Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/17/06 10:27 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote: Before you write this one off as another liberal scheme please understand that this is a piece of legislation I wrote for an upcoming debate. I just wanted to get some feedback and a couple of opinions before I debate it at Harvard.

OK, and to review, I hate Bush, but will still give you harsh criticism.It's not a conservative scheme to shoot you down.

A Resolution to Call for the Impeachment President George W. Bush

Whereas: President Bush has intentionally misled America to war with Iraq and deceived American to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; and

Afghanistan, you have no case. Period. Take it out. It's the response to 9/11. As for Iraq, GWB told us the same crap Clinton had been telling us for 8 years. Hillary agreed, as did almost every senator. And the world community had the same info. Take this one out altogether.

Whereas: President Bush has allowed the United States to suffer the worst attack on its soil in over a century then officially opposed an investigation into the matter; and

Eh, in terms of scale, not really. Pearl Harbor was worse. Should Clinton have been impeached for the first WTC bombings? I don't think so. It was a horrible thing, but I think it would've happened no matter who got into office.

Whereas: President Bush has failed to save thousands of lives from the deadly hurricanes of Katrina and Rita by appointing a personal friend as FEMA director; and

As did the local government, the people themselves, and FEMA. Everybody failed. You're choosing one man's incompetence when there were countless failures up and down the chain. And the levees had been ignored for five decades of leaders, so there was a long history that led to N.O.

Whereas: President Bush has allowed both North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear weapon programs under his watch; and

N.K. developed theirs under Clinton. You're dead wrong here. As for Iran, theirs isn't developed YET, and we're actively opposing it. Should we go to war with Iran too? I'd prefer not, but it may be unavoidable.

Whereas: President Bush has given the National Security Agency the ability to tap private phone lines without a judge’s warrant; and

I support this. But it's accurate, so I won't bitch about it being in here.

Whereas: President Bush’s “Patriot Act” has stripped Americans of their individual unalienable civil liberties; and

All but one senator and the House approved it. Over the last 4 years they were supposed to fix it and didn't. Blame them. Besides, you have to name one liberty that was taken away from you, and you didn't. Not that you could if you wanted to.

Whereas: President Bush has supported the use of torture on prisoners of war and detainees, defying the Geneva Convention; and

By Geneva, these people aren't technically prisoners of war. Geneva shoots you in the foot.

Whereas: President Bush’s "No Child Left Behind" act has secretly allowed military recruiters access to our nation’s schools; and

Secretly? It's pretty open. And military recruiters HAD to be allowed on campus long before even Clinton came on the scene.

Therefore: be it resolved by the Student Congress assembled here that Congress call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

Respectfully Submitted,
Paul Glicksman
American Heritage High School

One point out of all of those was correct. Sort of. Even at a more liberal place like Harvard, they're going to tear that up, and you'll get a pretty damn bad grade if you submit something so haphazardly thrown together. I'd fail that project personally. And they probably will too. So horribly inaccurate...

At 1/17/06 11:28 AM, _StillBorn_ wrote: It's not really as much of a human being as it is a blob of cells that could potentially become a human. There's a difference. If we were to illegalize abortion, not only will women still want to have an abortion and will get one, but more lives will be lost because women more often die during an illegal abortion than a legal abortion. Besides, legal abortions rarely ever scar or do any damage if they're done properly.

You're just a blob of cells then, albeit a huge blob of them. You do realize that certain things start happening before the baby is born right? The brain starts working, all the organs form, heart starts beating, etc. It's not like there's some magical fairy out there who twiddles a wind, and poof you go from blob to person. Before the first trimester is over (I forget all the weeks, and I'm too lazy to look them up AGAIN), your brain is mostly formed, as are your fingers, toes, etc. And since abortion is legal all nine months, thats a LOT of dead babies.

Bottom line: less abortions. Less dead babies. That's my goal.

What you mean is 'Less legal abortions. Less dead fetuses. More dead women'. You have to start looking at things as a whole. While I agree that when you do something illegal, you're taking a risk, you have to look at the figures. More women will die. You aren't going to stop them from dying by illegalizing abortion. A fetus is a blob of cells when killed at three or four weeks, which is usually about when abortions have been got. A pregnant human is someone that money has been invested in, has experiences and has memories. They have the ability to capacitate knowledge. They are different from fetuses.

No, what I mean is: less abortions, less dead babies. And your contention is incorrect. The majority of abortions are done well past 3-4 weeks. As for the figures, you act like there were so many thousands of dead women every year. Whereas the actual number was close to a couple hundred pre Roe vs Wade. There are coming up on 200 dead women from legal abortion post Roe vs Wade. So it'll even out soon. I'd like to reiterate (since I said it somewhere else), once abortion was legalized, many of those "back alley abortionists" went on to become LEGAL abortionists. And as for wome nbeing different from fetuses, they are different from babies too. You don't see a lot of pregnent women chewing on their toes. But I see a LOT of babies doing it. They're not too terribly intelligent. That comes with time. But they don't get that if they are murdered. Babies also don't have much in the line of memories. Sorry, but by your definition of life "memories", if I agree with you, I see no reason why we can't murder children up to..let's say...three. Oftentimes people don't remember things until 2 or 3 years old, so it's safe to kill them before then.

I just realized the irony of entering this debate with the alias '_StillBorn_'.

It is very ironic. Specially where you stand.

At 1/15/06 08:35 PM, LordXanthus wrote:

At 1/15/06 04:23 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: The students don't have a choice, or a leg to stand on. They checked their rights at the door, when they entered institution property. They knew the rules, before deciding to come to that school.

Alright. I live in an apartment. Does the property management company have a right to limit my activity in the apartment, beyond that which is specified by State law? Suppose I were to hire a stripper to perform at my apartment. Should they have a right to evict me?

Let's say for example your stripper plays her music too loud. And people complain. You can and may be evicted. Especially if it wakes people up. As stated, smoking and pets can be banned. A lot of buildings don't allow you to drill holes in the wall. Bottom line, my property, my rules. So you're damn straight they do.

And what's more, there was nothing in the university's code addressing this issue. Do they have the right to alter their rules, and then to punish a student for actions committed before the new rules were enacted?

And what's more, they did an investigation, as required by state law. There was a question as to a possible sexual abuse. They investigated to make sure no one had been hurt, no laws been broken, and that they were not at liability. No one was punished as far as we know. Sometimes you don't think of things until after they happen.

In the words of Jeff Foxworthy:
"They told me in the lamaise class, do NOT have sex with your wife after her water breaks. And I thought, what a stupid thing to say. Then I realized, they wouldn't warn us if someone hadn't tried it."

At 1/16/06 06:08 PM, _StillBorn_ wrote:

At 1/16/06 06:03 PM, WolvenBear wrote: stuff

While you have a point, if abortions are made illegal, women will still want to have them - and I'll be damned if they won't go to the black market to get them. Now, you've already counteracted this argument, but what about the factor that if abortion were made illegal, it would be extremely dangerous to go to the black market to get them and may result in injury and / or death on the woman's part? Remember that this fact isn't exactly going to stop women from getting abortions. If a woman doesn't want a baby, she doesn't want a baby - and legal abortion is the safest option of killing the fetus.

