Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

One: The numbers used to say that execution is more expensive than life in prison take into account the court costs. A death row inmate not only is allowed more appeals than a lifer, but all of their appeals must be used up, due to our current system, EVEN IF THEY PLED GUILTY. Plus there's the fact that the average death row inmate spends about 25 years in prison, and you have astronomically high costs. Whereas a lifer may have the appeals optioned to him, but he can choose not to take them, or the court can deny his appeal. Court costs are the huge cost here. So limit everyone to three appeals, which must be carried out over the course of 10 years (max). They go straight from their last trial to the chamber. Put in a plead guilty option, and have an express lane. Costs go down like crazy and the court system gets less congested.

Two: Part of the death penalty involves closure for the families. Their loved one is dead while the murder sits in prison watching Dr. Phil and enjoying snack cakes. May murderers wrte books and make money off of the death. And they live in (in some cases) a better quality of life than they do on the outside. Many are right when they say that this is not justice. Nor is it in a lot of cases "suffering". Also, the death doesn't have to be cruel. Make it quick and easy. Hell, I'm not even opposed to painless. I believe in a lake of fire in the after life. If they're gonna burn for all eternity, then let em go quick from this realm.

Finally: There ARE reasons to execute. Some crimes are just so awful, the only real recourse is to put the monster down like a rabid dog. Treason is also a good reason. And finally, as posted on here several months back, some people are still a threat to the outside, even while locked up.

Oh and to respond to that " What if the woman was raped question":

Abortions in case of rape, incest and health of the mother factor into about 3% of all abortions done in the US.

There's a book called bearing right in which the author, who is pro-choice, mocks those who would attack pro-lifers no matter what their stance:

"There are two basic arguments against the po-life camp. That by forcing a woman to have a child, they are punishing the woman for having sex. The other is that it is cruel to force a mother to have the baby if she is raped. These two statements contradct each other, as if the conservative or pro-lifer feels that it is a human being and needs protection, that it is irrelevant how the child came about. It is just as human, and just as deserving of life, in their mind. You must choose one and stick with it, because the arguments cannot logically go together."

There arethose in the pro-choice camp, who honestly believe, no matter how erroneously, that abortion, no matter how unpleasant, is sometimes a necessary evil for the woman. Then there are those, as I have seen in this forum, who look at abortion as a "fuck you" issue. They mock others who don't agree with them as idiots, or unscientific, yet ignore any amount of evidence that doesn't coincide with their world view. In the end, they believe in it, just to believe, without understanding, and without compassion. They talk about how Roe vs Wade is their savior because otherwise raped, incest victims and those who would die would be forced to bear the child, either to their shame, or to their deaths, without acknowledging that even before Roe, all three of these cases were the allowed abortion criteria. To these, abortion is not about women's rights, or privacy, it is about power. Power over life and death, and power over those who disagree. I could argue that there are some like that in the pro-life camp as well, but they are much fewer and far-between.

In the end, to me, the issue is whether or not it is a human life. Science says it is, well before birth, so to me it must be protected. Life of the mother is of course, an exception. But that is such a small number, less than 1%. And I don't care that it is in her body. For the most part, society says that there are certain things you can and cannot do with your body. Abortion should be on there as well. So the "she's carrying it" side has no sway with me. A child is in his/her parent's house, yet they have no right to dispose of him/her. I see no difference.

At 2/12/06 05:57 PM, mackid wrote: Merely because the egg has been fertilized doesn't mean that you're "murdering" something if you remove it. The gender of the being hasn't even been determined! It can't feel pain, it can't survive outside the womb if you remove it (in the 1st and 2nd trimester).

The gender of the baby is determined from conception. XX means female, XY means male. Ironic that someone who takes a shot at conservatives on the basis of science doesn't understand it himself.

Now, I'm thinking that if something is murdered it must be:

1. Be killed
2. Intentionally killed
3. Be human
4. Be living
5. Be victimless
6. Be a person

(Above list is paraphrased from http://www.dbcuuc.org/sermons/001001.htm)

Is abortion murder? No, it only fits 4 of the criteria. A fetus is human, but only just, because it is formed by human cells. It is living, yes, it is victimless, true (but when the fetus becomes a threat to the woman's life, it is her perogative, in self-defense, to stop it from killing her, by any means neccesary) it is killed and killed with intent, but the last part is not a problem unless it's a person. We kill things without regard but with intent all the time (bugs, cows, you name it.) However, it is NOT a person.

