic human rights" of the slaveowners to hold property. Etc. The debate was "these are people who have the same rights as we do". That is a moral argument. Same with sufferage. Same with abortion. If it is human life, it has the right to be protected. It has nothing to do with what the Christian right want. According to James Carville (the secular liberal), 89% of Americans want more restrictions on abortion. That's a far cry from the "religious right".
So you are saying that an atheist argument is perfectly permissable when it talks about animals, but not humans. I'm very sorry, I genuinely don't understand how you've reached that conclusion.
Actually I made a completely different arguement, one that involved killing humans I believe. I was just debating animals there. And what I said was you cannot honestly argue from any position that an animal has rights but a fetus doesn't. But what the hell, I'll argue this one for the sake of arguing it. Since we have evolved to a higher form of life, we deserve more protections than animals. We are clearly superior because of millenia of proper breeding and lucky chance. Animals cannibalize themselves and have a kill or be kill. They are not civilized. We are. Part of civilization involves rules. That is one very clear reason we are superior.
My heart wasn't in it. But not bad for debating something I don't really believe in.
Wait, this is the 'potential person' argument? A sperm, given the right conditions, will turn into a baby. This means that masturbation, wet dreams, condoms and infertility are all as bad as abortion, no?
No. A sperm cannot become a human being unless mixed with an egg. Scientific definition of life here. You need 46 chromosomes, sperm has 23. Good try tho.
I disagree, but I apologise if any offence has been given. What I said was, justifying yourself with reference only to religious beliefs is a very poor argument. Would you agree?
Indeed. But so is attacking beliefs you don't understand. And you do realize all of our society was based on Judeo-Christian values right, as is still much of our law?
Not relevant to abortion. Relevant to 'no sex before marriage' argument. You can still have a baby with a lethal STD cocktail.
My bad. Arguing STDs there. Didn't make myself clear. My apologies. Still a valid reason to abstain.
What if your child had a degenerative disease that would mean he would die in a year in great pain. The responsible thing is to have an abortion. Why would you make a blanket statment you did unless you had the sort of IQ that has a cosine.
Because doctors are unable to tell you that. It's a very common argument of the pro-choice (I won't say pro-abortion out of respect), but there is no factuality to it. There was no chance my cousin could survive birth. It would kill her. Even if she somehow managed to come out alive, she'd suffer and then die. According to the doctor at least. But she's 14 now. Doctors, for all their knowledge, are quite ignorant. There is less than a .001% chance that if a doctor even tells you that, that they're even remotely correct. Doctors are wrong all the time. And those cases when a doctor says that are quite rare as well. Thus my opposition.
You misunderstand, when I say 'alcohol', I mean 'drunken people having sex', not 'alcoholics'. But I would like to pick you up on something - you DON'T believe abortion is justified in the case of incest?
Yes, that's what I mean too. My father was pretty much a 24/7 drunk. Incest is either rape or it is consentual. If a person believes all consentual pregnancy should lead to birth, then their position is clear. If they believe that rape is bad but abortion is worse, same thing. I'm still uncertain, but a certain pro-choicer is pushing me more to the right on this one.
Really? Are you just saying that to score a point in the debate, or do you actually mean as emotive a word as 'disgust'?
There's a point system? Sweet! No, really, I've taken a very middle of the road approach. Just debating you for the hell of it with no real feeling or care. And showing little of my own position, seeing as we debated the other guy for 3 posts.... So I figured I'd actually show some of my position on this. I do equate it on a level of slavery and genocide, so it's a huge wrong to be righted in my book. Since the majority of women who get abortions feel pressured by their fiances/husbands/boyfriends, family, clergy, etc to get an abortion, can you call it their "choice"? Isn't it another form of victimization? That's a point even most pro-choicers are coming around to. Almost no one agrees with abortion anymore. Those who do believe it should be limited. I fail to see why even it's supporters would call it a right, when it does no good except in cases of the mother's health.
At 2/21/06 01:08 PM, Desert-Drifter wrote: seriously though, what is wrong with the boondock's. that racist bitch. it's cuz they're black isn't it? damn her. the boondock's is awsome. and i don't hafta endure it week after week, i eenjoy it day after day. and the cartoon on adult swim is awsome too. racist ass bitch.
Yea, that must be it, cause they're black. Not cause it's controversial. Not because the artist has occasionally said anti-white and anti-Republican remarks. Cry racism a little louder. I don't think the guy down the block heard you. Boondocks, ignoring the crap political commentary the author gives out, is bland at best.
At 2/21/06 03:07 PM, Desert-Drifter wrote: it's not that she's being politicaly incorrect. she sounds racist there fore we are calling her racist.
Well, that solves everything. Criticize a black man's work and you therefore hate black men. Gotcha.
At 3/2/06 01:09 PM, mackid wrote: Ann Coulter is bad, simple as that...
"A central component of liberal hate speech is to make paranoid accusations based on their own neurotic impulses, such as calling Republicans angry, hate-filled, and mean." (Slander, p. 19)." She says this...but proves that liberals are right in their "hate speech" because she also said...
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
And she's also right a lot. I agree with the first two parts of that sentence. Your idiocy is astounding. OK, so she makes generalizations, but you do too. So her comments are indicitive of all Republicans? So she's angry. I've read worse. Both on the left and on the right. For the right: Michael Savage, left: Michael Moore and Al Franken.
The Koran says: Kill the infidel wherever you find them.
LOOK. I tok one sentence and used it to prove Ann Coulter was right! Islam IS the religion of violence. You know, cause there can't be anything else in the rest of the book that explains that away, contradicts it, or mellows it at all.
At 3/2/06 12:01 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: Ok, but chances are, he wasn't. Even if I was wrong, the MAJORITY of anti-abortion campaigners are not vegitarian, and seem to have no problem with this apparent contradiction.
Here's one for you that's a contradiction. Being pro-abortion, anti-death penalty.