I addressed this. Look back on page three. Hell, for that matter, I addressed it in my last post. But I'll give you the brief version:

And? So it's dangerous. People will always do illegal things. This is a dumb argument. It's dangerous to try and murder someone, should we try and make it safer for the killer? Of course not. If you do something illegal and get hurt or die, that's your bad. It is hardly an argument to legalize it. It's a human being. So your argument is: "The safest way to kill this person is through legal abortion"? Sorry if I'm not swayed. Besides, legal abortions end in the mother dying/being sterilized/other nasty shit sometimes too. Your argument hurts you as much as helps you.

Bottom line: less abortions. Less dead babies. That's my goal.

At 1/16/06 06:09 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote:

At 1/16/06 06:07 PM, WolvenBear wrote: And if I have a fear (in this case a real one), that the community will rail against me and shut me down because I sold porn to a minor, then I've made the right call, so that I stay in business. Get that through your head.

But you're still saying that you won't sell it to me because I'm a minor. That's a reference to an age.

What is the difference between 17 and 18? Nothing.

Welcome to the truly free market, where I can but what I want.

Yea, its still a reference to age. It's my free speech (rights) to not sell it to you. It's not censorship. So you think my rights to not sell it to you should ne censored cause you don't like them? Isn't that hypocritical?

Here's the basic difference, and if you can't get it, please stop railing against the system.

If it was censored, you wouldn't get it, period. It would be outlawed. The government would ban it, and most likely you wouldn't even hear of it.

My right not to sell it to you, just pisses you off and makes you go elsewhere or have your parents buy it for you. That IS the truly free market. Some places sell violent video games to kids. Some don't. It's their choice. Your only say in it is: Fine, if you don't want to cater to me, then I'll go someplace else. That's what the free market is. You're free to buy or not buy from me, I'm free to sell or not sell to you.

At 1/16/06 05:55 PM, JMHX wrote: This and the College thread make me scared about the massive amount of stupid people compared to the relatively small amount of educated people, and how one mass can be swayed into thinking Saddam Hussein had something to do with September 11th just because someone in a suit tells them so.

Gee, I love that idea. As opposed to "We're invading Saddam because we believe him to have Weapons of Mass Destruction or to be close to aquiring them", which was our justification. How about the fact that Saddam harbored terrorists? Or the fact that both Osama and al Zarqauwi have called Saddam "their ally"?

And you don't believe that Saddam was guilty of any wrong doing because a guy in a flannel (Michael Moore) told you so?

There are a lot of intelligent people out there. You DON'T have to go to college to be smart, nor does college ensure you won't be stupid.

Stop calling everybody stupid and then say something that shows you don't know what you're talking about.

At 1/16/06 05:59 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote:

At 1/16/06 05:56 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Not censorship. Sorry. Censorship is not allowing something to be released, or viewed. A store saying "Sorry kid, you're too young to buy this." is NOT censorship. Grow up.

But there material is being censored from me. Why?

My age? That's just a number

It IS NOT being censored. Shut up. Your parents can still buy it for you. You can't get off that word. Censorship is gov't. This is not government. I have the right NOT to sell you anything I please. Want porn? Sorry, I don't think 15 year olds should have it, so I'm not going to sell it to you. That's MY right. If your friend wants to buy it for you and sell it to you, that's his call. But I've made mine.

And if I have a fear (in this case a real one), that the community will rail against me and shut me down because I sold porn to a minor, then I've made the right call, so that I stay in business. Get that through your head.

At 1/16/06 05:26 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote:

At 1/16/06 05:20 PM, WolvenBear wrote: I said it would cut down on them

Ever heard of alcohol prohibition? Obviously not.

The ironic part is it DID cut down on alcohol consumption. You gave me an example which hurts your little snide remark. It did create a black market for liquor, but alcohol consumption went down. And, as I said with abortion, it became dangerous to deal in alcohol, and CRIME (not consumption) went up. Illegalize something and crime goes up. Legalize something and crime goes down. Reread the history books.

As always, the argument that something is a failure because it still happens is stupid. Making something illegal doesn't make it go away. We still have murder, rape, arson, robbery, and the drug trade. But all are inherently dangerous. If we view a total stop as the only means of success or failure, our entire society is a failure. Black people still get discriminated against, so might as well get rid of laws that protect them. That's your simple argument. If we take away laws that say you can't discriminate in hiring based on "race, sex, creed, etc", and take away all redress individuals have against such businesses, discrimination will go up. End of story.

At 1/16/06 05:53 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote:

At 1/16/06 09:51 AM, PopupBlock wrote: They don't censor

They do. They won't sell me a certain video game. Why? ESRB rating.

Not censorship. Sorry. Censorship is not allowing something to be released, or viewed. A store saying "Sorry kid, you're too young to buy this." is NOT censorship. Grow up.

At 1/16/06 05:12 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote: You think that making abortion illegal will stop them?

Somebody didn't pay attention in history class.

Didn't say it would stop them. I said it would cut down on them, among other things.

Somebody didn't pay attention to what I said.

At 1/16/06 01:30 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

I was under the impression most people implicitly supported slavery. If you assure me that this isn't the case, I will conceed you know more than I do. I KNOW, however, that most people were against women having the vote. My point is clear even without the example - the majority are not always right.

Slavery was brought up during the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. It was finally conceded that it wouldn't be ended so that all the states came on board. The anti-slavery position was always the minority, but it was conceded for the temporary good of the nation. During the civil war, most southerners fought for the right of the South to be free, not for the right to bear slaves.

And as for women, if the majority were against it, they wouldn't have been given the right to vote. Back beyond that, there's not a whole lot to say the issue was ever really thought of on a wide scale, thus no way to know if people were pro- or anti-women's sufferage. All we know is that when the issue came up, the majority supported it, and it passed into law. What you KNOW is dead wrong.

At 1/16/06 10:07 AM, mackid wrote: My parents think its censorship too. They tried to buy me and a couple friends tickets, but the idiots working at the desk said that they would have to pay too so that I could get in. That's just dumb, don't you think?

Well gee, if two other people agree with you...

It's not censorship. You CAN still see it. The Theater demanding that your parents go in with you is called liability protection. If your parents go in, and see something offensive, they pull you out. If your parents send you in alone and then are offended later, they can sue the theater. It's called good business.

And again, censorship is NOT prohibited by the first amendment. The first amendment only guarantees that the gov't can't censor you. Private businesses can censor whoever they like.

At 1/16/06 07:55 AM, JMHX wrote: In 1828 our country took a dangerous step from the firmness of a national-minded polity to Jacksonian Democracy. Now look at what we have. The American system is an absolute disaster.

How? Because you don't like it? Some things aren't perfect, but a disaster? Hardly. Either back up your claim or don't make it again.

