Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/15/06 04:51 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: That could be accurate, but when it is a public university (or an extension of the state) it is generally interpreted to follow state laws. In some countries perhaps, it is unlawful for 18 year olds to strip for someone in the privacy of someone else's room, but it sure as heck isn't here, nor in Canada I doubt.

To tell you the truth, that may not be the best argument (and it is slightly absurd), but when you consider that federal employees are giving tenure and have to try hard to get fired, you realize that this is practiced more or less in almost all of the public sector.

What's your point? The University can still set it's own rules. Anything they feel disrupts order can be kaboshed. As I mentioned above. As landlord, they make the rules for their property, and they made their rules here. Besides, JoS didn't mention any sort of punishment, so you can't claim any sort of censorship or unfair treatment.

At 1/14/06 05:43 PM, Quanze13 wrote: The things you're implying about Ted Kennedy are just wrong. The most drastic thing he did wrong in that incident was drive drunk. The fact that the girl died wasn't his fault -- he tried multiple times to get her out of the car, then walked back to the party to try and get help. Accidents do happen. The fact that Alito was in a club that tried to keep women out of Princeton was no accident. I'm not saying that Alito isn't a qualified jurist, I'm just saing he's an asshole, and that Ted Kennedy's driving accidents don't make him a deamon.

The things we're IMPLYING about Kennedy? Here's the gist of what happened. Kennedy drove drunk with a woman in his car, drove off a bridge and then got out of the car, went back to the party and never called for help. Kennedy did a number of things wrong here. One, he drove drunk. Two, he left a woman to die. Three, he NEVER called the police. If you drive drunk and someone dies because of it, it is your fault, end of story.

As for Alito being an asshole, please, feel free to back that up. Other than he had ties to a group that had, as one facit, a desire to keep women out of princeton. What else did they do that was maybe good? Do you know?

I think the moral of todays story children, is it's ok to cause a woman's death, as long as you're not in a boy's only club, and hate women somewhere deep down inside yourself.

At 1/15/06 03:22 PM, _StillBorn_ wrote:

At 1/15/06 03:18 PM, WolvenBear wrote: And abortions mentally and physically scar the women who have them.

Wow, you sure pulled that one out of your ass.

No, I didn't. Quite a few women have negative mental side effects from abortions, including the feeling that they murdered their child. Several medical groups have done studies on the effect. As for the physical, sometimes abortions leave people unable to reproduce, I'd call that a "scar". They also result in death and all kinds of injuries (including sterilization).

http://www.nrlc.org/..e17Jan06.pdf#search=

'mental%20effects%20of%20abortion'
True, some of it was done by Canadians and therefore subject to scorn (jk jk).
http://news.bbc.co.u..i/health/4520576.stm

http://www.freerepub..f-news/1551017/posts

Sorry bud, if it was pulled from someone's ass, it wasn't mine. Hell, even Planned Parenthood has admitted the risks exist, but attributes them to poor mental health BEFORE hand, even if there was no documentation of that.

The voice of reason:
University dorms have rules, which can, in effect, be whatever, the university (or individual dorm) wants them to be. When you agree to stay on campus, you agree to the rules the university sets forward. Kinda like staying with anyone else, even if you pay, the landlord makes the rules. You follow them or you go.

Most of these rules aren't set to keep morality, but to establish a basic order, and promote the general well being of ALL tenets. For example, most single sex dorms have arule against the other sex coming over and being in the dorm room after 10 without permission. This isn't to keep students from getting pregnant (that can be done at 2), but since the dorm walls are usually paper thin, and have little to no soundproofing, it's to make sure screaming Sally doesn't keep everybody awake with her siren loud orgasm wail.

As for the investigation, that's purely for liability reasons. If they hadn't done it and the pictures had been taken without her knowledge or a rape had occured, who can be held liable and sued? That's right the university. It's called "Cover your own ass". After that, they can take whatever steps they want, but they made the right call, IMO.

At 1/14/06 05:30 PM, TheMartyr18 wrote:

Then you hold yourself as being of better moral quality than prochoice people, you argue that an embryo is a human life, well it is a combination of the two gametes, so let me ask you, do you want all masturbation, and mensturation to be stopped as well? Youve defined the combination of these two things as being human, so why not define the individual gametes as being human as well.. You can obviously see this as a valid argument... What do you think gives you the moral, political, or "divine right to judge what is human life?

You always know someone is reaching when they say, do you want menstration and masturbation stopped as well. No, I don't. And that has nothing to do with the topic, so stay on subject. Masturbation plus menstration doesn't create a child. Sex does, and I suppose sex CAN include masturbation, and I hope that's where you were going with this. But no, your argument here is not valid.

Let me answer your question with a question. What makes you think YOU can determine human life? Don't sit there and point your finger at me and do the same damn thing. You're deciding that something ISN'T human life, and I'm saying it is. You're deciding what is or isn't life as much as I am. What do you think the whole argument is about? If you really don't understand this, you're not intelligent enough to argue it. I have defined an embryo (fetus), which barring complications, will carry to term as a child, as...gasp...a child! No matter what your beliefs, life begins sometime before birth. Maybe when the heart starts beating, maybe when the brain is fully functional, maybe when the child is viable. But it doesn't begin at birth. That's science.

You call me evil? I call you evil, for a belief that your morals are of a higher nature than those of others... and you know whats funny about this? we're both right. Why? Because everyone has a diffrent view of morality, and they are entitled to it.

I didn't call you evil. I said that to believe you are witnessing murder and to say "oh well, such is life" is evil. But no, we're not both right. Either it is a child or it isn't. One of us is wrong. Maybe it's me, maybe it's you, but we're not both right. No, people are NOT entitled to their own view of morality. If I kill you for no reason, whether I find it moral or not, I will face trial, and jail, or execution. Do you believe lynchings are wrong and people who commit them should face trial? If so, by your own argument, you are evil for putting your morality above others. Stop being childish.

You know why we as a society look negatively on the things you just mentioned? Because they are detremital. They hurt society on the whole, they hurt individuals... If no one cared that they were being raped, tortured, or killed, then no oone would find those things immoral... You know what? an embryo couldn't give one shit as to wether or not its being aborted.... What do you think gives you the right to determine what is an individual and what is not?

Again, that's exactly what you are doing. Stop trying to condemn my "moral superiority" by being morally superior. Don't damn for for defining life and then do it yourself. The rape of one woman does not hurt society on the whole. It hurts one woman. Same with torture, murder and the rest. Abortion not only ends a life, it leads to mental and sometimes physical anguish for the mother, and cheapening of life as a whole. By your own concession, it is detremental to society. My argument was based in the hypothetical, not directed at you, but sure I'll apply it to your childish set of standards. Morality has always driven the law. And if each human beings were to decide what was moral or immoral, his own standards of right and wrong, with no legal consequences, there would be chaos. Look at Pakistan for example, rape is still just as bad on the society, but it is not only legal, it is ENCOURAGED.

Politics is about putting your morals onto others. Sorry, but that's the basic rule. Abortion, death penalty, euthanasia, war, gay marriage, taxes, all of these have moral implications. And they are all argued on moral grounds. This is the playground you're stepping into, so don't bitch about the rules.