By those standards it fits five of the following. It is by definition: living...as you are so fond of saying, it is a group of living cells. Abortions are always intentional. And if it is intentionally killed, it is killed. And the fetus/child is victimless. And finally, by the definition of science, it is human, due to the number of chromosomes in it's cell. As opposed to sperm/eggs which only have half the required chromosomes. So the only one left is is it a person, and from a scientific standpoint, we don't know. Republicans say "We don't know, so why chance it." where as Democrats mostly say "We don't know so it's fair game."

Why is a fetus not a person?

It does not have a fully functional brain until at least the 25th week, because the synapses and neurons haven't started working fully, nor does it have conciousness (but nothing really does until at least a few months/years of life). (25th week data according http://www.nlm.nih.g..y/article/002398.htm

.)

Your article doesn't work. By 25 weeks the Baby can survive with machine help. By fully functioning brain, I am not sure how you term it. I am unable to find a "25th week"
reference anywhere else. Nor does it matter. The brain is never fully developed, but here's a more significant link than yours.

http://www.zerotothr..rainwonders/FAQ.html

The brain is still developing crucial functions up until the end of gestation, that is the full 9 months, 36 weeks. The nueal pathways are still being build until 3 years. Etc. Etc. Etc.

You really are out of your league on abortion, and need to give it up. And don't harp on "those damn republicans" for not using science when you dn't understand it yourself.

At 2/16/06 06:54 PM, redskvnk wrote: I don't think it is my right. I can't have an abortion. But if me saying that it is a right, then you saying that it isn't a right is similarly "irrelevent." Which is just silly, because then this entire conversation is irrelevent. In the future, actually address what I say, plz.

You think it is someone else's right. Stop playing semantics and word games. You believing that it is a basic right is irrelevant. It is an invented right by the courts that is neither a necessary, nor some would say, even healthy right to have.

Wal-Mart being forced to sell contraceptives is laughable, and - dare I say - irrelevent to the topic at hand. They sell whatever they wish to sell. Besides some isolated incident somewhere. The exception proves the rule.

The fact is simple. A state is being allowed to tell Wal-Mart that they HAVE to sell a product. How is that irrelevant? If you someone has the right to get birth control, or morning after pills, I have the right to tell her to get them through someone else.

As for cigarettes, it too is a parallel. Bar owners are being told they have to ban smoking in their bars, all over the country. IN THEIR BARS. Again, being told what to do with their business. Such other regulations: In LA county, there was a law passed temporarily that said one couldn't even smoke in their own home, because it might seep out and offend neighbors. People are allowed to drive cars that put out ten times the pollutant every second that a pack of cigarettes does. Please, don't even try and give me this "you can't hurt other people with it" BS. If I own a bar, I have the right to make it smoking friendly. And if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

So basically, you only support the rights you agree with, even though the rights I mentioned are basic rights of a company under capitalism. Gotcha.

At 2/15/06 08:57 PM, seventy-one wrote:

At 2/15/06 08:47 PM, Gunter45 wrote: A fucking cartoon, that's not something ANYONE should riot about.

N****r is just a fucking word, but I'll likely be beaten if I say it in a black neighborhood on a loudspeaker. Or if I put it in cartoon form deliberatly insulting Martin Luther King Jr.

And? So it's only OK to insult one group of people? We punish those who attack others. Freedom of speech means having the right to say what you want, as long as it's not slander or inciting violence. So maybe we should lay the hammer down on these rioters and maybe then we'd see some peaceful protest.

At 2/15/06 08:26 PM, LadyGrace wrote: Once again, what I don't understand is if any of these cartoons attacked Christians no one would be up in arms.

If there were a Yaafm in which he calls every Christian an abortion clinic bombing, child molesting, anti-homosexual, moron. There would likely be uproar. Besides, the movie doesn't only pertain to insult muslims, it insults religion in general, but focuses on muslims.

Or if you're talking about the Danish cartoons, well, that's something else entirely.

Do you realize how much the Christian religion gets slammed? I mean really? And there are never violent riots. We peacefully protest. Sorry the comparison failed.

The cartoons came out 6 MONTHS before the rioting. This isnt even righteous indignation anymore, it's cowardice, and terrorism. And alst I heard, wes kills the terrorists.