Prior to 1913, U.S. Senators were chosen by State Legislatures and not directly by the voters. Likewise, popular vote wasn't really important in the Presidency until Jackson's failed first attempt against John Quincy Adams. Before that, legislatures handled the majority of the electoral work. It would not be a bad idea to consider going back to this.

And there was a time when Legislatures made the laws and the Judicial branch simply enforced them. I personally find that to be the bigger flaw, that we went away from the original idea.

Alexander Hamilton firmly believed that a nation governed by a small core of intelligent people would guide the country better than the mass of unintelligent Americans voting for whoever could sell their schlock the best in the newspapers. Now it has only gotten worse. What was 2004? Certainly not a debate about issues relevant for the past thirty years. No, it became about Vietnam, who sounded better, who was more popular. Did this not wake people up that something was wrong?

2004 was about a LOT of issues. Just because you only saw one is irrelevant. Yes, the war on terror was a huge part of it. And it should've been. How do we protect ourselves from another attack? What has been done wrong what could be better? Should we stay in Iraq to finish or should we leave now? These aren't unimportant issues. And they weren't the only ones. Abortion, gay marriage, taxes, international policy, the death penalty, affirmative action, civil rights, and many more were also on the list. You chose one issue (which had relevance) and highlighted it. Did it matter what Kerry thought about war? Of course! He wanted to handle Iraq like Vietnam, so of course it mattered.

The vast majority of Americans are unintelligent. They neither know nor care about the fine points of government or governing. They have no understanding of trade gaps, national security, domestic policies or international relations. They are stupid and happy. Statistically, the majority of these non-college educated Americans live in the South, an area with a rapidly expanding electoral power. Giving these people the right to vote is like loading a gun, pointing it at the head of the country and telling them to pull the trigger.

Says you. Why do you say they don't understand? Most people understand that the schools are failing, they just don't know what to do, because they feel helpless. No one wants to solve the problem, and when someone does, they get ignored. Just because you didn't go to college doesn't mean you're stupid. Nor does going to college ensure you're intelligent. When we take the vote OUT of the hands of the individuals and give it to a few people, we will fail. Plain and simple.

These are people who care more about whether or not gays can kiss than about funding for international espionage work to determine the locations of al Qaida. These are people who raise all Hell if someone has an abortion, but have practically no basic knowledge of how funding on the state level effects education, and how some states in no threat of terror attack - Wyoming - are receiving massive amounts of Homeland Security funding. No, letting these people vote is dragging down the quality of our American political system.

Yea, there are. A few. More people who voted cared about mismanagement of the war. The "gay rights" issue is not over gays kissing. It's over whether or not everybody should be forced to except their marriage as valid, and pay taxes to support them, i.e. spousal social security benefits, or businesses be forced to give them spousal health care. YOUR misunderstanding of the issue tells me you shouldn't be criticizing others for your perceived "lack of intelligence". As for Wyoming, it's being changed. Why's it being changed? Because people are complaining about it. Usually people don't know what the gov't spends money on, but if and when they find out about stupid shit like that, they get it changed. Your Wyoming argument illustrates exactly why Democracy works.

These people are electing politicians who are simply qualified actors. Hell, look at the brilliance of the populous in California when they elected Schwarzenegger. Look at all of the Virginians (myself exempted) practically climaxing over Ben Affleck's expected announcement for the U.S. Senate. Jesus Christ, Ben Affleck in charge of deciding what area of the Armed Forces gets special programs funding? Can you imagine?

And other than Arnold being an actor, what makes him not qualified? Must've been his wanting to redistrict CA so the people's voice would be better heard. Honestly, I'm thinking he's doing a pretty damn good job so far. Better than the last guy....can't remember his name, since he wasn't an actor or anyone famous. Can't believe they voted him out in a recall election to put in an actor....

Whenever someone thinks their voice should be the only one heard, hold on to your wallets, someone's trying to swindle you.

At 1/16/06 10:20 AM, SIMPLYB wrote: I have a few questions to pose to the anit-abortionist.

First, almost every abortion case is an unwanted child. Are any of you willing to adopt a child that would have been aborted. If not then it is none of your buisness, and you are unsincere about wanting to protect life, because that child is more than likely going to grow up in a home where he or she is not wanted.

Yes, I am willing. So what now? And your contention is wrong. The question is: is it a human being? If it is, then it is my business. If it is not, then you're right pro-lifers can shut the hell up. It'll grow up in a home where it's not wanted? And? Is it a human being? Pro-choice arguments are always so childish.

Second, do you not realize what will happen in this county if abortion is illegal. First only the people with enuff money to send there child to another country to get abortions will be able to. It will also, just like anything else illegal, set up a black market for abortions. Women who fill like they can not raise there baby, for whatever reason, will be force into dangerous back room abortions which will lead to the death of many of them.

Yea, I know exactly what will happen if abortion becomes illegal. To judge this, I look at what happened when abortion became legal. Illegitimacy sky-rocketed. Abortions increased like wildfire. STDs became more prevalent. Etc. If we illegalize abortions, illegitimacy will drop, STDs will drop, there will be less abortion, sounds like a good thing to me. And so women will die doing something illegal. There is an inherent risk in breaking the law. Drugs aren't safe, nor is buying them. And they shouldn't be. Should we step in and make drug use safer? Of course not, that endorces it and triples the usage rate. If they are ending a human life, and die in the process, so be it. Break the law suffer the consequences. There were never that many back alley abortions to begin with, so it doesn't bother me that much. More women have died of legal abortions done by unskilled professionals than by back alley illegal abortions. Why? Because we told them abortions were now 100% safe. So more got them. Less worried about contraception or abstinence and dove on in. Besides, abortion would still be legal in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother.

Lastly, what right do you have to impose your religious views on the rest of the contry. Yes the christion faith is dominant in this country. But we are not a theocracy. Look at the middle east and you will see why it is dangerous for religion to run governments.

We ARE a theocracy. Our government and our laws were based on religion. Read the history books. The middle east doesn' show us the danger of religion running a country. It shows us the danger of homicidal maniacs running a country. Hell, a secular government is dangerous too. Look at nazi Germany and the USSR (and Communist dictatorships in general). They were run by secular people who believed the state was God. The lesson is: madmen run their countries madly. Gee what a shock. I repeat. Pro-choice arguments are always so childish.

At 1/16/06 12:08 PM, sdhonda wrote: Ive noticed that the republican party in the US seems to really have some internal conflicts right now. Namely, between the hardline leaders and policy makers, and the rest of the party which is somewhat moderate.

You think that with this, that the party might split into 2 parties, one that is moderate-right and the other being hardline right?

Honestly, there have always been conflicts between Republicans. "Free all the slaves during the Civil War and risk losing our allies or wait until after the war is over and be called racists by history." The party has always been split (no matter how unequally) over issues such as abortion (in cases of rape and incest mostly), affirmative action (is it helping or hurting the black community), euthanasia (is it compassionate or cheapening life), etc. To me, it's always seemed as if the Democrats put on a more united front. Ann Coulter once said of the Republicans "They can't put together a three car procession without writing 70 books to demonize the rest of the people trying to make the procession." And in a lot of cases its VERY true.