Regardless, as a conservative Christian the belief is simple to defend. God set up above all the animals.This is true. If you are a conservative Christian (which I believe you are WolvenBear?) I cannot FORCE you to have an abortion, but those who do not agree with your religious doctrine should not have to agree to your subjective moral values.
The difference is simple. If it is a child I do indeed have the right to "force my moral values on you". For an example see: end to slavery. Or even: women's sufferage. There was a whole lot of forcing moral opinion on people there. Or even better here's an abortion example. planned parenthood gets state funding. Therefore you are forcing me to subsidize abortion through my taxes. A man can more or less blackmail a woman into abortion: i.e. forcing his opinions on her. Or she can refuse and force him to pay child support: forcing it onto him. It's a weak argument. Get off it.
Really? Those more evolved have a higher right to life? So I have a higher right to life than the disabled? The mentally ill should be killed and eaten for food if they are less intelligent than a cow? Your argument falls victim to the fallacy of the margins I'm afraid. I think the only way you can defend eating animals IS from a Conservative religious perspective.
As an athiest, yes. That would be the argument. It's called survival of the fittest. Read Darwin. Actually, seeing as I'm almost back to being vegetarian again, I find it easier to justify eating meat from the athiest point of view, where nothing has an intrinsic right to life.
Ok, a foetus is alive, I am incorrect to attribute 'table-ness' to it. I can, however, compare it to a plant or a bacterium, which are both alive. Though I agree, the main argument is whether or not it constitutes human life.
Neither plants nor bacteria are sentient. Nor will they ever be. Even if we allow them to grow and divide for nine months. Closer comparison, but still a tad off.
Your third point is good, your other points less so. The fact is that since you can only defend yourself by saying "Conservative Christians think this, and it is therefore right" is no better than saying "Boo! Sex", since you are making the judgement that YOUR beliefs are better than mine. I'm not saying they are not, I'm just saying you cannot know they are.
You were attacking his conservative Christian beliefs. And it's very clear you didn't even understand them. I argued them from an objective point without saying whether I agreed with them or not. I never said he was right. But I said you were wrong, because you didn't understand his position and attributed things to him that weren't necessarily accurate.
Your first point is that some STDs stick with you for life. How is that relevant?
We're talking about sex and you mentioned that condoms break. How is it NOT relevant?
Do you expect the doctor in the neo-natal unit to go "Well, you haven't got an STD, but you have got a baby, which is twice as bad"? STDs and babies are totally different. Although you are correct, the sensible thing is to wait until you are married to have sex, that is a different argument. The argument at the moment is IF you end up with a baby you cannot support, what is the moral thing to do?
Adoption. As I said before. There is no shortage of people who want a baby. Going back to arguing from an objective look at Christianity standpoint, it would be easy to say "you have a baby because God willed it." But I don't believe that. Here's a more realistic world view. Since abortion became legal teen pregnancy has sky rocketed. Unwed mothers have become a greater percentage of the motherhood equation. If the idea is to get rid of children that people either a. don't want or b. cant afford, abortion seems to be failing. Miserably. Take away a sense of risk and people feel invincible. Read "The 10 Things You Can't Say in America". Larry Elder is a pro-choice advocate but talks about how the "removal" of risk factors lead to greater incidents of the problem. Or maybe it was his second book "Showdown". I forget.
So it does happen sometimes. Hence abortion is not always wrong. Hence you need to provide me with an argument why "Killing a poor innocent baby" is OK when incest is involved, but not alcohol.What if your child had a degenerative disease that would mean he would die in a year in great pain. The responsible thing is to have an abortion. Why would you make a blanket statment you did unless you had the sort of IQ that has a cosine.This is less than 1% of all abortions.
I am a product of an alcoholic parent. I am by normal testing standards, highly intelligent. Having worked with lots of disable children, including the mentally retarded, I can say that these children are no less human than me. Hell the one kid was an idiot savant. He couldn't debate the ethics of life, but he could multiple 1,456,999,008 and 456,783 in under a second, getting the correct answer. So let's not even pretend that alcohol is the be all end all. Even down's syndome people are becoming movie stars. The ringer for example. Plus, who said I thought it was OK in cases of incest. My point was simply, throwing out an extreme circumstance that happened to one person who would be in 1% of the cases overall is far from a reason to allow all abortions.
I can see both sides on many issues. Abortion isn't one of them. I've tried. The pro-choice side disgusts me.
At 2/27/06 06:13 PM, mackid wrote: A fetus is not sentient...
You really need to shut up on abortion. You never know what you're talking about. Yes, a fetus is sentient. That's why we have ultrasound pictures of it examining its hands and feet, and trying to suck its thumb. Brain development isn't something that begins outside the womb. Stop discussing abortion.
I still have yet to hear a good argument for abortion beyong life of the mother. A few of the following can be easily refuted.
"The fetus can't survive without it's mother."
The baby can't survive without it's parents either. Dependance is a cycle that is gradually weaned for 18 years or so. If dependance is a criteria of non-life, dear God, a lot of people are in danger of "reproductive choices".
"You can't tell a woman what to do with her body!"
Of course I can. We've told her she can't do drugs, especially while pregnant. She can't speed. She can't do a lot of things under the law. So this is no different. Under this lame argument we have no recourse if a parent abuses their child either. They're the one taking care of it....we have nothing to say.
"Why punish the baby by forcing it to be born to a bad mother?"
This is quite possibly the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Why punish it by killing it? Wouldn't that be punishment too? Many of our greatest minds came from piss-poor homes, foster care, or poverty. None of those are reasons to stop living. No one choses who they're born to. The better argument would be to force the baby out of the bad home once he's born.
"Women are still going to do it, so let's make it safe for them."
Of course women will still do it. So what? People are still going to huff paint. Should we have crash carts on every corner where a potential dumb kid may die? Of course not. Murder is still going to occur, should we eliminate gun ownership so a murderer has less chance of getting hurt in the act? Of course not. There is a risk to illegal and dangerous behaviors. That is no reason to legalize them.
"You're not a woman, you have no right to interfere."