At 2/16/06 06:43 PM, redskvnk wrote:

At 2/16/06 06:38 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Again, it's not a basic right.

I think it is.

Irrelevant. People think things are their right all the time. And that right may very soon go away or be severely regulated.

:And the other things you cite.... We do have the ability to smoke and sell whatever legal products we want. You're terrible at drawing parallels.

Well, since Wal-Mart has been FORCED to sell contraception, they're obviously not allowed to sell whatever products they want. And depending on where you are you DO NOT have the right to smoke indoors in a restaurant, even if you own it, or outside, or etc. Different cities have imposed all different kinds of restrictions.

I'm excellent at drawing parallels. You're terrible at understanding them.

At 2/16/06 06:22 PM, redskvnk wrote: I think abortion is definitely an issue to be decided at the federal level. It makes no sense to have basic rights decided state-by-state.

Again, it's not a basic right. And the ironic(al) part of my examples were, they support an imaginary right to end life inside them, but ignore the basic right to buy and sell whatever you want in your store. Or pollute your body with cigarette smoke. If you have a right to your body for abortion, you have it for smoking. And you certainly have the basic right to stock what prodcuts you want to carry.

At 2/16/06 05:23 PM, Chexmix829 wrote: this pissed me off when it was news. but we gotta move on. im not a gay or gay hater... just i dont feel that its a huge deal right now. we gotta git oyr boys outta iraq and git some into korea. we gotta impeach Bush. we gotta work on our relations in forein countries. u know whut im sayin? people can go out to sea or into another country if they wanna git hitched

No, we don't have to get our boys out of Iraq. Nor do we have to rush into Korea. And there's no legal grounds to impeach Bush. We constantly work on our foreign relations. And this has nothing to do with the topic on hand, so back to something relevant.

At 2/16/06 10:01 AM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: Iran wouldn't attack Israel would they? From my recollection of history Iran are good friends of the Jewish faith, they saved them from Babylon I think. Plus, Iran isn't a Muslim country so there isn't the Palestine reason for nuking Israel.

Iran HATES Israel. Hence all the talk of wiping them off the map. And yes, they are QUITE muslim.

In general I'm very apathetic to gay marriage, but whatever. A realistic point of view. Common ground so to speak.

The gay marriage thing is essentially about one thing: recognization. While many people are willing to live and let live, they take offense when told they HAVE to accept someone's way of life as equal or superior to theirs. Marriage is a purely moral thing. Otherwise why bother? Most states have common law marriage. Very few hospitals exclude anyone close to a patient from seeing them, and wills are a necessity period, as probate courts hear cases where children dispute the wills that would award mom the lion share.

As for using the Constitution to "ban a god given right", that's silly. You don't have the right to get married. The state can and does tell people no to marriage licenses all the time. And a people have a right to decide what they do or do not want to recognize as marriage, as Moral Libertarian so brilliantly pointed out. It's not a right. Especially not for gays. The can't marry, period, except for in Mass. So we wouldn't be "taking anything away". It's also worth mantioning that 45 states have DOMAs (Defense of Marriage Acts) that define marriage as one man, one woman. You can argue that the gays didn't vote, but that would be their fault wouldn't it? If you don't vote....you obviously didn't care that much about the subject.

Finally, if you really want gay marriage to pass, it's time consuming, but not that hard. Here's a simple plan to do it if you really want.

1. Stop referring to opponents of the bill as wacko Christians or right wingers. I may not be on your side now, but I'm not against you. If you piss me off however, I may vote against you out of spite. The majority of people will not vote for a cause that has belittled them. Be kind, sincere, and rational, and you may change minds.

2. Stop lying about what it's about. There are two reasons to get married. Moral reasons and tax ones. You want benefits. No shame in saying it. But don't feed me shit and tell me it's sugar...i.e. tlling me that's not involved.

3. Talk about morals. You're people. You just want to belong and be like normal people with the right to marry. People will sympathize and maybe join in.

4. No more flamboyant parades. SOME People see gays as those faggots who ride on the cock float dressed like little bo peep. Bring out the normal every day gays, and the weird perception of you will fade.

5. Finally, speak out against GLAAD and its ilk. Nothing pisses me off like someone going after the boy scouts or shouting down the opposition. If you don't let others talk, it makes me think you have a good reason for not wanting contradiction. That reason normally: you're wrong.