And no Fli, my rules do not lead to all humanity being wiped out. But if we come to a point where we allow each human being to decide what is right and what is wrong, and then act upon that, we will condone rape, murder, bigotry of all kinds, etc, and no longer be fit to be here.

At 1/15/06 05:56 AM, Dranigus wrote:

You can married in a courtroom or in a Jewish or Islamic religious dwelling. Or by a liberal church.

Jewish and Islamic religious dwellings would strike me as....religious. And considering Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all came from the same place, that doesn't hurt my argument. And you CAN get married in a court, but that doesn't change the fact that marriage started as a religious thing and then was adopted by teh state for taxation purposes.

At 1/15/06 04:17 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: The Ten Point Plan

1. WE WANT FREEDOM. WE WANT POWER TO DETERMINE THE DESTINY OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES.

You have that power, it's half the reason you're where you are. A lazy probably out of work piece of racist garbage bitching bout how whitey done me wrong.

2. WE WANT FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR OUR PEOPLE.

:The federal gov't is responsible for giving you an equal playing field. Hell, they've given you a lot of advantages. There are tons of jobs that're only given to minorities, and as stated previously, whole companies that only hire black people.

3. WE WANT AN END TO THE ROBBERY BY THE CAPITALISTS OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES.

No. We're not giving you money for something you didn't even go through. Piss off. If we're going to give money to anybody for a history of racism, it'd be the Indians, who are still living in shit because of us, and the Japanese, some of whom are still alive from the WW2 concentration camps, and lost everything.

4. WE WANT DECENT HOUSING, FIT FOR THE SHELTER OF HUMAN BEINGS.

It's called section 8. It always starts nice and then gets trashy. Hell, in St. Louis we just rehabbed a whole community for Section 8. It's beautiful. But I doubt that'll last. We've done this one. Sorry.

5. WE WANT DECENT EDUCATION FOR OUR PEOPLE THAT EXPOSES THE TRUE NATURE OF THIS DECADENT AMERICAN SOCIETY. WE WANT EDUCATION THAT TEACHES US OUR TRUE HISTORY AND OUR ROLE IN THE PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY.

I agree that the education system sucks, but I'll be damned if I pay money to teach what you think is the true nature of things. Your system of thought is why things are the way they are. Teach people that they can't succeed and they don't try. You sir and your ilk are responsible for black poverty more than anyone else. However, I'll work on getting the schools back to where the kids actually learn stuff again.

6. WE WANT COMPLETELY FREE HEALTH CARE FOR All BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE.

You'll get what everyone else gets. If no one else gets it, neither do you. But I do believe EVERYONE deserves it on a few conditions. They are either a: going to school, b: working, or c: trying to improve their situation.

7. WE WANT AN IMMEDIATE END TO POLICE BRUTALITY AND MURDER OF BLACK PEOPLE, OTHER PEOPLE OF COLOR, All OPPRESSED PEOPLE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

The police are all that stand between you and distruction. Stop talking about all other people of color. You don't give two shits about anything that isn't black. However, police brutality needs to end. And as for the murder of all people of color and oppressed people, start looking to your own communities.

8. WE WANT AN IMMEDIATE END TO ALL WARS OF AGGRESSION.

If a war is started out of aggression, sure, we need to end it. However, we're not fighting any wars of agression right now, so your point is moot.

9. WE WANT FREEDOM FOR ALL BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE NOW HELD IN U. S. FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, CITY AND MILITARY PRISONS AND JAILS. WE WANT TRIALS BY A JURY OF PEERS FOR All PERSONS CHARGED WITH SO-CALLED CRIMES UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.

No. We're not releasing people from jail based on the color of their skin. Nor are we allowing you to choose juries made of nothing but racists blacks who believe that no black man can ever commit a crime. Who suffers most from black crime? That's right. Poor black people. Those people are in jail to protect the poor. You AGAIN show you want nothing but bad things for your own communities and your people to be further victimized.

10. WE WANT LAND, BREAD, HOUSING, EDUCATION, CLOTHING, JUSTICE, PEACE AND PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CONTROL OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY.

So let me get this straight, you're quoting Jefferson, a slave owner? Oh that's funny on so many levels. OK, I'm done mocking you. I'll agree with 4, 6, and 7. You deserve Justice, Peace and Education just like everyone else. You have to work for Land, Bread, Housing (though we provide that for free) and Clothing (which you can get for free. The last one amounts to: we all want a free plasma screen TV with free cable and TIVO as far as I'm concerned, so no. You lazy turd. Get them yourself. Most people in "poverty" own a car (or two), a TV, VCR, and microwave, and sometimes a video game system. And often times a computer with internet access. So stop bitching and get a job.

The black panthers victimize their own society more with their BS, than true white racism ever did.

At 1/15/06 02:25 PM, Kero_the_boy_killer wrote: Damn... soon all the religious people will write a big ass Bible-like-thing that will say that sex is wrong in any way and make us sit at home and pray for forgivness to our God because we are to damn weak to resolve our problems by ourselfs...

Grow up people! Lets just end it at this, have sex how many times you want with whoever you want and make it safe or unsafe... Just make sure you won't suffer from that in the end. And if you do, well... YAY to you!! You learned something!

That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've heard today. Religion never says sex is wrong. Fool. Gee, those stupid Christians, telling people that illegitimact is bad, STDs are bad, and abortion is bad. Oh wait, they all are. Illegitimacy is a huge part of the problem with the inner cities and drains the bejesus out of our tax dolars for welfare. STDs, well, gee who wouldn't wanna have those? And abortions mentally and physically scar the women who have them. Damn those Christians, right on all counts.

At 1/15/06 02:10 PM, Reverend_Kyle wrote: What about nocturnal emissions, or wet dreams as they're known? Should I tape by dick shut to avoid that man batter not being used to make a baby? Should I stitch myself to a woman so there's a chance a baby will be born?

What to do, what to do...

The Catholic Church made up the "do not waste thy jizz" rule off of a little known passage in the Bible, that, ironically enough, doesn't say wasting it is a sin, just that it's really stupid to piss off God and not do what he tells you.

At 1/15/06 10:48 AM, Blackmagic wrote: http://news.yahoo.co.._uk_religion_condoms

Lock up your sons and daughters!

Someone else said it best "These zealots are only concerned for the baby BEFORE it's born. After that, they couldn't care less. Until it wants to have sex. Then they get concerned all over again."

Wow, I love when someone formulates an argument based on something that doesn't back up their argument. Good job. Nowhere in that article does it ever talk about anything except condoms. If you can't sound somewhat lucid, please do us all a favor and shut up. Christians have so many organizations set up to help parents, especially single ones. And the ADF fights for parents rights when the ACLU sues to get them taken away. I'm going to make a generalization too. Liberals don' care about the children until they're in the trash.

Allen is set to die by injection Tuesday for ordering three slayings while behind bars for another murder. He has been on death row for more than 23 years.

I think that phrase says it all. He was put in jail, then had three more people killed. I say they shoulda just let him die when he had his heart attack, save us all some money. I love the whole argument that "just lock em up forever, they're no danger to anybody behind bars". Well, this guy proves that theory wrong.

At 1/14/06 09:05 PM, lefteh wrote: If two people love each other, they should be able to go get married. Why not? Because the Bible says so? Separation of church and state, please.