Women only have rights because men allowed it. Because we realized it was a basic human right to be heard, to go to school, to be equal. Therefore one could argue that we have more of a say than you do. But realistically, we are extending those rights to the fetus. Man ruled women unfairly, and since they can't do the same back, they rule their unborn children unfairly. Or, let's take it to the other extreme. OK, we can't talk about abortion. You can't decide anything about the military. Only men are forced to sign up for the draft and the military is primarily male. All men and those women in the military have a right to decide. Other women don't. Or, if you don't pay taxes, you don't get to vote. You're not the one paying for it, therefore you have no say. A lot of people will be unhappy with the rights to decide they lose. Grow up.
As a taxpaying male, I have every right to decide how my taxes are spent. So if that means cutting support for planned parenthood, so be it. As a human being I have not the right, but the responsibility to look out for the good of humanity, including those who can't speak for themselves.
Abortion was started as a govt program to reduce the number of poor and black babies respectively born. It was worried that it would be seen as genocide and they went to great lengths to change that. Hell, abortion now is used as a way for men to still hold power over women, so let's not pretend it's either in the woman's best interest or that its somehow necessary for her advancement.
At 2/25/06 11:14 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I'm going to enjoy winding you up a lot.
And I'm going to enjoy destrrying your arguments completely as well.
How can you kill something that is not alive? "Killing a foetus" is like "Killing a table" - it just makes no sense.
On a similar note, how can you justify eating meat, when all you are doing is killing innocent animals, who have done nothing wrong.
Fetuses fit all the criteria for life. Your argument shows a complete lack of knowledge of science. And you assume he ate meat. He couldv'e as easily been a vegetarian. Regardless, as a conservative Christian the belief is simple to defend. God set up above all the animals. As an athiest, the statement is also easy to defend. Animals are a source of food, clothing, etc. We have evolved into a higher form of life, and as such have a more intrinsic right to life. Whereas animals freely kill each other, we don't freely kill other humans. I'll leave that as the short summary. A table is not alive but a fetus is...no matter how you look at it. If you disagree you are wrong. Simple as that. The only disagreement is whether it qualifies as human life.
Well firstly, condoms CAN fail. Secondly, your Conservative Christian stance would generally teach contraception is wrong. Thirdly, are you saying babies should be a 'punishment' for those who don't wear condoms?
Well then, first: don't have sex if you're not ready for the consequences. Condoms can fail. Pregnancy can be aborted, but what about STDs? You're stuck with some of them for life. Second, not all conservatives believe contraception is wrong. All of them do teach however to wait for marriage. So your point is irrelevant AND wrong, AGAIN. Thirdly, here's another way to look at it, maybe the baby shouldn't be punished for you not wearing a condom.
Oh no, i won't do the responsible thing and rais my childWhat if your child had a degenerative disease that would mean he would die in a year in great pain. The responsible thing is to have an abortion. Why would you make a blanket statment you did unless you had the sort of IQ that has a cosine.
This is less than 1% of all abortions.
Pre Roe vs Wade there were 3 standard exceptions:
1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Health of the Mother
At 2/25/06 12:16 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Especially if it is none of your damn business.
SO to you 'Call---freak' I would like to pass on a few words of wisdom from a Mr.George Carlin. He believes there should be another commandment which for you I will take it to be the 11TH COMMANDMENT
"Thou shall keep thy religious beliefs to ones self"
P.S.
So please tell us. How many orphans have you adopted?
Why can't all the "christian' people like yourself help those that you can?
As opposed to a blanket rant on abortion as a whole.
One, if you wish to be taken as an intelligent, base your arguments on something other than childish insults and name calling. The fallacy of your argument is simple, even if one agrees with your premise that abortion is legal. If I kill my neighbor, it is, simply, none of your business. It doesn't affect you. However, it hurts society that I am allowed to do that. Most pro-lifers extend that argument to the fetus. And as of the past couple days, they've finally started winning. There have been four major events, two here in STL, and two other nation wide that hurt the abortion cause. And it's because the typical abortion advocate like yourself has such piss-poor arguments.
Facts to think of with your argument:
George Carlin is not a source of religious wisdom. Nor do his teachings even remotely mesh with those in the bible.
All non-state funded charity that goes to new mothers is Christian in origin.
Almost all pro-life Christians are involved in charity work and therefore DO help all those they can, i.e. through Habitat for Humanity, Boy Scouts, etc.
Since those were your only three bad points, your pathetic little rant is rendered moot.
At 2/22/06 01:51 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote:
It was the Left who were on Hitler's side, not the conservatives. And the Left were on his side because he was one of them.
The ones on his side were the ones he didn't kill. Anyone who wasn't on his side ended up dead.
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/hitler.html
[ Despite the blatant Conservative bias in this paper, he's right, Hitler and the Nazis were mostly Leftists. What I find hard to believe is how a man who was brave, intelligent, serving the interests of his people, and an environmentalist can be disliked by anyone who actually knows the truth about him. ]
Gee, how can we dislike Hitler? I mean, he ONLY enslaved part of the world, and he only INSTIGATED the genocide, it's not like he did it himself. Many look at political beliefs as being a line graph, with left and right. However, it is more accurately described as a circle, with conservative and liberal values being an x axis of sorts and libertarian and fascism being y axis. Hitler was fascist, not liberal or conservative. He had ideas that were liberal, and ideas that were conservative. Then he had the crazy ideas like: let's kill all the jews!
At 2/23/06 12:33 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote:At 2/23/06 12:21 PM, mrdurgan wrote: the type of inequality you were on about at the start with capitalism is economic inequalityI barley touched upon Capitalism, my refference to work was about how women are taught their place is in the kitchen while the man is taught that their place is at work from toys.
Well, seeing as how it's no longer 1950, women aren't taught their place is in the kitchen. If anything we are so desperate to try and change the "socially accepted gender roles" that we are confusing our children, trying to get the genders to behave contrary to their nature.