At 1/16/06 03:25 PM, red_skunk wrote: It's evidence of the continued subliminal racism, prevalent among upper-class, sheltered whites who's only contact with blackies is MTV. I don't take Paris Hilton and Donald Trump to be representative of "The White Man" -- why the fuck would you take some rappers you see on MTV to be representative of "The Negro"?

OK, I have real contact with "The Negro" as you so lovingly call them. They may not be gangsters, but theres a damn good portion who can't go two minutes without calling whitie the devil.

The position of blacks, hispanics, and other traditionally oppressed minorities in the US, is getting better every day. Look at the income disparity between blacks and whites, men and women. The difference in salary between what a white women makes and a black women, is a sliver -- a tiny difference. Ultimately, your post, JMHX, makes about as much sense as the "Black Power" thread. The "reparations movement" that you mention, is only seen once in a while, perhaps a group of a half dozen in some mass protest. Or more likely -- it's brought up by conservatives, a target for some passing snide remarks, or to straw man the 'opposing side' as a bunch of lunatics.

A feeling of entitlement? The only time I ever hear about this feeling is when some conservative leader is trying to rally support for slashing welfare benefits -- antagonizing underlying racial resentment. Race baiting. Which is basically what I feel like this thread is.

Yea, you don't listen to black politicians much. To listen to Al Sharpton and his ilk, it's 1865, and the black man is only starting to realize he's picking cotton. Would you consider the Million Man March a couple dozen? There's always some black man bitching about racism and how it's keeping him down. You look at the real world, and I applaud you for that. But this isn't about the real world. It's about perception. You look at employed black women vs. employed white women and say "eh, negligable difference". But there are many out there who will look at an employed white woman vs a crack addict black mother of five and bitch that they aren't equal. And sadly, those people are listened to far more than you or I.

I agree with you. Rappers aren't the problem, famous black people telling average black citizens they can't make it because whitie is out to get them are the problem.

Oops, missed this one from our beloved host:

Why is this such a big issue? I mean you tell me that it's not a big issue taking away rights from groups like homosexuals, but somehow you're pissed off at the rights people in jail have. Talk about hypocrisy. I'd say prisoner voting rights is less significant than homosexual's right to marry, but we all know Conservatives are more obsessed about taking away rights, than allowing homosexuals to keep their rights.

Right for blacks came from conservatives: end of slavery, right to vote, enforcing deseg laws, etc. Women's rights came from conservatives. Hell, even most gay rights came from conservatives. Alito has been attacked (ironically enough by the liberals) for taking a case for a homosexual man who was denied the right to live in an apartment once they found out he was gay. Alito defended him, and he was allowed to stay. Conservatives believe that gay people should have the right to vote, live together, have sex if they so choose. We don't believe they should get married. It's not a right. Hell, marriages between straight people are "licensed by the gov't". We believe that the people should have the right to vote on it. And you know what? If the vote passes and gay marriage is allowed (which it won't be), the conservative will shut the hell up and sit down.

I'd say prisoner voting rights is less significant than homosexual's right to marry

And you sound foolish for saying so. If you think that a piece of paper saying that "you are now a couple" is more important than murderers being able to elect someone who will pardon them and enact legislation that will decrease their jail time, you're just not very bright. There's a small but significant push to release the Mansons in the US. You're telling me that, given the chance, violent criminals wouldn't vote for candidates that don't believe in the death penalty or life sentences? Or in this case: total release all together? This is why I can't take you seriously. When Bush Sr. attacked Dukkakis for releasing prisoners, using a black man named Willie Horton as the prime example, he was called a racist. So much shit was stirred up that many people forgot the message of the ad: Dukkakis lets violent criminals out of jail who then kill again, and called Bush a racist, thereby voting for Dukkakis. Like most elections, it was close. And if we'd allowed prisoners to vote, who do you think they'd have voted for.

Here's an interesting scenario, what if the Liberal government decided to throw all Conservatives in jail. What could you do to stop them? Vote them out? Ah but you're in jail.

Or shoot them. We do believe in guns. If it got to that point where we were putting people in jail for their ideology, conservatives would see that the police were no longer defenders of our freedom and defend OURSELVES. But since the two scenerios (mine being realistic, and yours being stupid and childish) are nothing the same, I'm questioning why you brought this out as your best argument.

At 1/16/06 03:57 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Yes and the U.S. certainly has the largest incarceration rates of first world nations, so you do have a serious problem. No wonder they want to be able to vote. They want a party in power that at least doesn't run American Gulags. What a great way to justify an oppressive government. Throw everyone in jail and tell them they don't have the right to vote.

Congrats, you completely missed the entire argument. Is that what I did? Said people who disagree shouldn't have the right to vote and should be thrown in jail? No. I said people who commit crimes and have victimized others shouldn't have the right to help decide policy. Our government is oppressive? France is taking away the right to free speech and jailing people for it. We have the best nation on Earth here bud, and that's why our immigration rate is the highest of first world nations too. You know what our problem is here that keeps our jails so full? CRIME! People victimizing other people. My position here makes sense. If you murder someone, rape someone, burn down houses, steal cars, sell drugs, etc, you shouldn't be allowed to vote on candidates who will make policy on those issues. You have enough people in your jails in Canada to influence an election too. Again, don't be stupid, ONE PERSON can be the difference maker. And it shouldn't be some dude in a cell for 25 because he raped and murdered his neice. If you can't agree with that, I guess you're not bright enough to continue this convo.

What does that have to do with prisoners voting in an election? No major party in the U.S. would argue that you release all the prisoners, without losing a vote from the main population and you couldn't have some 3rd party voted entirely on inmates and expect to gain any seats. Therefore it's not going to hurt the vote, but at the same time it protects you from a government that may decide to start locking up large chunks of the population, so they can strip them of their right to vote.

But that's the position you seem to be arguing. We have too many people in prison. We need less people in prison. You say that if you have enough people in prison to change an election, we're doing something wrong. I'm demonstrating absurdity by being absurd, arguing against your stupid argument by arguing for it.

My argument is that they get locked up for the same amount of time, but instead of jail being a place of rape and training to be even more hardened criminals, it can be a place of rehabilitation. Especially for people who are getting out someday. This goes for both min and max security. While the argument may be, "why bother with people in there for life?", at least they'd still be less of a risk of starting prison riots and shit like that. Just throwing them away and forgetting about them, you're creating an environment for even more criminal behaviour.