Yea, who is the church to say two guys can't get married in the church. Seperation of church....and ....state...oh.

Because marriage came about from secular forces......

At 1/11/06 06:20 PM, SIMPLYB wrote: The term Dixiecrat came to have a broader usage, including, for example, with reference to the members of the Electoral College who in the election of 1960 voted for Harry Flood Byrd rather than John F. Kennedy, or the white Southern voters and electors who in 1968 supported Wallace.

The term has also been used to refer to conservative white Southerners who remain within the Democratic Party, and those who were formerly Democrats but now identify as Republicans.

So I hope you can see what I mean. The same type of people to wright Jim Crow laws in the past are the people who left the democratic south.

I'm slightly confused. So a Dixiecrat is someone who voted for Byrd, a Democrat, instead of JFK, a democrat. Or voted for Wallace, a racist Democrat. Somehow voting for a Democrat makes you a Republican...interesting. Maybe you missed the small part of that where they say that Dixiecrat also applies to those who are stillin the Democratic party.

"The Dixiecrat Party largely dissolved after the 1948 election. Senators Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms eventually switched parties and joined the Republicans. Several others remained in the Democratic Party and went on to become prominent Democratic Senators. These former Dixiecrats, turned Senators, went on to serve multiple terms in the service of their respective states. These long careers in the Senate elevated their seniority putting them in positions of power and prestige."

More over, Wallace was one of those who did not walk out on the Convention, didn't know if you knew that.

When the Dixiecrats originally came into the party, Goldwater used the issue of state's rights to win over the South. It is worth noting that Goldwater was not a segregationist, but many racist Southerners saw his policy as a way to stunt civil rights. He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as an intrusion of the federal government into states rights, which angered many of his Republican counterparts.

"A higher percentage of the Republican Party supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did the Democratic party––given that the Southern Democrats, aka "Dixiecrats," opposed their Northern Party mates––and their Presidents, Kennedy and then Johnson. The point man in the Senate for delivering the votes to break a filibuster by 17 Democrats and one Republican was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois."

A few dixiecrats came to the Republican party, more stayed in the Democratic party. The source you used said as much. Despite it's decidedly anti-Republican slant (idiotically claiming that the Willie Horton ad was racist), it confirms my assertion that Jim Crow laws were Democrat, and Republicans actively fought against them. Considering your argument that Republicans were NEVER on the side of black people, this article is devistating to your case, saying that at least until 1968, Republicans were most decidely on the side of civil rights, and that Democrats fought against them. After the death of Martin Luther King Jr. there was a dramatic shift in the policies of the black leaders from peaceful and non-violent protests to militant and violent demonstrations. The Republican party went to a platform of law and order, which many were quick to call racist, since it saught to stop the disturbingly violent outbursts of the new militant black leaders who scrambled to take King's place. And to this day, you still have some that would fit the dixiecrat description, such as former Klan member Senator Robert Byrd. Do you defend him? If so, you can't have it both ways. If Byrd can change, and is no longer racist, we WILL assume the same of Thurmond.
And despite your sources, you refused to answer me. Despite your assertions of racism, Nixon started affirmative action with time tables. If Nixon was a racist, as you say, then affirmative action was racist and we are right to call for it's withdrawl. If affirmative action is a good thing, we have Nixon to thank. You can't have it both ways. Bush's plan on Mexican visas for foreign workers to come here on American soil. Nixon's affirmative action. Bush Sr.'s increases on social spending. The drop in black unemployment during Reagan's administration. When Democrats were literally threatening violence to blacks, it was Eisenhower who sent in federal troops to prevent black students from being denied access to schools when Democrats like Wallace, "Bull" Conner, Governor Lester Maddox, Arkansas Governor Faubus were brandishing weapons to keep those "colored folks" out of the white schools.

Sorry bud, but the facts don't fit with your assertion. Democrats have always been the party of racists. Republicans led the charge in the end against slavery, the rights of blacks to vote, desegregation, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As for your charge that they did it out of some ridiculous catching up, or whatever you called it, there's not a single fact in any history book to support that, and pardon me if I don't take it on your word that you knew the intentions of men who have now been dead for decades. We know Democrats succeeded from the union in fear of the Republicans ending slavery, among other things. We know Democrats supported segregation, and Republicans ended it. We know that the Civil Rights Act was passed because more Republicans than Democrats voted for it. The current president has put forward minorities judges over and over again, and the Democrats have shot them down. Etc.

History is against your contention. Hell, the present is against your contention. Republicans denounce even the slightest perception of racism in their party, while Democrats encourage any sort of discrimination in their own. We kicked out Trent Lott for saying things would've been better if Thurmond won, just because it could be losely associated with racism, but people applaud Sharpton when he calls Jews "Hymies" and New York "Hymie town" and encourages violence against those "white and hymie interlopers". Sorry, you yourself may not be racist, but when it comes down to the issue of who's done more for the black man, the Republicans win, hands down, and the Democrats are just really good at saying the word racism.

At 1/11/06 02:15 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 1/11/06 02:58 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
But someone else made an argument I forgot in my first post:

"North Koreas a bigger threat."
Very true. But when someone says this, they never actually mean we should attack North Korea.

Agreed. But, while you have presented an excellent argument for why we should not have invaded NK, it hinges on the fact NK is allied to China. Hence your argument accepts that the only reason we invaded Iraq and not NK is that Iraq was a softer target. I find that an immoral reason to go to war.

Incidentally, can I ask you to clarify something?
While it is almost certain that Iraq is a better place after the Americans took over, it seems to me that we went to war on - at best - mistaken intelligence and at worst a lie.
Would you be happy saying that the decision to go to war was illegal, but that the effects were beneficial, hence the good outweighs the bad?

If we went to war on mistaken intelligence (the same intelligence that everyone else had btw), then how was the war illegal? We believed that Iraq had or was developing nukes, and everybody else believed it as well. We tried going through the UN, and they wouldn't budge, so we went around them. We believed them to be a threat and we took care of that threat. I'll say it this way, the decision to go to war with Iraq may not have been a good one. But the good DOES outweigh the bad.
And as for your silly contention that it's immoral to go to war with a weaker force, should we give them extra troops to equal the playing field? Iraq being weaker than NK is NOT the only reason we invaded Iraq, nor was that ever my argument. As I clearly said, I believe we will end up going to blows with NK, cause their little tin pot dictator is a crazy with a nuke. But we're at least trying to get China on our side first. That's neither immoral nor crazy, that's good tactics. Sun Tsu, who is considered the greatest war strategist of all time said it like this: Cause division amongst their ranks. Turn their allies against them.
I'm sorry YOU find it poor strategy. Here, let us fix it for you. Fuck the Chinese. Grab your guns we're invading China AND North Korea. Happy now? We'll probably have a couple of nukes launched into our soil, but hey, at least we're not afraid of competition. Don't be stupid. When youre looking at war, it is best to win without battle, before the war is even begun. You want the smallest number of military casualties, and you want the battle if you must have one, on THEIR soil. When we finally invade NK, it'd be absolutely wonderful if the Chinese were going in with us to take the crazy lil bastard out, or, at least sitting back and not attacking US.