At 2/21/06 06:59 AM, Souta wrote:Correct if wrong
There's a logic to your argument, but here's a counter. When asked to speak up against such acts, there is a surprising silence. And when someone does speak up it's usually something along the lines of: "Well, it's bad, but not really." Is it that hard to denounce acts of violence?
At 2/21/06 01:25 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Oh right so now "fuck the police" is a 14 year old's argument. Whatever there pal. Maybe you really should grow up and learn that there are adults out there who still question authority and stand up against it, regardless of the possible consequences.
Yes, fuck the police IS a childish argument. Your argument has nothing to do with questioning authority and EVERYTHING to do with being a whiny bastard. You just can't get this through your head. People automatically ignore those who use the fuck the police argument in the real world. And there are those out there who, instead of whining and flicking off the cops, are trying to legalize pot. That's questioning authority too, but they don't come off as dumb kids.
Also, arresting someone isn't excessive force, but what the cops did that day was definitely over the top. The cops even admitted they did it to instill fear into them.
And? Using fear to get a point across is a bad thing? What do you think the scared straight program is about?
No one here supports me? Are you even reading the posts? Some here do support my views, while others at least support my view that it was excessive show of force. That was my main point from the beginning. Had this been a couple cops and a couple arrests of snotty teenagers who wouldn't listen to them when they told them to leave or stop smoking weed out in public like that, then I probably wouldn't say anything about it. Cops hassle teenagers all the time, that's nothing new, but using a helicopter and the kind of force used to raid a massive grow-op or a Hell's Angels clubhouse, THAT I have a problem with.
Dude, that's exactly the point. They've been telling the "snotty kids" to stop smoking in public for awhile. Had they been listening? Obviously not, or they wouldn't have been there. I find it kinda funny. If those kids have ANY sense, they won't do it again. And even though I missed the helicopter part, it STILL was not excessive force.
Well I've been to more than one marijuana rally smoking a joint with a cop looking right at us without moving in and arresting us. The cops were there just to make sure that it was a peaceful rally. I've also been caught a few times with weed, I still don't have a criminal record. It's because of those people willing to go to jail and willing to defy authority, that made it the way it is today. A lot of those people are now in their 40s and 50s. People you'd probably tell to "grow up" because they still stand by these views.
Are you incapable of reading comprehension? Did I say smoking pot was wrong? No, in fact, I said go for it. Repeatedly. If your government is going to start cracking down on it and arresting people, then common sense says to stop doing it in public. And no, those who went to jail had nothing to do with why it is the way it is today. Intelligent debate over the subject has changed minds and attitudes and a change in attitude towards pot made the lax enfrcement the way it is today. Sorry. I personally think it should be legal. I have no desire to smoke it, but see it for what it is. However, as with people who have to disturb shit and break the law in front of cops, I have no problem with them spending a night in the pokey. There is a difference between logical, intelligent debate, and idiotic "fuck the police" rhetoric. And no, I reread, the people here are saying the same thing I am. This is stupid.
I'm done debating with you. Because YES, "fuck the police" and using the words sell-out, are pathetic ways of debating. Get the law changed or don't bitch about it, bottom line. You are complaining about the police doing their jobs and enforcing laws on the books. Hell, my dad was an MP who was sent to root out pot smokers in the army. He'd catch someone with a joint, smoke it to see if it was actually weed, then "realize" that he'd destroyed the evidence. He'd then give the kid a warning. Why ruin someone's career over a joint? But if the dummy didn't learn, my father would eventually report it. You can only give someone so many chances before you finally have to say "enough is enough" and show them some force. These kids, by your own admission, have been given COUNTLESS warnings about blatantly breaking the law in front of the police, in plain view, and it hasn't fazed them yet. Jesus Christ, smoke it in your home. If you can't understand that, you're just not....that.....bright.
At 2/20/06 08:32 PM, badreligion7483 wrote: Also, handguns and caliber rifles, as well as shotguns, should be legal too for that matter, automatics and explosives should be illegal. Anyone who says one should be legal while the other shouldn't are either right or left-wing fanatics.
Right to bear arms, in the Constitution. Abortion isn't. That's realism, bud. Your argument is weak.
Don't get me wrong but theres an amendement in the constitution that says we have the right to bear arms. So dude STFU u moron.
No one in here is debating that.
I do think that abortion should be legal. I have no cluw what the hell a trimester is because my health teacher sucks. But with the near birth that should be illegal.
Exactly, you have no clue what you are talking about, so please refrain. You brought nothing intelligent to this debate.
At 2/20/06 05:03 PM, Nomader wrote: This one of those issues, that despite my religion's stance, I'd rather just turn my back and ignore it.
I just want to give a lasting image to both sides - have you ever seen pictures of a dead fetus? I bet those pro-choice haven't - it's gruesome.
Or, how about the pro-life folks - did you hear of the murder of abortion clinic doctors? Do you support the murder of doctors? Or would you rather babies get killed.
Hate the sin, love the sinner. There have been a grand total of what 20 abortion doctors murdered? A few more? Who usually tries and convicts them? Conservatives. Murder is murder. I am unswayed.
I stand by my point. I'd rather turn my back then see either side.
Then you are seeing the horror of it and refusing to take a stand. I think you are worse than those who do it and claim it is a good thing.
At 2/20/06 04:28 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Ah but did I label any artist that decides to make money as a sell out? To me a sell out is someone who becomes something they are against. If I were to "grow up" in the sense that I must see the world in your way, in order to "grow up", then I see that as selling out to what I am. I want weed legalized and I believe in peaceful resistence to the laws we have against marijuana. That belief hasn't changed just because I'm older and wiser. Also, I believe in raising shit anytime police use excessive force to arrest people smoking marijuana. That is who I am and I'd be a sell out to say otherwise.
Still a childish term. If you were to grow up in the way that I said, you'd see it was blatantly stupid to smoke marijuana in front of a cop when said act is illegal. You don't speed in front of a cop, why? Because even tho a lot won't pull you over, one eventually will. If you break the law you are subject to the penalty. I personally have nothing against weed, nor those who smoke it. You say you're older and wiser but your argument is still a 14 year olds. In essence "Fuck the police." Arresting someone is not excessive force. Sorry, it isn't.