We do things like this already, at least here in the US. Illiteracy is the cause! If only people knew how to read, there'd be more theft. So we teach the guy to read and release him. If he was going to commit another crime, he does it. If he wasn't he doesn't. For small crimes, a lot of prisoners say one stay in the pokey was enough and go clean. The repeat offenders (such as the guy who killed my sister's mom) are either sick or evil (take your pick) and aren't going to change. There's something wrong in their head. And you're sitting here looking at me like I have three heads for suggesting that this homocidal maniac (who has been through the therapy you described not oncfe, not twice, but now three times and is about to be released AGAIN) should not have the right to vote. Death row inmates are segregated from the populus, and have single person cells. Their chance of starting a riot is almost nil. And we do ALOT of things to make sure life prisoners don't riot. Give them TVs, VCRs, PS2s, etc. Which is a waste of tax payer money I might add.

I seen a show on television where they had real victims come in and have inmates in tears when they listened to the stories from a victim of a crime similar to theirs. Some of them said that it was a revelation to them because they never saw it from the victim's point of view. That's the kind of rehabilitation I'm talking about. Inmates need to see the consequences of their actions and why it was wrong to do. Many of these inmates can be rehabilitated, while many cannot. It's still better than our current system that encourages even more criminal behaviour.

Key word is SOME. No offense, but your solution won't work. Many criminals know what they did was wrong, and KNOW what it does to people. They just don't care. See: sick ass murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. And for the rest, prove prison makes them worse. I could look at the non-repeat offenders and say "See, we taught them to read, taught them a job skill, put them through harsh labor so they never wanna come back, and now they steal no more." It's not a one variable system bud. You're pointing to one cog in a huge machine and saying "If we replace that, the whole machine will work!" Doesn't work that way. There are societal influences, schools, and a whole slew of prison issues. You're looking at a small factor instead of the big picture, and that's why your idea has already failed.

At 1/15/06 07:05 PM, Dranigus wrote:

Marriage started before there was Christianity or marriage, it was originally a territorial practice by early homo sapiens and homo erectuses in which a woman or women were completely claimed by one male for mating practices.

And if you look back, amongst every group that had marriage, it came from religion. The common practice was to take many wives, and in some cases many husbands among "the heathens". There is talk in all three sacred texts of not being like the heathens, including the practices of sex. The commandment "Do not commit Adultery" came about because it was common practice, and it was meant to set the Jews above the rest of the people.

And by the way Jews and Muslims don't go to church, they have their own religious dwelling for prayer and such.

And? Your point is? Just because I'm too damn lazy to type out ALL the different names for Churches, you toss this out. You know what, they all go to CHURCH. A Mosque is a Muslim CHURCH. They may call it a different name, but it's the same thing. They go there to pray and listen to scriptures from their holy text in communities. Azul may be spanish but it still means blue. And by the way: dwelling means they live there. Building is a better word. Not that that changes the context of your argument in any way, and I still know exactly what you meant, as did everybody else. But I figured I'd pick out a small word that could've been said better and bring it to your attention like a dick. You know? Return the favor?

JMHX, in all honesty, though I don't particularly care for the Boondocks, I actually thought the MLK episode was right on. MLK's death should've been a good thing in the long run, like the death of Jesus, in that it would cause us to pull together and unite under a common flag, in memory, but that has not been the case. Where as it has made him an icon in death, it has made him a largely ignored one. The part of Boondocks where people don't even know who the hell he is was disturbingly true. And how he and Rosa Parks are often tossed in a category with Rodney King and Al Sharpton, which is a great injustice to King and Parks.

At 1/16/06 08:46 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: I'd like to thank Cedric The Entertainer for strengthening the black stereotype in his movies, and generic rap music which only deals with... the usual generic stuff: women, hoes, money, jewlery, drinking, sex, cars, killing, drugs, clubs, rims bigger than 18 inches, etc...

Kanye West and Common's music show signs of intelligence, although Kanye's political comments aren't very thought out at times.

Kanye shows signs of the same victicrat mentality that so many others share. "The gov't created AIDS to kill the black man" "Coke was made to keep the black man down", etc. All in all, I didn't even know Cedric rapped. Let alone talked about killing and hoes. And even if he does, that's nothing compared to the Sharptons and Jacksons telling the whole black population they're useless and will never get anywhere in life.

At 1/16/06 06:36 AM, KCAMPBELLX wrote:

At 1/15/06 11:10 AM, TehChahlesh wrote: Yeah! Let's allow all black people to live comfortable lives without doing anything! While all us racist white crackahs toil for a 5x5 apartment building with no running water! EXCELLENT IDEA

That is just silly only a complete imbasil would do that and i feel that your comment is a false statement that is not needed for any relevant reason. We all have our rights and beliefs.

But his comment seems to fit in with what the original author of this post has intended. Notice how the author never says poor people, just black and oppressed (saying blacks are oppressed). The guy demands nice housing, free health care, free food, etc. The fact that he demands these free things means he doesn't think he should have to work for them. He wants 40 acres and a mule because he's black. I doubt he'd be very receptive to the idea that, even if we WERE to do this, we should look at someone's family tree to make sure that they were the decendants of slaves, and that their family didn't come here after slavery, or that they weren't one of the slaves who actually received a gift from their master upon freedom, to get them started, OR that they aren't the decendants of those few slaves who worked as slave masters and held the whips (being responsible for the majority of black suffering in slavery).

Of course you have your right to a belief. And if it's a stupid one (such as this), we all have the right to mock the shit out of you, as TehChahlesh exercized here to mock the author. And as I am doing to discredit you. You have the right to free speech, but it doesn't mean you have the right to go uncontested. Out of the two of you, TehChahlesh's post seems relevant, yours seems pointless.

NOOB

OK, just tossing this out there. TehChahlesh has almost three times the posts you do, so you really don't have a whole lotta room to call him a noob.

At 1/16/06 09:48 AM, TheMartyr18 wrote:

Well Ive heard that term, but I researched it on wiki to kmake sure what I was saying ia curate .. I found that partial birth abortions are in fact legal.. I don't agree with this, and I think the ban should have been allowed to go through..

Well, good. I'm glad you have your limits.

I was just adding to the fact that the baby wasn't going to feel any pain...

Again irrelevant and also wrong in many cases.

I understand the point your making, but your using the word "eventually" as an absolute is wrong.. We've already decided that isn't always true...

You've decided that's already true. Eventually is the correct word. It's the same thing as the house or the kid becoming an adult. It's the process of things and the way it's meant to work. Freak accidents and (imo) murder, do not in any way symbolize that this is not the natural progression.

Im not in support of a women killing her child and blaiming it on PPD if that what your saying.. if someone dosent want a child when its born put it up for adoption.. so body will take care of it and love it... and no Im not "hinging my logic on self assurance" You know why? Ive never had a child, Ive never had a child of mine aborted, and chances are I never will... So what would I need to assure myself of? You call my logic flawed, and I question as to wether or not your using logic.. you seem to only make assumptions here... Also you often like to point my wording out.... point out the fact that Im not staateing my oppinions as absolute truths like you are.. I know I can be wrong.... You obviously don't...