There were a variety of reasons we attacked Iraq instead of NK. One was in fact that Iraq's army was weaker. Another was that we judged him to be a bigger threat to our allies and ourselves. NK may have nukes, but for now they seem content to use them as a bargaining chip. Saddam with nukes would use them on his neighbors. And he'd grown crazier in his old age. He was sponsoring Hamas and al Quida. Provide as many links as you want, Osama has said Saddam is his ally. As has al Zarquiwi. We tried for ten years to play nice. He wouldn't comply, so we took him out. Human rights were another reason, and Iraqs violations were much worse than NK. We have Middle Eastern bases we could use to help us in our assault against Iraq.

And as for the comparison between Germany and Iraq. Yea, Germany was shooting at our planes, but if that's what you call a threat...then Saddam was a clear and present danger. His troops shot at our planes all the time. And if just by talking negatively about us, in a threatening manner is enough to classify you as a threat...dear God. We have to attack Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, NK, maybe China, as well as half a dozen other countries. Your own definition of what a threat is is so broad, that not only does Iraq fall into it, but so do three or four handfuls of other countries.

There was a Canadian newspaper that wrote an Article awhile back (I'll try to find it), saying that everybody needed to stop bashing America. It listed over 50 events in which the US was the primary or ONLY source of aid, and then went on to cite all the problems the US had within its own borders and how no one ever came to our aid. Hell of a piece.

The GDP numbers only include moneys given to foreign nations. They do not include things like military aid, non-monetary gifts, such as medicines, food, goods, peacekeeper missions, or medical developments that we then shae with the world. It also doesn't account for private citizens and what they give. When those adjustments are made, we give more aid than every other nation on the face of the Earth combined. When the gov't spends money on a cure for AIDS for example, that is money that benefits everyone, assuming that we find a cure sooner or later. We spend more of our GDP is scientific research than other countries.

Here's a few things we've done for the world:
We helped beat Nazi Germany in WW2. If either the Soviet Union or the U.S. had chosen to stay back, Hitler would've won. By forcing him to fight the war on multiple fronts, he was weakened and then destroyed. Anyone who says differently doesn't understand history.
Nixon donated military hardware to Israel so they could defend themselves from foreign attackers.
Clinton instituted a treaty in Northern Ireland that assigns a day of rest in which there will be no hostilities.
Stopped the genocide in Bosnia.
Stopped Iraq from invading Kuwait.
Liberated both the Afghani and Iraqi peoples.
Stopped the spead of communism and caused the collapse of the USSR.
Countless medical and scientific advances.
Post WW2, we rebuilt much of Europe and then since most gov't were so damned poor we forgave billions of dollars in debts.
Created the UN.
Come to the aid of pretty much anyone who asks us to.
Donated millions to the Tsunami relief effort.
Created the Internet, so millions of people world wide can bitch online about how much we suck.
The list goes on and on.

At 1/11/06 09:04 AM, SIMPLYB wrote: Actually I have read the book. Also I never said that the contents of the book claim that liberals aren't even people. I was reffering to the title dumb ass. Also claiming that the Republican party is responsible for solving race problems in this this contry is totaly obsured. Republicans only went along with the End to slavery, voting rights for blacks, affirmative action, because things looked so bad for them that if they didn't there would be no republicans left. And if it is true that the Republican party cares about minorities why have they been trying to get rid of affimative action, and other laws that help minorities.
So you can just shut the hell up and actually learn some history.

The title doesn't infer that liberals aren't people either. It flat out says "Why in the hell would you want to talk to them?" In other words, she thinks talking to liberals is a waste of time. Coulter is not a subtle lady, and doesn't infer anything. She comes out and says it.

And as for the history book, you are the only person I have EVER met who thought Jim Crow laws were written by the Republicans. The South was primarily Democrat, when the Jim Crow laws were inacted, and they were confined strictly to the South. Wallace, the famous Democrat governer is the one who turned the fire hoses and dogs loose on peaceful protestors. Republicans authored the Amendment ending Slavery, and then again giving them voting rights. And they forced the Southern states to go along with them. Richard Nixon helped author the affirmative action laws. And you do know that a growing number of black people are speaking out against affirmative action, right?
As for all these laws that we're trying to roll back, name some. Affirmative action...yes, most Republicans want that gone. It's no longer necessary. Republicans in conjunction with Clinton reformed welfare, and black employment rates soared. But Bush, ever the white supremicist, came up with the brilliant idea that maybe we should hand out visas to illegal immigrants. And also came up with a plan to bring Mexican citizens across the border in record numbers and hand them American jobs on a temporary visa program. Jeez, it's obvious the man hates hispanics. Oh yea, he has the most diverse cabinet in the history of the country. Guess he brought Condi and Powell on board because he hates blacks...give me a break.
Don't preach about history, you don't seem to know anything about it. Want racism? Read a Margaret Cho book. She's a nice racist liberal.

As for the Ann Coulter article. I read it, and was left unimpressed. Since all the quotes from the article were straight from either her books or columns, I don't think he actually talked to her. That's just me. The only quote I was unfamiliar with was the "women shouldn't vote" one. I just don't buy this. With as much hatred as this guy obviously has for her, it would've come through in the actual interview and she would've turned hostle QUICK. This article was b.s. And I'm unconvinced of anything here. This guy went in with the intent to make her look bad and he did. If you can find the column she wrote where she said that "women shouldn't be allowed to vote" line, I'll give that one a go over. I don't always agree with the woman. But parts of this don't even sound like Coulter, such as her comparing herself to a character off Sex and the City, a show which she has repeatedly bashed and says she hates..
But onto her defending gays. Yes, she is very anti-gay marriage, but that hardly means she hates gays. In Treason she writes of Roy Cohn (paraphrased) "And just because he happened to side with McCarthy, they (liberals) brought out all the dirt they could on him, including his private sex life, that he was gay. It had nothing to do with the issue of the day, whether or not there were communists in the government. It was simply to discredit him, to bring his dirty laundry out in public, to ashame him. It was a cowardly move and it was shameful." And she often talks about how liberals will slam a Gay Republican, but outing them, or talking extensively about their sex lives for daring to "not know their place and vote Democrat":
http://www.anncoulte..ticle.cgi?article=43

http://www.anncoulte..ticle.cgi?article=44

Here are two articles.

And finally, someone asked about Al Franken's little jokes on Terry Schiavo. Despite the ones he made on his radio show, refering to her repeatedly as "the vegetable", there's also "The Truth with Jokes": In other words, given proper treatment, there's no reason Shiavo couldn't live out her life-long dream of being a rockette. (p 149) In fairness, Frist was not giving Terri Shiavo false hope. ...She was as incapable of false hope as she was of real hope. Or for that matter, blinking on command. (p 150). Not that I believe it makes him a bad person or anything, but it does kind of hurt his contention that he's the more compassionate one, since he's making jokes about it.

At 1/10/06 02:59 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 1/10/06 02:06 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/10/06 12:33 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

Actually try and read the shit you quote ok?

I apologise for not reading the whole article. Maybe you would like to explain the following quotes in a similar fashion?

"I think [women] ... should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted"

Didn't read it. Therefore won't defend it. That's my policy. Link me to the actual article and then after I read it, we'll converse.

And further to the 9/11 quote, although you defend her by saying 'she lost a friend in the attack', the following quote seems to suggest otherwise. Before I got kicked offline, I typed up this huge thing defending her that I'm too lazy to retype. However, she does defend women, gays and black all the time, so take that for what it's worth.