Well those cops are accountable for their actions as well, so they are going to have to put up with criticism from people like me and maybe subsequent protests. If I lived in Pictou Country, I'd show up with dozens of my friends and we'd all smoke pot in defiance of the police. They arrest us, we do it again... and again and again until they learn that they cannot stop us. If they want to waste millions in resources, while people are out there loading cocaine and illegal automatic weapons off the docks, fine then I'll make sure they keep wasting taxpayers money until they learn to leave us the fuck alone and start arresting real criminals.
News flash bud. No one cares about people like you. You'd smoke weed again and again, and rack up the massive fines and court costs. Trust me, the cops would win. And quick. It doesn't waste millions in resources to arrest idiots who walk up and say "I'm smoking pot. Arrest me." Your trial will be short, maybe a day, maybe less. And if you're too stupid to take a plea bargain, you'll either pay massive fines, or you'll spend time in jail. And if you do it again, well then buddy, you're just flat out idiotic. You are insignificant. The processing costs for you are so minor that no one cares. And if you go on this "smoke protest idea" you will be nothing but a source of amusement for your community. I look forward to the results. You won't win. Hell, you'll lose everything. And the cops will KEEP arresting you until you decide to give it up. You'll have a record and your future will be bleak, and you'll be bankrupt from the court costs. Way to show the man.
I believe it is my responsiblity to stand up for what I believe and it would be irresponsible for me NOT to do that.
That's great. Get a bill passed. Make smoking it legal. Hell, I can even get behind you. But if you want to break the law in defiance and get arrested, I have no sympathy for you. Do it in your house. Do it in an alley for christ sakes. I told you I used to drink illegally.
I suppose you lose a lot of debates eh? You know because it sounds like you keep repeating "grow up" as your only defense by dismissing any opposing opinions.
Um, hate to break it to you, but no one here supports you. You've lost this argument. I'm giving you one last ditch effort to stop talking lie an idiot 12 year old and see basic reason. The grow up comment keeps getting thrown out because your entire debate hinges on two points:
1. I want to.
2. Fuck the police.
That is by definition childish. And you seem to be setting yourself on a road of moral superiority that will ruin you, all to prove a point that no one cares or agrees with. GROW UP. You don't have an opinion. You just have an attitude. Selling out means not smoking pot in front of the cops and going to jail? Then by all means, be a sell out, smoke at home, and enjoy life. Your way is stupid, mine makes sense. Your way involves losing everything, mine involves doing the exact same thing, with the exact same people in a different spot. One ends up in jail one still does what he wants free as a bird. Gee, that stupid sell out.
But since you seem impervious to reason and grade school logic, let me offer you this: good luck in prison. Don't drop the soap.
At 2/20/06 09:25 PM, Captn_ wrote: Swift Boat said he was a traitoring, coward. You're right, they didn't. Their accusations are much worse.
They never said he was a traitor. Coward....eh they might've. They questioned his purple hearts. They questioned his tour of service. They questioned his account of some of the events. You put it out there and people are free to question you on it. Run as a Vietnam Vet and you may get called on the carpet. Sneaky and underhanded, but that's politics.
Hypothetical situation: You are a Muslim, who is accused of being a terrorist. You're innocent, and you know, without a doubt, that you can prove your innocence, but because you're classified as a POW, you don't have the right to a trial. Now the American Public is paying for you detainment, while it's unnecessary, and grossly wrong. So what do you do now?
That's the thing bud. You CAN'T prove your innocence. Proving innocence is impossible. Why is it teh courts give out not guilty findings? Every now and again they do issue an innocent verdict, but it's RARE. Don't give me that BS. I'm not even arguing that it's right, but they are unable to prove their innocence.
Bush has constantly spent more money while cutting taxes. Therefore you can spend more and make less. The US gov't can borrow like crazy.I would hate to see you with a credit card...
Um, wake up call. The government debt is in the trillions. Unlike a person or a state, the government can do as much deficit spending (when you spend more than you make) as they like. Right wrong or indfferent, we've been doing defecit spending for decades. Your lack of understanding of this shoots down your whole arguement. Bush has just doubled our defecit, but Clnton was defecit spending too.
I said campaigning with it. I didn't say they would lobby it, and though I disagree with the policy to campaign under false pretenses, it's already been established that politicians lie. I didn't refute it, infact, I argued for it.
Semantics. They are campaigning on the idea of PBA which is ridiculous. And that's part of A LOT of dem party lines.
You're right, they aren't human, so we shouldn't treat them as such.
They're not criminals, they don't fall under the geneva convention as they are not foreign soldiers or American citizens. We don't grant criminal rights to non-criminals. Nor do we grant American rightsto non-Americans. You simply son't know what you're talking about here.
That was sarcasm, and by-the-way; incarceration is incarceration. I don't care how you phrase it.
We've put forward reasons in it's defense, even if 'm not fully behind them. All you've done is said "it's not fair!" over and over.
They're innocent until proven guilty, or is that policy only for whites? If they're being detained, they deserve the right to a fair trial. And don't tell me they're POWs. I doubt even half of the people being held under those charges were Iraqi or Al Queda operatives. I'm defending the ones only accused of being terrorists, without evidence or trial. It's gun-ho assholes like you who put innocent men in jail so you can feel big and not actually have to give any thought on a individual basis.
They're not being accused of anything. They're suspected and being held in detention. We did it to the Germans too, so it's about security not racism. Sorry. Stop playing the race card. I don't care if you're black, white, mexican, or asian, or even middle eastern. These people are suspected of aiding the enemy. As such, they will not be released until the war is over. Sorry if you don't agree with it, but it's basic war practice. We treat these guys a hell of a lot better than our counterparts do.
Indeed, Liberals shoot themselves in the foot plenty. It's a shame we're all grouped together as one idealogy. I'm sure intelligent conservatives would also like escape from the occasional idiot banter of one of their own, too.