No offense, but you keep tossing out things like "you base your logic on assumptions", and then when I put forward something that (in this case) proves my argument, you talk about how I assume you were for it when I never made that case. No, when I assume, I have stated it. I have thrown out "maybe I'm wrong" a dozen times. I question whether or not you are using logic because from the beginning, whether or not I am talking about you, or when I talk about possibilities, you throw forward how I am assuming. I talk about pro-lifers, and you demand an apology for me calling YOU evil. You're stubborn and resistant. When I present evidence to my side, you say I'm beng an ideologue. Or in some cases, despite the way things are, you just continue to push your singular argument forward. For example: " I was just adding to the fact that the baby wasn't going to feel any pain..." They DO feel pain, quite a bit. But despite that, you just keep throwing this one out there. You even researched partial birth abortion which is quite painful, and still you push this out there. Your logic hinges on the self assurance that you are right. And your refusal to move from the "it doesn't hurt" crap shows it. It's odd, you concede partial birth abortion, then go right back to your argument as if you conceded nothing. And you talk about MY ideology?

Mine is based on the fact that we have ALREADY legalized all abortion. Partial Birth Abortion bans have been struck down by the Supreme Court. We're cheapening life of children. And you're sitting there grinning like a jackal and telling me how superior I sound?

See there.. you were WRONG just know. you ASSUMED I would suppoirt partial birth abortions... I do not....

See? Again, I didn't say you supported partial birth abortions. But you don't seem capable of making that distinction. You are suporting the wrong side, a side that ALREADY is moving beyond abortion (and I understand that's not YOUR position, so don't come back with "I don't support the murder of born children", I know that). Like an embryo will eventually become a child (yes I'm still choosing eventually), the process of allowing any abortion for any reason cheapens life and EVENTUALLY moves beyond the unborn into the born realm. And you're sitting there, proud of yourself for catching me saying you support pba (when I didn't say that). You're smiling like a jackal for your wit and your wit is condoning the murder of children, whether that is your intention or not.

Well then.. insteead of ban... REFORM... Study.. Find out what trimester it is when neurological pathways develop...

And if it's the first? What then? I mean, we can't even ban partial birth abortion without people raising a fuss. And at that point we know for a fact that it is a thinking child with working organs that could survive outside the mother's womb. It is a procedure that is inherently dangerous to the mother, and brings the baby outside of her for one of the most disgusting procedures ever performed. And pro-choicers refuse to ban it because : "It has no provision for the safety of the mother" The procedure is unsafe to the mother and would never be needed to save her. "Just the same." We find out RU-486, the abortion pill, may open up women to lethal infections. What do the pro-choicers say? "More proof that pro-lifers want to restrict the access of abortion." Jesus Christ it's KILLING women who take it. "Just the same." We offer legislation that says that during a late second trimester birth, the woman should be told the baby can feel pain. And maybe she should get a local for the baby so it can 'die painlessly' (your wonderful phrase), and they bitch about that. "What a horrible thing to tell a mother." It's true. "Just the same."

We're facing a side that seems not only immune to logic, but to science as well. I state for certainty that a baby can feel pain during PBA, because I know it can. You say "maybe." I'm ASSUMING according to you. Who's right...looks at the evidence. Me. You yourself concede that PBA is bad then launch right back into "it can't feel any pain" after you now know that to be wrong. But hey, don't let that deter you or anything. This is exactly why I said you smile like a jackal. You keep parroting things you KNOW are wrong to support abortion. You keep hitting "it cant feel any pain", and even in cases where you are right, it doesn't matter. My question is: is it a child? It's either a yes or no. And that's the question I keep asking that you keep avoiding. And I think we both know why.

At 1/13/06 08:46 PM, Captn_Obvious wrote:

At 1/13/06 04:37 PM, Puzzled wrote: If Harper and his conservative bastards are elected Canada will innevitably go into recession.

That much is definite, and their campaign is riddled with nothing but slander for the liberals. I have yet to see one commecial detailing the positive of voting for the Torys. Steven Harper is getting his way to the top through lies, and he clearly wants to be PM too badly to want to do good with the position. So I have my fingures crossed that the Liberals pull off another one.

And? So their commercials are filled with negatives about the liberals. That's called politics. Why in the name of God would they outline the positives of voting for the Tories? Are you stupid? Politics is sales. Except, your product is yourself. You don't sell your product by talking about what your opposition does right. That's just plain dumb. Might as well not run. You focus on what your opponent did/is doing wrong, and what you'll do better. Slander, btw, is when someone lies about the other party. And right now, with the scandals, he has plenty of honest material to work off of. Oh, and since I'm sure he lies (since he's a politician), every politician lies about their opponent. Period.

At 1/16/06 06:49 AM, TheMartyr18 wrote:

abortions aren't legal after a certain trimester. Before that trimester they have yet to develop a brain, nerve endings, or anything else that would allow them to feel pain.. They don't care that they're alive.... They're not gonna care that they're dead..... Because of

Abortions are legal period. Up to the moment of conception. You may have abortions during all trimesters. Look up partial birth abortion.

A: Im right and there is no after life so they have nothing to worry aboout.. They just met an inevitablity..
or

B: Religious people are right.. in which case baby gets to go to heaven, and party it up with God without ever having to face any sort of temptation... In which case aborting it was a blessing...

That is honestly a disgusting statement. Hey, you know, if you're right, that's great, no harm no foul. But to justify it if it's wrong is purely disgusting. To justify that, is to justify murder of any living person for any reason whatsoever.

The point is It has the potebntial to become a human, and that it is alive... Same as an embryo...an embryo isnt defiantly going to become a human.. it as a hell of alot higher chance than trthe gametes do, but it still isnt definite... Like you mention, their can be complications.....

Either you ignored my statements or didn't understand them. There is a difference between potential and eventual. Gametes do not have a chance of becoming a baby, UNLESS they become an embryo. See the house metaphor. Once it becomes an embryo, the natural course of things is that it'll become a baby. Sort of like, unless something major happens, if you have a child, it'll grow into an adult. Shit happens, the kid can get hit by a car. But the natural progression of things is that the kid grows up and becomes an adult.

Nope.. My main point is that neither of us can prove we are right.... If I wanted to I could site evidence supporting an embryo being a child... The point is that there is no point in debating this... You can't prove that people are harming a child anymore than they can prove they are not.... So let them decide....

It's wrong, pure and simple. I CAN prove that we are hurting children. We have ultra sounds of abortions and you can see the baby screaming. I can provide you with testimonials of partial birth abortion, and the suffering they saw the child endure. So, don't try to feed me shit and tell me it's sugar. Again, you simply just don't know what you're talking about.

So then how decide which humans we can kill? Who makes up the reasons for killing being okay? Sir I value human life.... But to me a human is so much more than a bundle of cells... it is a thinking, reasoning, and creative creature.. an embryo is no of these things....

Well, it sounds like you would like to leave the choice on who can be killed up to each individual person. Hmmm, how bout this, you can kill another if it is the only way to save your life. That's a nice fair way. One society accepts. Except for the death penalty. And many are striving to change that. You are no more than a bundle of cells. A rather large bundle of cells, but a bundle of cells nonetheless.