"If Chicago had been hit, I assure you New Yorkers would not have cared. What was stunning when New York was hit was how the rest of America rushed to New York's defense. New Yorkers would have been like, 'It's tough for them; now let's go back to our Calvin Klein fashion shows.'"

I'm sure you're proud of yourself here, though for the life of me, I can't figure out why. How does this suggest otherwise? It was written after the one I mentioned by a couple of weeks. And there's absolutely no contradiction. None. Drag out a couple of sentences from here and there and I can make you look like an asshole. For example:
Somewhere I'm sure you've said something of a personal nature. Somewhere else you've said "Who cares?" Put them together and you look like a jackass. And to make matters worse, the wuote is 100% true. The writings of several NY editorials, professors and the like almost suggest that they didn't care what happened to THEIR OWN CITY. So, really, what's your point here?

And, just to ram home my point

You have yet to make one, but ok.

"Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do"

After the Columbine murders, people blamed the music, the movies, the parents, everyone but the kids. After the LA riots, people blamed everyone but the rioters. After Matthew Shepard, conservative talk show hosts were blamed, as were chsritians, when it was some sick fucks who decided to kill a gay guy. (Conincidently, Rush Limbaugh was the first guy to call for the death penalty for the Matthew Shepard crimes, but whatever). And after 9/11, the same b.s. went on again. Coulter just said simply "hey guys, wasn't us, it was the terrorists". This one actually hurts your argument.

"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

Not all Christians are abortion clinic bombers, but all abortion clinic bombers are Christians. Don't care how much you dislike the statement, it's true.

"When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we're up against absolutely insane savages."

Now, even I can see she is being flippant with a number of these comments, but some of them are downright racist. For that reason, I believe her to be, as originally stated "just plain nuts"

OK, I've decided to be lenient here, because it's obvious you haven't read Ann Coulter, let alone anyone else. ReadMargaret Cho "I have Chosen to Stay and Fight", every other word is a racial slur. Ann Coulter says the truth about our situation and you call her racist. People on the left who utter the same bullshit are called heroes. Sorry, I'm not feeling like debating this with anyone. The left doesn't have room to call anyone racist.

Although Pat Robertson is worse

At least we agree on something.

At 1/10/06 03:09 PM, SIMPLYB wrote::

Right on. Plus you dont have to act like a bitch to get any point across. Like her book "How to talk to a liberal if you must." Like liberals are not even people. Libral is not a bad thing. It's realy the only thing that defends the rights and privilages we all enjoy today. If it were not for librals we would still be having race riots in the streets.

I'm tired and I've dealt with stupid people all day so I have no patience for you.

You haven't read the book, so don't comment on it. Cause she never once says liberals aren't people. Yes, liberal IS a bad thing. Every single race riot has been initiated by a liberal, usually Jackson or Sharpton. If you look back through history, every single right given to minorities came throug the Republicans. End to slavery, voting rights for blacks, affirmative action, all came from Republicans. Everytime there has EVER been a race riot (even if it killed minorities), the liberals have sided with the rioters and the Republicans with the victims. There has never been a single exception to this. Liberals love race riots. Conservatives end them. So shut the hell up and actually learn some history.

At 1/10/06 05:58 PM, 31SlipKnoTonKpilS13 wrote: my point was not only about how it was censored, but that it was censored unjustly because of impaired judgement on the principal's part (not liking gays or atheists), when the principal is supposed to make an impartial decision... I wasn't as opposed to the censoring as I am opposed to the principal herself.

You can keep saying unjust all you want. But it's not unjust. The prinicipal is NOT supposed to make an impartial decision, don't know where you got that. She's supposed to make decisions in what she deems to be in the best interest of the schools. And don't b.s. me, you're opposed to the censoring. If the principal was anti-gay, but had let the article run, we wouldn't have heard two words about it. What you're saying here, is that the school has an obligation to pay to print an article that will not reflect the majority of the students and faculty and parents. And without the article, I will continue to hold the opinion that the lady censored something that had no business being in a school paper. Sorry, but that's how I look at it. When and if you furnish the article to say "here. look, nothing wrong with it", I may change my tune on the piece. But still, you have no rights here (or in this case, your friend). Your friend has the freedom to be gay and express it. The principal (like it or not) has the right to quash his article in the paper.
Thousands of books are submitted every year to publishers that never make it to the presses. Freedom of speech being violated? Hell no. Just means the publisher decided not to print it. Their call.

My comp is too damned slow to look up the UN voting requirements for the Iraq war, so for the sake of expediency, I will assume I was wrong on that one. 2/3 instead of unanimous. My bad. And the Pakistani reference was just to show the general uselessness of the UN. That seems to be my major screw-up.

However, the earlier contention that the UN inspectors were doing a good job is complete bunk. So what if they asked for more time? They asked Clinton for more time too. Even Clinton got sick of waiting for the UN and bombed Iraq. The IAEA (or IEAE, I forget which) is known for being inefficient at their jobs. Let's stop pretending that they're contention that they were doing a good job is enough proof for us. Clinton has repeatedly said that Saddam was building up his power and that the UN weren't stopping him. As more and more evidence is being uncovered that Saddam was indeed rebuilding his arsenal (the buried ballistics missles I mentioned were found at www.michellemalkin.com, you'll have to scroll down and maybe go into archives). Oh and for those of you who say "Well, possessing enriched uranium isn't a crime", yes it is. At least for Saddam. It was one of the terms of his surrender. So that would also put the supplies for weapons grade Anthrax (and yes he had complete supplies, not yellow cake), Sarin gas, and ballistic missles in the category of "broken treaty". As for him acting like he had nukes, yes, that is substantial enough to invade. A crazy guy who has a history of mass murder and invading his neighbors is behaving like he's got WMDs, you take him out. You don't wait to see if he has them. To do otherwise is stupidity.
This is the basic info EVERYONE had, pre-war:
http://www.cia.gov/c..Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#04

Everyone thought he had WMDs, bottom line. Now that we can't find them, the liberals are willing to cannibalize Bush. If it had been Clinton, the conservatives would be calling for his head, and the liberals would be saying "hey, he acted off the best info he had." This is partisan bickering, and it's stupid.

But someone else made an argument I forgot in my first post:

"North Koreas a bigger threat."
Very true. But when someone says this, they never actually mean we should attack North Korea. It's just another argument to bring our troops home. If we had attacked N.K., the same people would be bitching that Iraq posed a threat too. This is just trying to bring down the war with petty childish bickering. It's the Michael Moore school of thought. I will endorce any line of reasoning that brings our president down. No matter how stupid, self-serving, self-contradictory, or assinine, I will back it, as long as the President looks like the bad guy.
We are in talks with both China and N.K., like we were with Iraq, to try and solve the situation without war. Since N.K. may very well have the backing of China (therefore to declare war on North Korea is to declare it on China), we are a tad more reserved. We'd prefer Kim Jung disarmed without a fight. Doubt it'll happen, but one can hope. More than likely we will end up fighting them, but damned if we don't try to reason with them first, or at least get China on our side.