We do escape it. It's called pblic denouncing. It happens in the conservative camp ALL THE TIME. Not so much in the liberal camp. See Ann Coulter's remarks about arabs being "ragheads". Republicans I didn't even know existed came out of the wood works to call racism. That's pretty typical.
At 2/19/06 03:36 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: They support partial birth abortion, even if it has nothing to do with the health of the mother.----------
Candidates. He was talking about candidates. No offense bud, but the average everyday guys belief isn't all that relevant. It's the people you elect. Almost all the liberal leaders STILL support PBA. Believe it or don't. That's the way it is.
lolk. I'll have to take your word on that, because I've never seen or heard anything saying they, as a whole, are richer and more elitist than the Conservatives. Do you have an evidence backing your claim up. And please don't do what MoralLibertarian is doing and posting links from crazies who happen to be Liberal. I want credible evidence that the Democrats are all rich, bloated, "fat cats."
See: Kerry, John, Soros, George, Moore, Michael, etc. Most of Hollywood is liberal. A lot of musicians are liberal. There's no shortage of rich liberals.
At 2/20/06 05:16 PM, Lucifer_morningstar wrote: lol she rags on The Boondocks and compares it to the Danish cartoon. What kind of deluded bitch makes that connection.
Gee, they're both controversial and insulting to someone. What a FAR OUT connection.
I declare a one million dollar bounty to anyone who kills Ann Coulter!
Well that's certainly an intelligent solution to the problem.
Look, whether you like it or not, it's her opinion. And unfortunately, she has some pretty damned compelling evidence to back it up. After 9/11, there were plenty of clerics who gave a non-committal denouncement of the terrorists, without actually saying anyone did anything wrong. Most of the countries these rioters are from publish anti-Semetic and anti-US cartoons all the time. And most of the countries have at least some links to terrorism. Everybodys afraid to put forward an opinion on the subject due to the fact that they fear retaliation OR they fear being called racist, same reason people won't speak out against Sharpton. What disturbs you more? The fact that a woman has the balls to say what a lot of people are too afraid to say, but have been thinking, or that she may have a point?
Racist? Maybe. Doesn't mean the chick doesn't have a point. Go take another look instead of just crying racism.
At 2/20/06 01:26 PM, mjairlax wrote:How can you follow a scrappy document written 200 years ago? The Constitution and Bill of Rights are just books written by men, yet we all seem to hold them in high value......our entire country was founded by what, 4 pieces of paper?Yes but the constitution is loving breathing document that changes with the times. The Good Books have a lot of good points that are shared by all of the books (torah bible koran) but taking every word in the books seriously is dumb because much of the books are allegory and fables that teach a lesson.
The Bible, Torah, and Koran are the same......
The Constitution is NOT a living breathing document. That is BS spread by fools who look to add their will to the Constitution. It can be changed, but it's a pain in the ass. It's been amended 27 times over 200+ years, and 10 of those were when it was first written. one every ten years or so. Doesn't sound living and breathing to me.
At 2/20/06 02:06 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Yes I think cops should continue to ignore laws that have become deprecated here in Canada just as they've been doing for the last decade. Why else do you think that many people from the U.S. assume that marijuana is legal in Canada? Also, I have to laugh at that "grow the hell up" comment. Apparently "growing up" means being someone with a big long stick up your ass who follows in line with authority. To me that's not growing up, that's selling out.
Selling out is a childish term. People who use it have little to no understanding of the real world. For example, an artist that decides they'd like to make money and go with a big label, even if not changing their music, is a sell-out. So again, I say, GROW UP. If you want to smoke pot, do it in your own house, or at least NOT IN FRONT OF A COP. Growing up means taking responsisbility for yourself. Being accountable for your own actions. You're getting pissed at a cop for doing his job.
Well you obviously don't understand Canada that well. I remember back when I was a teenager, not being afraid to smoke pot in front of the cops. It's not because we're stupid, it's because the cops never bothered us. I've always felt safe to smoke pot in public. In fact, I've had cops hassle me 3 times about it in my lifetime and guess what? I've never been arrested for it and I don't have a criminal record. That's because if we were causing a disturbance, they'd just ask us to leave the area and we wouldn't question them because we know they could arrest us if we didn't listen. One of the times the cops even joked that "it'll be legalized soon anyway" and handed me back my bag of weed. Rarely do people get charged for simple possession here.
Don't care. You knew it was illegal. As did these other fools. It IS because you're stupid. I lived in an area with inept cops for years. Didn't mean that if I broke the law that I'd do it so openly as to be seen by cops. That is, by it's very nature stupid. I drank when I was underaged. Did I do it in front of cops? NO. Would some of them have let me slide? Probably, but why risk it. You want us to feel sorry for people who broke the law in front of cops and got arrested. I have no sympathy.
And as for the liberal comment, that was unfair. How about, typical stupid whiny kid? Grow up.
At 2/20/06 01:41 PM, Kieland wrote:
Come on. That's a bit extreme don't you think? When did America, 'land of the free and home of the brave' become America, 'you'll have freedom but if we even suspect you then we get to throw you in jail.'
I get that you want to keep the country safe from future attacks such as 9/11 and I respect that. However, what is the price of safety? The imprisonment of men who could be innocent? Surely you don't believe that innocent men should be held accountable for things they didn't do?
I think there's a chance that many of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners are terrorists, but in America is innocent until proven guilty. Are we so blind by our hatred for terrorism that we'd let innocents suffer? I think there's a chance that some of those prisoners are innocent and that doesn't sit well with me.
According to MoralLibretarian such trials would waste tax money. So I guess the question is, what is the price we're willing to put on freedom? And if we give detainees fair trials and find them all guilty, well what have we lost? Apparently tax money. So I admit that I don't know what the government should do here, but my opinion (no matter how worthless it is to you) is that freedom is worth more.