5 Simple Rules. Do that, and people will probably give ya the pass. That simple.

At 2/15/06 10:41 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote:

But that leads to the slippery slope where if we set the precident that there is no inherent right to privacy we will soon find states outlawing things as innucous as eating chicken etc. There are certain behaviors and activities that the federal government ought to protect people's rights to.

Funny, women didn't have the right to an abortion until after Roe vs Wade, yet chicken eating was still legal....fascinating. I mean Jesus, I've heard some dumb arguments before. Allowing gay people to have sex will mean some dude can marry his dog for instance. Or if we end welfare, the black people will have no choice but to become slaves again. But this is pretty damn dumb.

But let's address your argument. The government demands you wear a seatbelt, or a helmet if you ride a motorcycle. They regulate whether a bar is allowed to let its customers smoke. Or whether Wal-Mart has to sell morning after pills. And ironically enough these are all supported by the same people who endorce abortion! That's an overgeneralization, but still.

Abortion is the debate over whether or not life is being ended for convenience. If a fetus is life as the pro-lifers claim, it MUST over-ride the desires of the mother. Simple concept to understand, even if you don't agree with it. It's not simply the debate over a habit such as chewing your finger nails, but a debate over what is and isn't life, and whether it has a right to be protected.

The earlier parallel to Rodeny King is perfect. Let me explain why. The Rodney King video is actually several minutes long, but only a 10 second loop (which would be played as many as four times in a row) was all the people saw on teh nightly news. So we had a bunch of angry, pissed off people, who had no clue what was going on.
Americans saw a poor defenseless black man being beaten by cops as the one repeatedly kicked him in the face (due to the loop). And act of pure racism.
However, in reality, the cops merely wanted to pull over King for speeding. When the sirens came on, he led them on a crazy chase that almost killed several people. He finally pulled over AND RUSHED THE COPS. He was tazered and he got back up...repeatedly. It culminated in his beating, at which point the news plays it, and you hear the officers screaming "Stay down. Stay down." Finally after a good beating, he stopped trying to get up and attack the cops. He was subdued. It is worth noting that, at this time, the one officer went too far and kicked him in the face after he was subdued. The police took King down, and he lived to see another day, albeit with some bruises. I personally would've shot him.

Regardless, here, we have a short tape which we can't really see everything, but teh camera man alludes to someone shooting at them. Since we really have no clue what was going on, and no clue if that was the whole tape, people need to chill. Even in the tape, the officers are justified. They responded to an attack and beat the kids, without seriously hurting them. NON an unjust beating. And since the average Iraqi loves America, and the new insurgency is very anti-Zarqawi, we're doing pretty good.

It's always a measure of how good life is going at home, if we can bitch about the treatment of a COMBATANT in a war zone. We're doing good.

At 2/15/06 05:29 PM, mayeram wrote:

At 2/15/06 05:04 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote:

You also have to follow the rules to get into heaven. You have to have repented your past sinfull ways to get into heaven.

You guys should watch the religious channel more often; they always say that the only thing you have to do to get into heaven is to accept Jesus as your personal savior. You would think that if that was totally wrong that an archbishop would make sure that they stopped lying to people, and stop funding the station if it is going to lie. If this station continues to lie about how to get into heaven, then allot of people are going to go to hell that wouldn’t have to otherwise.

If you accept Jesus as your savior, you follow the Golden Rule "Love thy neighbors as yourself", which is basically the ten commandments in one sentence. If you don't follow those, you didn't really accept Christ as your savior.

As for condoms, the ads alone say they don't block STDs like AIDS with any real accuracy.

As for being a slut, the Catholic church says "no sex til marriage".

Ruling by fear...so bored with this already...they give you good guidlines to follow in your life.

You seem to have no knowledge of Christianity whatsoever.

At 2/14/06 08:53 PM, mackid wrote: It's not much more than a bunch of cells at the end of the second trimester. Once it can function outside the womb without intense intervention (read: full code type intervention), not just an incubator or something, it's not very nice to abort. But I'd give the woman the right to abort if she wants. It's no man's decision on what a woman should do with something inside her body.

Child is viable at 20 weeks, which is five months, middle of second trimester. Denmark cuts it off at 18. Stop speaking on abortion, as you don't know what you're talking about.