"They didn't pose any immediate danger to us."
And? Neither did the Germans in World War 2. What the hell is your point? We've got to wait for another 9/11 to attack each individual country? That's just stupid. Any country that harbors or gives aid to groups like Hamas and al Quida is our enemy. If we'd waited for the Germans to reach our shores, guess what, we'd have lost. Badly. And not to burst your bubble. But Saddam was ordering his soldiers to shoot at our planes as the y patroled the no fly zone (British planes too). He tried to kill our former president. Both very blatant acts of hostility. And he was sponsoring terrorists in Israel, where quite a few of our citizens go. If you don't believe that to be a threat to us, you're an idiot.

At 1/10/06 11:00 PM, TheMartyr18 wrote: Okay I want to find something out. I think that the media is alot of the reason that Conservatives and liberal hate each other sooo much. I think they paint each other as being extremeist when in fact most people are more moderate, and well thought out than that... So let me ask this question. Conservastives: Are you against abortion, but still willing to let others make their own desicions based on their own morality.. In other words, your against it, but its their choice?
Liberals: Will you be willing to accept that the conservatives don't agree with what your doing, but aren't trying to interfere with your doing it?

Martyr, I speak for the majority of conservatives when I say, we want it STOPPED. More and more people are deciding to be pro-life every day. No we're not content to just let it go on and condemn it verbally. Liberals understand that.
As far as I'm concerned, it should be a crime to have an abortion. You are ending a life (I may be in the minority on thinking it should be a crime). It's stupid to believe that innocent life is being murdered and yet only give it lip service. That makes you an evil human being. Of course I'm not willing to let others make choices "by their own morality". Some people find it moral to rape, torture and kill. And though the Supreme Court would give us all individual rights to decide what is and isnt life, that's what the law is for. When we say "we'll you're ending a life, but as long as you don't find it immoral", we have failed as a society, and deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth.

At 1/11/06 01:28 AM, TovaryshIvan wrote: Wow, asshole I wasn't saying that is the whole situation in the Middle East.
I was specifically referring to the the Israeli-Palestinian confict. That was my counter argument to that other guys.
You are a complete moron, and I know Palestinians kill Israelis as well...I never said they didn't. Wouldn't you be just a bit pissed in the Palestinians shoes? Your land divided by the world to make room for your enemy. Your people oppressed and driven out of their rooms, and given passes to leave/enter your settlement.

It's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about. The Israeli/Palestinian situation IS the middle east situation. Islamic militants targeting innocent men women and children. Suicide bombs. Etc. So if that's your counter argument, it's a shitty one. Hate to tell you, but we forced the Israelies out of the Gaza Strip, not the Palestinians. The whole argument was, if we just gave the Palestinians some more land of their own, the violence would stop, but did it? Of course not. They don't want to peacefully co-exist with the Israelis, they want to destroy them, much like other Arab nations: Iran, Iraq under Saddam, Sudan, etc. The people oppressed and driven out of their rooms? What the hell are you talking about fool? If the UN and European Union have their way, we'll try the reoccupation again, and push the Israelis further back and give more of their land to the Palestinian terrorists. Put yourself in the Israelis shoes. THEY are the ones being forced out of their homes, and living in constant fear every day. The world preaches to Israel about tolerance, about the need for peaceful co-existance, and then give people like Arafat who condone suicide bombings the Nobel Peace Prize. And when the Israelis strike back, they are deemed monsters and have to risk sanctions. Palestine is yet another terrorist state that uses fear and death in their campaign to annihilate Israel, so I find it hard to have much sympathy for them.

At 1/9/06 10:31 PM, TovaryshIvan wrote:

I don't care if it's justifiable or not, I'm saying that won't do anything. Those young Palestinians who have their entire family killed by the Israelis, do they go and live out a depressed pathetic life? No they go out there and join the nearest radical military group to claim vengeance for his family. Do you have any idea how these people think? Killing their families isn't going to make them stop, They'll think that now they have nothing left to live for and so will gladly die for Allah in vengeance for their family.

Well, it's obvious YOU don't have any idea how these people think. I'd like to note before Irip your arguement to shreds, that Palestinians have been killing Israelites as well, it's not a one way road. But onto tearing you apart.

Joining a terrorist group has nothing to do with losing family. Sorry. The jihadists are as much a cult as David Koresh (prolly spelled that wrong). The followers are brainwashed, and sometimes programmed from birth. They have their little heads filled with hate spew against the west. And then they're turned out and murder innocent civilians. They'll target Arabs as quickly as Israelites or white heathens. So, let's stop pretending this is about revenge, or they wouldn't target their own. This is about evil educated men twisting the minds of the weak to achieve their goal, which is keeping as many Islamic countries as possible under tyranic dictatorship. I love how everybody cites that we've "made more of them", but the evidence says otherwise. We are filling the middle east with hope, and the terrorists can't stand that. By the way, almost none of the al Quida terrorists are Iraqi, they're all outsider transplants who came in to fight against making Iraq a Democracy.

You can always smell a blue bullshitter. They always start off with "we're just making things worse" or "doing anything just creates more terrorists".

At 1/10/06 02:08 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote:

At 1/10/06 02:01 PM, MatthewTheLion wrote: There's no such thing as a "gay-gene".

Way to add to the thread, by posting a productive, thought-out post.

Is that your only opinion on the matter? Just 'No such thing!', and you're done?
You read just far enough into the starting-post to see the phrase 'gay-gene', and you were fucking off and running, right?

You guys are so fucking lucky NG doesn't let me perma-ban people.

Jesus, you're a dick. That's great.

I think this whole topic is abhorrant. We're talking about (again) classifying a group of people as unworthy to live because of sexual orientation. Murder is murder, whether the child was gonna be black or white, gay or straight, Muslim or Hindu, whatever. Once we say "Hell, I don't want a gay kid, kill it", we're going into Nazi eugenics, and that never turns out well for anyone.

At 1/10/06 12:15 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 1/10/06 06:14 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Since the majority here are ignorant here are the basic facts.
3. Neither Evolution nor ID are science...

Evolution is science. It's been proven, as much as you can prove any theory. What the church have a problem with is Darwinian Evolution, and Lamanchism (sp?). Basically, they can't accept that humans were not created fully formed - that they evolved from animals. And this has not been proven, agreed

Your lazy ass response just belittles your own argument. "It's proven, as much as it can be proven. " Or as I made fun of in the idiotic arguments section "It's proven beyond doubt. It just can't be proven." Whereas I site some evidence that seems to contradict Darwin's theory of evolution, you site.....nothing. This seems typical of a blind Darwinian follower sadly. You even admit that the idea that we evolved from animals hasn't been proven, so what the hell is your argument? His theory was that everything evolved from one celled organisms. And at present the data not only does not confirm that theory, it seems to say the opposite. There is no evidence that birds and bats evolved from a common ancestor. No is there evidence that somehow frogs evolved into pythons or vice versa.

You know, if you want to disagree with me, great. But at least try not to sound like youre in a rush to contradict yourself and trip over your own feet. If you wanna disprove me, don't say dumb stuff like "it's as proven as it can be", or "it's proven, we just have no proof that we came from animals" which is the entire basis of his argument.

At 1/10/06 11:17 AM, H-Dawg wrote:

:But what's even scarrier, is that Bush is of the exact same neo-conservative, right wing Christian evangelical ilk as Robertson!