Um, this isn't IN America. These are mostly people either violating our immigration laws, or combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, people not covered under AMERICAN jusidiction. When you start giving over military power to detain threats in a military action, then you break the seperation of powers that were intended. We're not even charging them with anything, so a trial is irrelevant. As it stands, these people will be released if not charged when we withdraw. Let's be honest here. We KNOW that none of these people are innocent. The ones caught on American soil have violated some immigration law. So they've broken the law. At the least we could deport them, no trial necessary. But in wartime, for the greater god, we always have to sacrifice some freedoms. It is the nature of the beast. And again, they are not now, nor should they be, subject to American courts. They're not even on American soil. I understand your point, and I sympathize for your intentions are nobel, if misguided. But let's call a spade a spade. No trials. Sorry.
At 2/18/06 03:17 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: I used to have pride in the fact that here in Canada the police look the other way, when people smoke weed in public. I've showed Americans visiting here that we could smoke weed as a cop drove by and they never bothered with us. That's why Canadians have become so comfortable with it and feel safe doing it. Well that is until today here in Nova Scotia, when a known hangout spot for smoking weed was raided. Welcome to the new Conservative agenda out to waste billions of taxpayers money to arrest potsmokers, build new jails and turn our country into an American-style police state... just as I predicted.
I wonder how much of our tax dollars these fucking pigs wasted here in Nova Scotia using police helicoptors, police dogs and 10 officers to arrest 13 teenagers for just smoking weed. Apparently the teenagers were frozen in fear. No wonder they never saw anything like this in Canada before...
So, wait. They broke the law and you're bitching that they got caught? So the cops should just ignore laws on the books for your convenience? You used to have pride that people broke the law and no one cared? Grow the hell up. Change the rules of the game if you don't like them, but don't bitch about em after they get used against you. These kids were stupid, plain and simple. They deserve what they have coming if for no other reason than breaking the law in front of the police and not even TRYING to hide it.
Typical liberal.
At 2/20/06 06:52 AM, GangsterRapper wrote: I've always wondered why devoutly religious people are offended by people of little or know faith such as myself, when we question their faith, Gods and religeon.
It has nothing to do with people who know nothing of faith, as to people who are blatantly disrespectful of your faith. For example:
Non-offensive...I say I'm Christian, you say you're not.
Offensive...You putting a crucifix (a holy symbol of my faith) in a jar of urine, and get paid by the federal government with MY TAX MONEY.
It's not the lack of faith that makes them angry, it's the blatant disrespect to theirs. Personally, I don't care about religious satire, except for Kanye West portraying himself as Jesus. Live and let live you know. You may not agree with them, but you don't have to be a dick about it.
To believe in a God with no real proof is all abit to much for me. How can someone live their life following a book written 2000 years ago. Why do people deny themselves nearly all earthly pleasures in fear of not moving on into the afterlife.
Well, there are some EARTHLY reasons, ignoring the Good Book. Most of those earthly pleasures come with earthly consequences, such as STDs, addiction, etc. You don't have to believe in a magical diety to see that most of the ideas in the bible are good practical ones, such as "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not commit murder".
How can a person who has so much faith that they believe a man died on a cross to save our sins, made the deaf hear again, or that they'll have access to over 70 virgins when they die get so angry when someone suggests their god doesn't exist?
We don't. A real person of faith will just shrug you off and say" your loss", or try and convert you so you don't "live eternity in hell". If someone gets angry one of two things has occured. 1. Their faith is weak so questioning it questions them. People don't like that. Period. 2. You were either really rude or really condescending when you expressd disbelief in their religion. Back to believe what you want about the magical being, just don't be a dick about it.
At 2/18/06 09:55 PM, Captn_ wrote:At 2/18/06 08:19 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: 10. Bill Clinton, MonicagateI liked this one the best, not because of what it actually was, but because of the name. I mean, are they trying to say that he corrupted our Monica? I think she was slutty before he got to her. And don't get me started with the "Deep throat" parellels.
Anyways, I'm sure these jokes have been made 1000 times before, so I'll stop. But in all seriousness, I really don't think the sexual precariousness of Clinton was deserving of a slot in the top ten.
He's not on there because he had sex. The controversy wasn't even about sex. It was about perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, suborning perjury, etc. Corrupted Monica? NO.
Quick recap. Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment. They called Monica to testify, so as to set a pattern of behavior. Not only did Clinton lie under oath, he insturucted Monica to, asked her to tell Linda Tripp too. Helped her hide evidence of their affair, etc. The controversy was about how far he went to rob Paula of her day in court, not the actual sex.
At 2/19/06 04:13 PM, Kieland wrote: We just don't want countless tax cuts for the rich. And we don't want class warfare, that's a generalization. Its facts, the poor are suffering man. I'll level with you though, there are SOME out there who believe that the rich should always give to the poor, but that's not the feelings of all democrats, just a few. If you're rich and have money, I think you should keep it. I just don't think the government should cater to the rich and leave the poor out in the cold.
There's no way to make a tax cut without catering to the rich. For example...."The Tax rate for 0-10,000 is now 0%. Who benefits? Those who pay taxes. Those who don't get no benefit. And the rich get a write off. Way of the world. Just because the EIC was cut for those who don't pay taxes means nothing. Why should people get a tax refund on money they didn't pay?
Republicans are just as bad. The entire anti-John Kerry ad campagin is an example. John Kerry DID fight in Vietnam. George Bush said that Kerry was a braver man than he in an interview with Matt Lauer. (I think it was Lauer). However, conservatives made it sound as if Kerry didn't fight in Vietnam and if he did it wasn't courageous. Well in my opinion, anyone who went to Vietnam was courageous.
No one said Kerry didn't fight in Nam, period.
Actually, we just hate the Patriot Act since its landed many in jail in Guantanmo Bay without proper trials. Sure you can argue that we're stopping terrorism but are you completely sure that everyone in Guantanmo is a terrorist?
They don't have to be. We're detaining them, ot arresting them. They're not being charged. Under US law, not the Patriot Act, we have the right to hold potential enemy combatants for the duration of the War, see WW2.