No matter what your philosophy on when life begins is, there is an intrinsic inhumanity to allowing the procedure to be performed on a baby who is able to feel it, and suffers terribly. And if it is indeed a child, a man does INDEED have the right to step in. Actually, there's a law suit being brought now in which it's being challenged that a man has no say-so, because the baby has half his DNA, and as it's father he has a right and obligation to protect it. This'll fail, but it's worth noting.

At 2/15/06 09:53 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote:

haha, simplicity, how lovely. But in all seriousness, AcessCode and Elfer, you need to look beyond the simple language of the amendment and examine the context in which it was added to the constitution. It was people who were saying 'The federal government is stealing our states' rights' who got this amendment added to the constitution, not people who were saying 'the federal government is stealing our guns.'

The founding Fathers realized that the states would not ratify the constitution as it stood. Therefore they drafted 10 Amendments limiting the government's power. These were drafted before it was ever presented to the states. It clearly states that it is the right of the people to keep arms. Read the Federalist papers, as their intents were quite clear. The language was simple to appeal to the people. Amendments 1-8 are guarantees to the of certain rights they would have. 9 and 10 limited government in general. There was no complaint...the goverment is stealing states rights! But they knew it would happen, as they knew people would complain if gov't encroached into INDIVIDUAL rights too much. Couldn't be clearer.

At 2/15/06 09:21 PM, Raging_Mormon wrote: Let me just start by saying that I AM NOT A HOMOPHOBE.
Lets hope that will keep the banstick away from me long enough to make my case :)

Anyways in Denmark(my country of origin and residence) there are too many elderly people and too few between 18-65 that can pay taxes and genrally support the society. There are not being born enough children and therefor there will be even fewer taxpayers in the future to support a growing number of old people.

Gay couples do not give birth to whole lot of children and are therefor less useful to society than a heterosexual couple.

Prove me wrong or acknowledge my superior intellect.

(This is all in good fun and this topic is not meant to inflame HATE towards anybody. Im just bored)

OK, here's your proving wrong. More people DOES equal more tax money, but more children means less. A married couple with no children pays more than a married couple with 2 children. Each child is a tax write-off. So for 18 years or so, they give their parents tax breaks, until they even get a job to tax. Then usually it is an entry level job that doesn't pay them enough to tax. AND married hetero-sexuals get marriage breaks too.

However, if a gay couple lives together and can have no children, they get NO tax write off, meaning that they pay more money. Hell, since most of them don't even get married in your country, they don't take enough marriage tax breaks to even matter. However, single mothers, heterosexual usually, get shitloads of money from the government and drain the coffers like crazy.

Hell, by this logic STRAIGHT people are terrible for the taxing system, not gay ones.

Short version, Iran wants to enrich uranium. Given it's past and how it has recently been talking about wiping Israel off the face of the Earth, all the reasonable people have concerns that they might use the uranium to make a nuke and....wipe Israel off the face of teh Earth.

At 2/15/06 06:21 PM, Captn_ wrote:

The good news is that Russia came up with a clever solution, where instead of the Iranians producing their own enriched uranium, they would ship it to Russia and the Russians would enrich it for them, then ship it back. Presently, the Iranians are negotiating terms with Russia, so there is hope. It's doubtful that the United States will even have to consider invading Iran now.

However, they would still have enriched uranium, which could still be used to make a nuke. That kinda worries me even more than Russia wants to help them.

The Constitution is a fixed document, not a living, breathing one. It can be amended to, but the process is difficult. The founding fathers believed in a very limited government, with all the powers off-setting each other. Think of the Constitution as a block of stone, it can be defined more clearly, but it takes time and effort. The "living breathing document" argument was invented to give judges almost unlimited power to legislate from the bench without going through that nasty amendment process, and proponents of it believe that the judges can and should be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of the will of the Constitution.

For the Second Amendment, if you read the works of the FF, they clearly meant for individuals to own guns. They distrusted government in all it's forms. Their guns may have been much slower than our automatic weapons today, but for the time they were fast and easy to use. We'd easily get bored, but at the time they were quite nice. 2 shots a minute if you were good. And as for assault rifles, the FF probably didn't intend for us to have those, you've got a point, and that's why it is almost impossible to get them, black markets always open tho.

At 2/5/06 02:40 PM, sea_food wrote: It has been said that children should not be exposed to political education, not so much for the fear of biased corruption of their precious, little virgin minds but simply because they wouldn't understand. Poor little things, ignorance is bliss.