Oh, he is not. Shut up. Bush doesn't go around saying "You rejected God, die of a tornado." You sound like an idiot. Let's start comparing Kerry to al Zarquawi just because we disagree with him. The two men are nothing alike. What do Bush and Robertson have in common? The both live in America. They are both men. They are both right of center. The similarities end.

At 1/10/06 12:33 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 1/9/06 10:27 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/8/06 03:59 PM, -JoS- wrote: Now pretty much everyone can agree that both of these poeple are totally off the reservation. There is probally only one thing Karl Rove or Howard Dean agree on, and it would be that both these poeple are fucking nuts.

Umm...no? Ann Coulter isn't nuts at all.

Look, I'm not even American and I know she has said a lot of fairly wacko things

On 9/11 - "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

On Women - "Women are not as bright as men" and "It would be a much better country if women did not vote"

I could go on, but I think the point is made

My question is, who is more fucked up and why?

Robertson. He believes everything he says

Ann Coulter - "I believe everything I say."

I addresses the Ann Coulter 9/11 quote earlier up. Read it. She's one hundred percent accurate. As for the other two quotes, they are not even remotely close to what she said. About women not voting, the quote you are referring to was from an article about PPS (Post Pardom Depression) in which she said:

And the left would have us believe that women are so incapable of moral decision, so fragile, that for a year after giving birth that they are absolutely unable to determine right from wrong. That they are so far gone that we should give them a free pass on murdering their own children because for a whole year they are not in their right mind. I think that if women are really that crazy, perhaps it was a mistake to give us the right to vote.

She's being satirical, but she has a point. Who in the hell in their right mind gives someone the right to vote who they believe to be in that condition. She finishes by saying that of course women don't go off the deep end after giving birth. That it's just a group of apologists trying to make mothers who murder their children seem the norm, and she be ridiculed as the disgusting deception it is.

Actually try and read the shit you quote ok?

At 1/10/06 10:07 AM, Imperator wrote:

2. Evolution is a proven fact. It just can't be proven yet.

Ummmm......wait, I get it......no, wait, I lost it..........

WHAT?

Please explain how something that is "proven" at the same time can't be "proven"?

I wish I could explain it. Read the top of my post. These are not my arguments, just my responses to the arguments. A page or so back, someone actually put that forth as a defense of evolution. He said that evolution was a proven fact with mountains of evidence to support it. Then to begin the next paragraph he stated that evolution could not be proven.

Therefore my bringing forth of the stupid argument "Evolution is a proven fact. It just can't be proven"
And I do believe that one speaks for itself. It doesn't really need to be torn apart on the lack of merits.

We clear?

I've decided to gather all the "we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq because" statements I've heard and debunk them one by one. I'll avoid the pointless ones with no merit, such as "Bush lied, kids died" or "Not for my freedom" and try to focus on the best and brightest of the anti-war rally cries.

Well start with my favorite:
"We should've taken out Saddam ten years ago."
Technically true. But, let's apply that logic to another unrelated task. Gee, my engine's running really rough, but I should've had it taken care of yesterday. Oh well, I'll sit back and wait for it to blow. Or wow, my floor's getting really dirty, I'll just have to keep doing nothing, since that's what I've been doing already. This is just a circle argument. We should've taken him out when we had the chance. So why are we all gung ho now? It's not like we didn't have the chance before. And we didn't take it. So it's our fault he's there. Etc.

"Give peace a chance."
We did. For a decade. We offered our hand in good will and he pissed in it. Maybe we should've waited til Uday and Ebay took over and started again from scratch.

"The sanctions were working."
Really? Interesting. Most of the countries that agreed to the sanctions were dealing with Saddam in the food for oil program. Sanctions never work, especially if they have loop-holes big enough to fly a Cesna through. Sanctions are useless for a simple reason. They affect the economy and average citizen. In a country like America or France, sanctions would play a huge role, but in a dictatorship, they mean nothing. The people suffer while the dictator hordes the money and food to himself. All aid that comes in gets diverted to his coffers and life is, in general, shittier than before hte sanctions.

"We should've waited for UN approval."
We'd still be waiting. And waiting. And waiting. Most of these people had the same info as us. Hell, in some cases, such as Germany, they had much more disasterous looking outcomes. Yet we were still denied. The UN is the same brilliant organization that told their peacekeepers in Rwanda that if they were being attacked, and hacked to death, that they couldn't fire upon the attackers for fear of "aggrivating them". To get UN approval meant a unanimous vote. And with countries like Pakistan (where rape is not only legal, it is accepted justice for such small crimes as class violation) on the UN council, yea, we're not gonna get a unanimous vote in our favor.

"We didn't let the inspectors do their job."
Oh the hell we didn't. We gave them ten years. They decided to be completely impotent. The first time he gave them the finger, we should've been right there, tank pointed at his sloping forehead. Give someone two weeks notice of an inspection, and they'll move anything that's not kosher to a new location. Allow them to deny you access to places you're supposed to search, and you may as well stay home. They knew Saddam was violating his agreements with the UN, they were just too damn powerless or too damned apathetic to care.

"We didn't find weapons of mass destruction"
Of course we did. Enriched uranium. We found a stockpile of buried (non-nuke) ballistic missles. Hundreds of pounds of high grade explosives. Sarin gas. And the ingredients needed to make weapons grade anthrax. Basically all we didn't find is nuclear weapons or proof of their manufacture. But that doesn't mean he didn't have them. We gave him a month to get them out of the country. Hell, I could get a nuke out of the country, if no one was watching me, and I'm a poor white kid. If I could do it, I have no doubt a man with a whole country at his disposal could too. And even if he had no nukes, even if he had no WMDs at all, he was acting like he did. You don't let some dictator pretend hes got his finger on the button uncontested. He bluffed, we called. He had nothing, we had a straight flush. His bad.

"Making an Iraqi gov't wasn't part of the deal."
What we were gonna overthrow the one they had and leave? GWB already gets enough flack for how poorly they planned for the aftermath of the overthrow. Imagine how much worse it would've been if we hadn't been there. It'd probably be a smoking whole in the ground. Or, Saddam ver 2 would've taken over. Maybe that's what the naysayers really want.....hmmmm.....

"We're making more enemies than we had before"
B.S. we're scaring the crazies. They realize that if Iraq stabilizes, then other people from other Muslim nations might start looking to become Democracies too. Can't have that. The region stabilizing is gonna take time and effort. We didn't become what we are today overnight. Neither will they. But look at other nations in the region, we're having an impact. And in a very good way.

"They want us to leave."
Very true. When they're ready to support themselves without us. Not before.

"We've done more harm than good. Iraqis would much prefer to have Saddam back."
Well of course they would! Mean old U.S. of A. allowing them to hold free elections to form their own gov't instead of cowering in fear and figuring out how to avoid the death squads. Jeez, we're monsters.

I'm sure I've missed a couple. Feel free to continue posting the b.s reasons we "shouldn't have gotten involved", and debunk a few yourself.

At 1/10/06 09:09 AM, Pandaman64 wrote: I think ann coulter can make some innapropriate jokes at times (I think we should take over canada....not all of canada, just the good vacation spots), but overall, she's a solid political analyst.

Now pat robertson....I'm a republican, and pat robertson makes even ME feel uneasy.

I actually thought that Ann Coulter joke was kinda funny.