No.. Both are arguments are erronous in the way that you mention.. why? Because weboth assume we are right.... and I don't even need to tell you what happens when you assume... The point is I don't know, you don't know. Let people do as they are gonna do unless it is hurting others....

No, YOU assume you are right. I use facts to back me up to make sure I AM right. But at least you admitted you're making an ass out of yourself. So do us both a favor and shut up. Neither of my arguments are erroneous because BOTH HAPPENED. You keep talking like you're an expert, but you have little idea what you're talking about. The ACLU defended a woman who GAVE birth to a child who had a digestive tract problem that could be fixed with a simple surgery. Instead, they had the doctor starve the child to death. The state brought charges against the doctor and the family and the ACLU defended them. Post pardom depression is becoming an extremely prevalent defense for mothers who murder their children. In Europe, several countries have passed laws which more or less give women a pass if they kill their child within the first year, as long as they have PPD. My logic doesn't hinge on some idiotic self assurance like yours does. Mine is based on the fact that we have ALREADY legalized all abortion. Partial Birth Abortion bans have been struck down by the Supreme Court. We're cheapening life of children. And you're sitting there grinning like a jackal and telling me how superior I sound?

And in advance Im guessing you are gonna make the statement that abortion hurts the baby.. before a certain trimester.. no.. it does not.... You can't be hurt if you can't feel pain...

And? You don't have to feel pain. The question is: is it a human being? Not: did it suffer. Arsonists that kill people through smoke inhalation still get charged with murder. You can be killed in your sleep or by air embalism. Both are still murder. If that's your whole defense, go home. I already know that you have no knowledge of this, but go ahead. Enlighten me. What trimester is that where they feel pain? Before the first trimester ends, the heart and brain are formed. We don't know at that point if it can feel pain, so I say better safe than sorry. Even doctors have admitted that they don't know whether or not early trimester babies can feel pain, but dear God if they can, we're torturing the shit out of them. And I've cited my evidence, you've cited...your massive ignorance.

So it IS hurting others, are you for a complete and utter third trimester abortion ban with criminal penalties on those who break it? If you say no, you have thoroughly convinced me of c (despite your ignorance), because if you can't even support that, you are supporting murder of feeling babies.

At 1/16/06 12:12 AM, LordXanthus wrote: Allow me to point something out: He is not being executed for the one murder he actually commited, but rather, the three that he ordered while behind bars, correct? That is utterly preposterous.

Clarence Allen did not kill those three people. He ordered other people to commit the murders. What sort of degenerate, half-witted lowlife would take orders from an old convict in the first place? Suppose I were to tell you to kill someone for me. Are you going to go kill someone, based on my words, or are you going to realize that it's a damned stupid thing to do?

I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty, but if we're going to do it, we should do it properly. Execute him for the murder he actually DID commit. If ordering murders warranted an execution, then our politicians would find themselves in one hell of a shape.

No offense, but are you stupid? What sort of person would kill another person because they're told to? Well, let's go down the list. Weak stupid people. Brain-washed people. People in any criminal organization. Hired hitmen who get paid. Or just plain evil people. He is as responsible for those three people being dead as the people he hired. If you tell me to kill someone, I'll call you a jack off and probably smack you. But if you back that up with a nice big monetary figure, a lot of people might think twice. Or promises of other natures. The bottom line is: if the man can still have his enemies executed even while in prison, he is a threat to the community and must be put down. Even as someone who isn't huge on the death penalty, you must realize that. I DO. And I only support the penalty in extreme cases. Such as, when putting the man behind bars isnt enough to stop him from ending lives. What is preposterous is that you're making an argument that because he didn't directly kill them, he's not at all responsible and shouldn't face punishment.

I mean, there are a lot of neccessary evils in the world. I despise abortion, but it's sometimes needed to save the mother's life. I hate war, but sometimes we must do it to protect ourselves and others (i.e. WW2). I hate bad movies, but if we got rid of them, California would plummet into bankruptsy. And I'm not big on the death penalty, but I'd say if there's a good case for it, this is it.

At 1/15/06 11:22 PM, Stormwarden wrote: http://exchristian.net/3/

http://exchristian.net/pics/bible_quiz.htm

You Xians in the place may find the above two links enlightening.

The reality of it all: The quote is true. "The zealots only care about the child until birth, then don't give a damn until it starts to have sex."

The point? That they are so concerned with other people's sins that they forget about their own teachings.

"Let he without sin cast the first stone."

"Remove the beam from thine eye before worrying about the speck in his?"

Recognize these sayings?

I recommend the Jeffersonian approach: Remove the entire Old Testament. Yes, all of it. It is dehumanizing, degrading, and demeaning. While we're at it, remove the writings of Paul and anything not directly related to Christ, and yes that includes that insipid book of Revelations (writings of a madman, those).

You will find those writings a bit more helpful.

What's your point, sir? You make a point not in the Bible, and then throw out two quotes from the Bible, that, though true, have absolutely nothing to do with anything.
Let's do what you just did in a different light.
It's very true, "Liberals work to the downfall of America."

"And he came down from the mount and saw them, worshiping false idols, adultering and commiting human sacrifice."

"According to the law, such a one is to be stoned."

"And Satan came to him and tempted him."

Again, I take a phrase not from the Bible, a contention made in modern America, and support it with three passages from the Bible, that have nothing to do with it, and put it forward as if it makes my case. But at least mine could be losely applied.

Again, I say your contention is simply wrong. Without Christian aid and charities, dear God what a mess we'd be in. From homeless shelters to food pantries to free parental (including single parent) assistance, the Church in all its various forms takes up more charitable work than everyone else combined. So you can hee and haw all you like, but until you put up some evidence to support your baseless claim, the rest of us will feel free to mock you.

At 1/16/06 03:26 AM, Ravariel wrote: Hmm. While this strikes me viscerally as a very good idea, I have some reservations.

If the jury never hears from witnesses/defendants/plaintiffs how can they draw an accurate conclusion in a trial? Oftimes it is the jury's belief of a witness's integrity and veracity that helps them decide a case. Wouldn't this put more pressure (as if there's not already enough) onto the prosecutors?

You could blur the face. That way, unless the person has a thick accent, the voice can still be heard, in many cases without revealing the race of the defendant or witnesses.

And what of the constitutional rights of the defendant to have a trial by a jury of his peers, and to face his accuser? Is it necessary to remove these in order to get true judicial blindness?

They would be given the right to wave that, and if they don't, so they can face their accusers, then they have no one to blame if their race plays a factor in their mind. "Hey, we gave you the call. Don't bitch at us cause you made the wrong one."

All in all Fli, it's a good idea in theory. My only real problems are: if there is footage of the defendant committing the crime, there'd be no way to show it and not reveal race, so in those cases the defendant wouldn't have a choice. Crime scene photos of victims would cause the same problem. And if we made exceptions for cases where those were needed, we'd be giving unfair bias to some trials and not others.