Children shouldn't be exposed to political education by their teachers. They should have a basic understanding how government works. Declaration of Independence, Constitution, checks and balances, etc. Teaching politics impartially is impossible. And teachers should not be shoving their ideology down a child's throat.

Well I think that's a big load of shit. If children are expected to understand religion as early as birth (being baptized, as an example) and are able to master something as complex as algebra, physics, language and even ethics! then they would certainly be able to understand how the governments, media and economic systems work.

No one expects a baby to know why it is being baptised any more than they expect the child to know why it was circumsized or put on a ventilator. Those things are done without expecting the child to know anything. The whole process of confirmation is undergone to teach the child why they were baptized, and therefor shoots your argument down. Algebra is indeed a very simple concept and is kept simple til high school, I have yet to see physics taught in grade school, language is essential to communicate and is VERY simple, and ethics are not only easy to understand, they're essential for a child. Jimmy, don't him John, because it hurts and you don't want it done to you. Why not?

At 2/5/06 03:52 PM, sea_food wrote:
I think we can both agree that infants are infants, and should be left out of this.

You brought them in with your comments about Baptism.

But a five-year-old is capable of understanding basic religious principles.

How is that different from understanding basic political ideology? It isn't, both stem from core ethical beliefs.

Love thy neighbor, do unto others as you would have done unto you, those are really easy to understand. Hillary Clinton won't vote in Alito due to her hatred for Bush and pandering to her constituants is MUCH harder. Politicians often confuse me, and I'm 20. How do you expect a five year old to understand that?

Welcome to the global village. If everyone had been aware of international issues, 9-11 would've never happened.

He was right to laugh at you. That was childish. If only you understood hicks there would be no racism, how bout that? Do you believe that? I hope not. Some people are evil, or sick or otherwise. All the understanding in the world doesn't stop a skitzophrenic attack. If I want your wallet bad enough to shoot you, I don't care if you "understand my plight or not" To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

How would you connect that belief that in other countries, where they "strive to understand" others that there are uncontrollable riots over the Muslim cartoons, whereas here in the states we're not having that?

At 2/5/06 03:35 PM, mackid wrote:

"The "Strict Father" model of family morality that conservatives subscribe to is based on the hierarchical authority of the father who sets and enforces rules of behavior. Children are expected to learn self-discipline, self-reliance, and respect for legitimate authority. Obedience is emphasized; questioning of authority is little tolerated. Governmental social programs are seen by conservatives as rewarding a lack of self-discipline, of failing to becoming self-reliant. However, spending for the preservation of the moral order, for protection of the "nation as family," whether it is for defense or for building more prisons, is morally required.

I don't know whether you're criticizing it or not, so I won't comment.

Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to a "Nurturant Parent" model. Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for, respected, and, in turn, caring for others. Open communications is emphasized; even the questioning of authority by children is seen as positive. Desired behavior is not obtained through punishment. Empathy and a regard for fair treatment are priorities in this model. Social programs are seen by liberals as helping both individuals and the greater society. The maintenance of fairness is a priority for government."

And unfortunately in most of these households, the children are much more unruly. Children are not and should not be on equal levels as their parents. "Clean your room." "Why?" "Cause that's part of your responsiblities." "No, I don't want to." What does the parent do then? Allow their child to go outside and play usually. The child grows up with no respect for his parents.

Fairness is important with children, but so is authority. The best parents are those who try and use a blend of both. And I believe in a moderation of social programs. Help those who are trying to better themselves and cut those from the rolls who are using the system to leech money from hard working citizens. The limiting of welfare was one of the best things the government could do for the poor.

At 2/3/06 02:55 PM, Wadezilla wrote:

At 2/2/06 03:33 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
Tolerance has nothing to do with it. Until people understand that, nothing will change. You can't teach tolerance to hateful [people. Stop making excuses and see this for what it is. One guy attacked other guys. The word gay doesnt even need to be in the argument.

So you're saying the guy would have killed the other guys if they had been straight? Good argument there buddy.

The only thing important here is that he killed someone. When you are willing to take a human life for any reason other than self-defense or defense of others, there is something fucked up in your head. I'd argue that sooner or later he was going to kill SOMEONE, gay, straight, bi, black, white, asian, somewhere in the middle.
And besides, you didn't even try to refute my argument. Idiocy is saying "if only we'd sat down and talked to the boy, if only we'd told him, gays are people too, he wouldn't have done this." Yes he would've. The problem is not that we didn't teach the boy that it's ok for a guy to be gay, it's the fact that we're fucking making excuses for him now that he did it. Well, he just wasn't taught right....who cares? He killed someone. End of story. Were they attacking him? No. Then put him away. It really is that simple.