What the hell is this? Do you have any proof? Or are you just pulling that one out of your ass? Can you find me a quote? And even if you can, it's probably one dumbass' opinion and doesn't reflect the opinions of every Democrat in Washington. That's out there man.
Read the book "The 10 things you Can't say in America" by Larry Elder. It has a couple hundred examples. As does Michelle Malkin's site. Read Larry Flint's political book, where he calls Colin Powell "a porch monkey", a "Bush slave boy" and a "chicken eatin' Uncle Tom". Not hard to find. Type in your favorite black republican's name and add porch monkey and I'm sure several things will pop up to confirm Moral Libertarian's assertion.
At 2/19/06 06:07 PM, Captn_ wrote:
Recent events (over the last 6 years) have shown that the Rebublicans aren't immune to high spending amounts either, only for different reasons. The idea that rapid spending is only a Liberal thing is ignorant of the fact that all politicians like throwing money around, no-matter what idealogical background they're from.
Bush has constantly spent more money while cutting taxes. Therefore you can spend more and make less. The US gov't can borrow like crazy.
You assume that those are their only reasons, when it's possible they only said that for PR. In reality, it's possible that their reasons are more similar to mine; at a point of pre-neural devolopement, the fetus is no more alive than the cells in a human hair, and so abortion is morally okay if the fetus hasn't begun to devolope a brain.
So it's ok to lobby for this disgusting procedure if it's just for PR? To me that makes it worse. Tho it sounds like you have no clue what PBA is.
At 2/19/06 10:51 PM, Kieland wrote:I suppose you'd like the American tax-payer to foot the bill for all those trials too?If it means keeping innocent men out of jail, then yes.
Piss on that noise. They have no right to a trial. We're holding them as a potential threat to us, and not charging them with anything. They're in holding, not jail. And these men do not fall under the provisions of our judiciary, so again, piss on that noise.
At 2/19/06 11:15 PM, Captn_ wrote: I was refering to the alleged abuse in Guantanamo Bay and other POW camps around the world, where innocent Muslims are jailed and beaten along side actual terrorists. Republicans racially profile, where Democrates try and give actual terrorists more rights than most average Americans get.
So they're innocent because they say so? Well, shit, open the jails up, we've got innocent men all over the country. All criminals say they're innocent, grow up. And to be fair, half the critics of racial profiling don't understand it.
I said partial birth abortion, where the baby is almost completely developed and can likely survive without the mother. Abortions 7 or 8 months into pregnancy. It's an abysmal policy. Why don't we just wait another month and shoot the baby in the head?Uh huh, and I ignored that, posting more reasonable thoughts on the matter-at-hand. The idea that all Liberals support that is absolute bullshit. Fucking slanderous crap.
Actually, James Carville, a brilliant liberal documented this as one of the reasons Kerry lost. Clinton refused to sign the partial birth abortion bill into law, banning the practice. Al Franken, who is considered mainstream, supports it. Carville says simply "The party is killing itself by endorcing this. If we want to win voters, we have to drop this issue. We lost on this one, and we should have. Let it go and don't look back."
"Liberals are baby killers!"That's your point of view. I think your rhetoric is just as bad, and that's my opinion.I don't see how.
That.
He didn't say that. Period. Stop putting words in his mouth.
At 2/18/06 09:00 AM, happysack1 wrote: It seems to me that today there don't seem to be any left wing people anywhere!
Well, I can already tell you're note paying attention.
In the U.K. new labour traditional party of the working class has gone nazi on us suggesting special schools for the middle class and funding private health care. Nuclear power and restricted freedom seem to be the future but being the good citizen I am i am not alarmed by a police state what is alarming is that there is so little opposition to it.
Whenever someone has to use the word nazi, they either have no clue what they're talking about, or are deliberately trying to inflame the audience.
I don't know much about the U.K., but what is nazi (or even bad) about funding private health care? Or special schools for the middle class? Or nuclear power? How is your freedom restricted? Moreover, if you're not alarmed by a police state, why should it alarm you that no one opposes it? You don't seem to have thought anything through very well.
In the United States Bush has been able to do pretty extravagent things and the democrats haven't even tried to stop him leaving it solely to Micheal Moore who at the moment seems to be the only sensible person on the political scene. Bush has channeled the fear and pain of the American people and given himself extreme power in the process.
Michael Moore? Reasonable? Hell, son, he's been denounced by every real liberal out there. The man's a quack. The only thing he can decide on is that hehates Bush. More trrops in Iraq? Less? None at all? Well, whichever one Bush isn't doing that's what I'll say we should do. I'll give you some sensible people. Tammy Bruce. Leans conservative sometimes, liberal others. Gun loving, pro-abortion feminist lesbian who believes in moral responsibility. James Carville, ex marine liberal. Or one of my favorites, pro-war anti-Bush, anti-Michael Moore liberal Christopher Hitchens, who's brilliant piece I'll post, and you can link to his other work through there,
http://www.slate.com/id/2102723
You have little to no idea of American politics. Bush is constantly lambasted by the Dems, even at funerals for statesmen, and he doesn't have "godly power".
But self-richeous old men have been around since the beggininng and most of the time they are beaten by the public amd forced to be more resonable.
So where the f**k are the public where are the hippys, where are the civil rights movement guys and why aren't they fighting the growing tide of facism and EVIL. Well I don't know you tell me they can''t all be gone can they. It was only forty years ago they were at their height and noew the "enlightened" youth of the 60s has been replaced by a generation of ikemans intent on profit and efficency. With O.K. magazine and lattes to go please for the love of god correct me show me that there are still some liberal out their, show me that not all the democrats are dead!!
Dude, the hippies are responsible for most of our problems. And the "civil rights leaders" cause more problems then they solve too. Stop crying fascism cause you have no clue what it means. Bush may be useless and incompetant, but he's not evil. You're hopelessly clueless on the world, thinking Bush is the anti-Christ and democrats are in short supply. People just haven't been picking them.