But damned if ya aint thinking. Keep it up and you may figure out a loop hole around those problems. Most original (and more importantly effective) solution I've heard recently.

At 1/15/06 06:33 PM, TheMartyr18 wrote:

Oh and also,

You know what Im not doing? Telling you how to live your life based upon that.. Im not saying Everyone should be forced to get an abortion, or even everyone should like abortion... If you want an abortion Hell Yea, if you don't Hell yea just the same....

You know the difference? You think it's a bundle of cells and I think it's a human life. If I'm correct, I not only have the right, I have the responsibility to intercede on the behalf of the child. I can see your point of view, and I don't agree with it. But it seems you are incapable of viewing mine. Kind of like how you assumed I must be talking to you when I sadi the word evil, and I wasn't even talking about pro- choicers. I was talking about pro-lifers. This leads me to one of three conclusions: a. everything is about you, and you can't DEAL with people disagreeing with you, b. you're not very bright, or c. you are so anti-life, you will look for any excuse to end it.

You know what else? Gametes are alive!! Shocker? And you know what else? They have the potential to become a human life!!!!! Why is no one defending their rights??? Ohh wait its because they don't see gametes as being a human... Does that make it right? Just because someone dosen't see it as a human? Isnt that basically what you asked me? ... See what Im saying here is scientifically the gametes are alive even before they are joined... So LIFE in the sense that your talking about starts before conception, or even intercourse..

OK, going for c. Notice the words you use. Potential. As opposed to eventuality. A zygote does not have the "potential" to become human life, it is the eventuality of the process. Gametes can only lead to becoming a human life if they are joined. To put things into another perspective: bricks and wood have the potential to be a house. But unless, they're put together, they don't become one. However, once the wood is built into a frame we still consider it arson if someone were to burn it down. Why? It wasn't livable. But Because it was GOING to become a house. It was no longer a possibility. It was the eventual conclusion, barring something like arson, a storm destroys it or the contractors cancel the project, it WOULD eventually be a home. Same with a pregnancy. The baby may not be completely formed, but it will become a baby. A sperm or egg will not form a baby by itself anymore that a brick will magically become a house. It is a building block. Barring abortion, complications in pregnancy, or an outside force that causes a violent miscarriage, the embryo/fetus/whatever will become a child.

You don't believe in multiple perspectives? HAve you ever seen that picture that is either of two faces looking at each other, or a vase.. ddepending on how you look at the picture.... Its the same deal here...

OK maybe it is b. These are nothing even remotely the same. No, it is not two perspectives. Either it is a child or it isn't. It can't be both. This argument is so stupid it hurts my head. One of us is wrong here. If you can't see that, you're not very bright at all. Then again, you did think I was talking to you, calling you evil when I was talking about pro-lifers....

At 1/15/06 06:33 PM, TheMartyr18 wrote:

Your right, the rape of one women dosen't hurt society on the whole, but if theyre werent laws against rape it would become common place, and thsaat would disrupt society, and inhibit each individual... and as for me damning you for defining life im not.. Im damning you fer saying your definition is above every other thinking individuals... You make it sound as if I support Anarchy.. I do not... I wish only to keep those laws which prevent chaos and social disorder... abortion isnt hurting you,.. its not hurting anyone you love.. as a matter of fact it isnt hurting anyone... Not the child, the child hasnt developed a brain yet so itrt dosent care.

I've decided to skip the rest of your circular argument and hit here. Quite a significant portion of abortions happen to children who have "developed a brain". So in fact, it DOES hurt the child. So your entire argument is wrong. So, you have decided something must "develop a brain" to be a child. Therefore, you are condoning the murder of children. Your entire argument is based on the "it isn't hurting anyone" crap, and it is.

Cells are life, plants are life, sperm is life....and does it all (barring complications) turn into a child? Of course not, and you know this. But that's not your point. I talk human life, you talk cellular life. Anything to make the idea that you're right is your point. The science shows that this is a human being. And since it's a human being, yea, society does have a right to step in and tell you you can't kill it. If it is human life, we have an interest in protecting it. Plain and simple. Doesn't hurt society? Anything that cheapens life and justifies it's termination hurts society. Accept abortion on demand, any time, anywhere, any trimester? Great. If you will give a woman the right to kill her baby until it's born, then logically, you can't deny her the right to kill it right after. We're facing that one now. Or maybe a year down the road, if depression sets in (we've been there too). Your entire argument is based around one flawed principal that is quite erroneous.

At 1/15/06 10:51 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: If you have enough people in prison to significantly sway the polls, then your country has a bigger problem than a prisoner's right to vote.

And if the vote is close to 50/50? In Florida during the 2000 elections, the vote came down to (between which recount you believe) 50-500 people. So don't talk nonsense. Almost ANY prison in Florida could've changed the outcome of that election. And I'm sorry, I think putting rapists, murderers, arsonists, etc in jail is a good thing. You don't rehabilitate from certain stuff, sorry. Put that on a nationwide scale and it could very EASILY change the face of an election. What is your point? If an election is so close that the prison population could've changed it, then you have too many people in jail? Shit what if it comes down to one vote? What then?

"Sorry, Mrs. Clarkson, we had to release the guy who raped and murdered both your daughters because the vote count was too close."

At 1/16/06 01:07 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote:

At 1/16/06 12:26 AM, MarkyX wrote: Considering that most of the crime out there is commited by REPEAT OFFENDERS, I don't mind locking up the psychos. Enough constant parole shit or letting 10 years for killing people. If you kill someone, you should serve a LONG time in jail. It's about time we make the courts actually serve their purpose: Justice, not criminal therapy.

Actually Japan has a jail system that's more about rehabilitation and they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. I disagree with our current system AND the Conservative idea that we just need to start locking away more people. Instead, I think jail should be about rehabilitation, even if the people don't take to it, a certain percentage will and that will help them when they are returned to the streets. This is better than putting them in a place where they most likely will be raped by other inmates and have access to drugs regardless. Heck if I got thrown away in jail and got gangraped, I'd have a pretty bad grudge against society too. Ever see the movie Shawshank Redemption? A good line in the movie was, "I was always an honest man - I had to come to jail to become a crook". You're more likely to learn criminal behaviour in jail, than out on the streets and that problem needs to be addressed. For now though, the Liberal Party is the only ones who work closely with the NDP and the NDP have the closest plan to mine of inmate rehabilitation.

So what is this plan? I mean, I'm interested. My sister (half) watched her mom get shot to death by her step father. It was his THIRD violent crime. The first was assault with a lethal weapon and the second was attempted homicide. So what is the plan to rehabilitate this guy? Or Charles Manson? Tookie Williams? Here's a better question, do some of these guys even deserve the opportunity to be rehabilitated. The problem with your argument is that we don't lock up the guy who stole a ladies purse with an attempted murderer. We have different systems "min security" "max security", etc. So the contention that we're locking up some poor dude who stole bread for his family with a multiple time rapist isn't just silly, it's purposefully ignorant.