At 2/6/06 02:29 PM, muteecho wrote: i just am trying to say that the democracy idea that america is always shoving down everybodies throat can't and isn't the solution to your problems.

and democracy doesn't always turn out to be great like it looks like on paper.

i'll admit the people appears to enjoy this system,although I'm sure you could rule a country while having the people rule but not being a total Democracy.

Provide a better system than Democracy and maybe I won't rule you out as a crackpot or nutjob. Democracy may not be the cure for ev'rything that ails ya, but it's certainly better than those countries we've been "forcing democracy down their throats". Gee compared to living under a crazy mass-murdering dictator...gee who wouldn't pass on democracy. Maybe it's YOU who needs to grow up.

At 2/2/06 07:51 PM, -Shadic- wrote: 1. No, I don't have a skewed sense of minority. THe MINORITY of your religion lives in somewhat centrist or democrat voting states, the MAGORITY of your religion lives in backwoods incestville, AKA Middle and southern states, AKA the red states.

I live in a red state in "backwoods incestville". The majority of people do not believe gays to be evil. They believe the act to be wrong, not even evil. Since the majority of christians here have shot you down, you are in the wrong. It is not taught. You are simply saying your skewed view of Christians.

2.What I find funny about your religion is how you blame your own actions on the potential to do it. I'm not gonna go any further into the logic of that considering how brainwashed religous devotees are and how you would defend that logic, but I'd like to point out god gave you the power to do such. THerefore god is evil, and quoting someone I don't know, "You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't"

That was borderline illiterate. We blame our actions on the person who did it. Not some magical evil fairy who talked us into it, not on potential. Part of forgiveness is taking accountability for your actions.

Before you go on arguing, I think I'll corrupt the entire foundation of your religion with a question:

Why would god give a shit if you followed some rules your people interpreted as his rule? If he is omnipotent, he could force feed you the logic and make you mentally uncapable of questioning his authority. But no, he decided to give you free will.

I believe in god, but not one as stupid as religous people depict. I think he's just trying to get a quick laugh, see how many people he can brainwash with a few cheap carnie tricks.

And I don't care about your view. You put it forward like a child and argue it on fallacy. You are wrong, and intolerant.

At 2/1/06 10:59 PM, Black_rage_fucka wrote: Ooooh, everyone here listen to some Bill Hicks, 3 month old tubes aren't human, your not a fucking human, until your in my phone book. If people especially care about abortion why don't they give a shit about the people dying of vasrious diseases around the world... And yes I watched the movie

You are not in my phone book, therefore you are not a person. I am legally entitled to kill you by your definition. Children aren't in phone books either. Nor are...people who don't have phones. Your criteria is just assinine. As for various diseases...who is doing the lion share of trying to cure AIDS? Oh, that's right, the US. Who used DDT to eliminate malaria from much of the world before morons banned it? The US. And who's fighting to bring it back so we can finish the job and get rid of malaria in the world? Mostly the US. We do so much for the world. So don't spew your idiocy about how we don't give a damn about the world. Fool.

At 2/1/06 08:29 PM, mackid wrote: I hope you know that a mother is more likely to die giving birth than aborting...

And killing a "fully formed baby?" No. A fetus with NO NERVOUS SYSTEM (It can't feel SHIT, no matter what the conservatives say), that, as far as I know, is still androgenous (i.e. no defined gender, but closer to female than male) and can't live outside the womb. You guys are just silly.

I always love how oblivious you are. I shot you down repeatedly in another forum and I'll do it here too. I have no desire to be nice today, since you choose AGAIN to ignore what everyone else is talking about and jump in with your b.s. Partial Birth abortion is done on third trimester babies. Not blobs or zygotes. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You're either an idiot or a blind lemming for the pro-choice at any cost cause. We're talking about PBA here, not debating the validity of the morning after pill. Contribute something intelligent or shut the hell up.

At 1/31/06 09:51 PM, fli wrote: Intact dilation and extraction is up to the doctors and the women. You can't really force someone to take care of a baby. And some people don't want to put a baby in adoption for whatever reasons.