As for inappropriate jokes, how bout all the ones Al Franken made about Terri Schiavo? Hell, inappropriate jokes seem to be part of the playing field.

At 1/10/06 05:27 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: that is what happens when you have power in governemnt, you think you are above the law is some ways. he fired her sister because she wasnt doing her job. he destroys your father because of that. meaning that judge is not a responsible judge. if i was a judge and my sister (if i had one) got fired for not doing her job, well, then she deserved to get fired.

Read above, there was obviously a tad bit more to the story than he was originally telling us.

I don't blame the guy, you always want to believe that your loved one or relative is innocent, and therefore doctor the story a triffle, but there's more than, "the judge hates him and locked him up". He's actually being accused of wrong doing. And the sentence doesn't match his version of events. For theft the judge could've tossed him away for much a long time. Yet he got four months....doesn't sound like the judge had too terribly big of an ax to grind personally.

At 1/9/06 06:28 PM, Proteas wrote:

We're the most hated country in the world, genius. Before 911, we had no reason to take every little threat seriously.

Bullshit, we are not. We are one of the most loved countries in the world. We give more foreign aid than the next two countries on the list combined. Not only monetarily, but also in relief aid, supplies and military aid. We're the first country EVERYBODY looks to when something goes wrong to fix their problems. Just because a few anti-bush jackasses wanna say everybody hates us, doesn't make it so.

Bottom line for 9/11. Clinton didn't do very much in the war on terror. We'd had several minor attacks (less than 10 dead) under his watch, and he never once caught the culprits. Then Bush comes along, and does a whole lot of nothing towards fighting terrorism until after 9/11, when he goes into Super Kill 'Em mode to not look like an incompetant in the eyes of the history books. He takes out two countries that sponsor terrorist groups, and will probably be forced to go after Iran as well. Too late to stop 9/11, but at least he's doing something so it doesn't happen again.

As I read through this topic, I noticed several really stupid arguments, which I will address here and discredit. All arguments have been simplified, but none of their stupidity left out. If you are the person that came up with these, feel really ashamed:

1. You are taller than your forefathers.
As a generalization (which this is)...No, that's absolutely false. People produce smaller children all the time. I am much shorter than my paternal grandfathe, and he was shorter than his father. Some of this has to do with the fact that the men in my family like shorter women. Your assertion here shows you know nothing of genetics.
2. Evolution is a proven fact. It just can't be proven yet.
This one speaks for itself.
3. A judge ruled ID is creationism and therefore couldn't be taught in schools. (This same person later mocked us for believing the bible which is writen by men).
Judges once ruled that slaves were property not people. So we know judges can f up royally. They're people, and some of them are quite stupid or biased.
4. ID is Christian.
Assuming it is...that means it's the biblical version of Creationism (which it isn't, but we'll ignore that), that also means it is Jewish and Muslim, considering they have Genesis too.
5. Stop pretending the Bible is 100% fact.
OK. We don't believe it's one hundred percent fact. Most biblical studies teach that Genesis is verbal history, diluted through the years and probably mythical in nature. Psalms is a group of songs. Dueteronomy is a set of laws (which through the beauty of hindsight we see all had reasons, surprisingly, that either matched with the culture or through science, go figure), most of which are out of date now. Etc.
6. Evolution is believed by a majority of scientists. It is therefore real.
It was once believed that blood was unnecessary. And that all one had to do to get better if isck, with to have a good bleeding. It was believed by a majority of people, and we see where that led to. Not surprisingly, the first guy to step up and say "Hey, maybe we need our blood" was treated as much like a pariah as those who say that Darwinism is bs.
7. Different breeds of Dog prove Darwinism right.
No, actually they don't. Different dog breeds arose because over decades (sometimes centuries), people actively chose Dogs with certain traits and selectively chose their breeding. Watch the Discovery and Animal Channels if you don't believe me. That is intelligent design. Doesn't mean God chose their diversification, mere flawed humans did. But the bottom line...it didn't happen by chance.
8. Darwin's theory of Evolution has overwhelming evidence. Kinda like the theory of gravity.
I love this one. When people break out the theory of gravity. It's funny, I took years of science classes, and never once was I taught the theory of gravity. I was taught the fact of gravity. I was taught the theory of relativity. It was never "You know kids, some people think there is this magical force that makes things go to the ground." It was, gravity moves at the rate of 9.8 m/s/s (meters per second per second...indicating increasing velocity for those who don't understand that term). Once you can measure it's force, it is no longer a theory, sorry. As for the overwhelming evidence for Darwinism, it doesn't exist. The Cambrian explosion actually works against Darwinism, in which bam, all of a sudden there are a lot of species, in much of the same condition they are in today. There is no fossil evidence of divergence. See BS number 2, above.
9. Finally, in regards to scientific theory. Evolution fits it, ID doesn't read up on it. Stupid Christians don't understand how scientists work.
Personally, I understand how they're SUPPOSED to work. Think up an idea and try to prove it false through experiments. I've yet to read anything about how scientists have tried to prove Evolution false (and yes the same could be said for ID). To be fair, the theory CAN'T be proven false, but neither can ID, so you can see where we are.
10. One more for the hell of it: Scientific consensus is how we advance.
Bullshit, scientific consensus screws us all. Consensus means belief. It means that a group of people decide what they believe before even looking at the evidence. Consensus was that blood was unnecessary. And we're taught that a consensus of learned men believed that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. Now we're supposed to believe that a consensus is a good thing? People come to foolish consensuses all the time, look at declarations that child experts release "Punishment hurts your child's morale. Don't punish your children when they are bad. Reward them!" Scientific consensuses are mostly to make sure the gov't funds certain research. And look how far we've advanced! Still no cure for cancer, AIDS, every alternative power source to nuclear and fossil fuels is useless. And in sciences where consensus doesn't exists...Computer fields, look at the leaps and bounds we make. Bottom line, consensus hampers the truth. It forces us down a path before we've even looked at the map.

Since the majority here are ignorant here are the basic facts.

1. Most religious people believe in some sort of evolution, stemming from creationism. The pope embraced Evolution. ALL Catholic schools in the country teach ID AND Creationism.

2. ID and Creationism are not the same thing. Creationism is religious, ID could be aliens, and in a lot of cases is used to support extra-terrestrial theory.

3. Neither Evolution nor ID are science. Nor are they even theory. They are mere hypothesis. Which means that they cannot be tested. They rely strictly on evidence we haven't found yet.

4. There is no "war" between religion and science. Science throws nasty jabs at religion and religion takes it like a bitch. When it comes to intolerance, that is strictly on the Evolution side. When someone talks about the debate, it's always the "religious yahoos who know nothing about science" from the evolution only side. Bottom line, most of our discoveries were made by religious men and women. And quite a few of us are informed.

5. Seperation of church and state and removing church from the state are two different things. What seperation of church and state is: Congress cannot establish a religion (i.e. England and the Muslim world), nor can it prohibit religion. Since a school is not Congress, nor is the teaching of ID "establishing a religion or prohibiting the excercize thereof", ID does not apply. If you disagree, that's great! You just don't know what you're talking about.

If you fall under the category of "uninformed", by any of the five points above, it's ok. Just go out and look them up. Research them. And then come back when you know what you're talking about.