It's called selfishness. And it's a bullshit rational.

There would be less of these cases if the people who cry "murder" actually adopted those babies.

Fascinating. Another pro-choice claim with nothing to back it up! This one was put forth awhile ago. Abortion has ONE factor. The woman. Don't try and act like it's all depending on some magical savior saying "I'll take the baby!"

Huh...
Funny how people are only concerned for other people inside the womb... but not those outside of it.

Really? Wow, and silly me, I thought that Project Rachael was to help mothers who'd HAD an abortion. But maybe you're right....maybe it does...help....the....baby. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only groups that are there for a woman after her abortion is over, or after she has the baby are pro-life ones.

Shouldn't there be a website called that people can pawn off babies or something?

Gee another Genghis post: "America is evil, white men are the devil...." whodathunkit?

America is the only "empire" in the history of man to invade enemy countries, defeat the enemy ruler, and then turn the territory back over to the citizens of that nation.

Gee, we're sooooooo awful.

At 2/2/06 02:26 PM, -Michael- wrote: I just saw this in the news and this is just terrible. I was then thinking, are we doing enough to teach tolerance of homosexuals? After last election, I think no, and we got more to do about it

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. (AP) - A teenager armed with a hatchet and handgun opened fire inside a gay bar early Thursday, wounding at least three people in what police are investigating as a hate crime.

Tolerance has nothing to do with it. Until people understand that, nothing will change. You can't teach tolerance to hateful [people. Stop making excuses and see this for what it is. One guy attacked other guys. The word gay doesnt even need to be in the argument.

At 2/1/06 09:20 AM, Guilty_Biscuit wrote: Personally I think all religions should be mocked, I mean come on. Billions of people all believing in one God or another and their own Gods are the right ones but all the other people are deluded! And what do they base their knowledge that they worship the right God

Most religions worship the same God. Almost no religions believe the others are "deluded". Nice try.

- 99.9% of them were just born into their religion, they didn't even get a choice between all the religions.

More than 50% of all people in religions chose to switch from one branch to another. Another good 10% are born athiest and sign up for faith. Everybody gets a choice. Again, nice try.

Let's be honest, if you raised a child without any religion and then gave them a choice at the age of say 18 - how many do you think would actually want to join a religion?

Quite a few actually. Most children who are raised in a strictly athiest house with no room for religion grow up religious.

Opinions please (not sure what I'm letting myself in for)

Well no offense, but you walk in and seem to have an opinion that all religious people are idiots. But you seem to have little idea what you are talking about. Hard to take you seriously.

At 2/1/06 09:54 PM, ShadowsRevival wrote: Hey man i have to tell you. you must learn the constitution cause there is something in admendment 1 that allows:

Freedom of speech(not anymore) Freedom of Religon And Freedom Of Beliefs(well i dont remeber the big word they use but thats what it means)

Freedom of speech is still allowed. Stop being childish and asserting otherwise.

At 2/2/06 09:25 AM, SIMPLYB wrote: Actually she had already been admitted and was about to be seated. She was taking off her coat when a security officer saw her shirt he yell "PROTESTOR" they hadcuffed her and took her to the police station where they held her utill after the state of the Union. I call that arrested even if she wasn't booked. Then yesterday the police made a statment saying that they had made a mistake and sould not have removed her because low and behold there was no rule or law prohibiting miss Sheehan from whearing what she had own.

Actually yes there was. There was a rule stating no banners, shirts or other items of a political propegandizing nature. The wife of a Republican representative was also removed for wearing a shirt that said "Support our troops". They said there was no law. She was also asked to leave peaceably and she refused. The Republican wife was pissed but she left of her own accord. Sheehan didnt and was dragged out in handcuffs.

Though everybody else in here seems to have loved it, Clinton's response to me was flat out fucking childish. And rude. And unbecoming someone in her position.

You know what I saw there?

Bush: My SS bill was struck down.

Hillary jumps up to gloat. She and the rest of her childish ass Democratic breatheren have a victory cheer.

Bush: But problems still loom, and are getting worse.

The Republicans jump up, and have their own in your face celebration and are themselves childish because "she started it".

Bush: So let's work together on a bi-partisan committee to fix social security.

No applause, because, let's face it, this is about petty bickering. Not working together. Or actually solving anything. Worthless bastards. The whole lot of them.