Gee Dubya Bush on Terri Schiavo's feeding tube: "WE MUST ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIFE!!11!1" *




*...right after I stamp this inmate's execution papers, and send 1500 kids off to die in a war fought on false pretenses.



Where the !@*& is the moral outrage over this douchebag's unbelievable hypocrisy?

I think everyone used up most of their outrage when his brother did the same thing a few years back

I've been outraged for the last four years and will be for the next four. He's waisting our money on this damn war, trying to rape the environment and now he's throwing his right-to-life fundie bull s**t in our face once again.

I just love how this country likes to go on about how precious life is but turns a blind eye to the quality of life. Why, that pregnant crack whore should have that baby. Even though the baby will have an awful life and probably end up dead due to neglict or abuse it got a chance to live!

Oh joy!

I feel bad for that women she's been like that for 15 years confined to a bed. If it was me or someone I loved I would of had the plug pulled long ago. She's not enjoying life she can't have a relationship with her husband. It's cruel to let someone go on like this.

But do you know how much congress is taking out of people taxes to handle this matter?I think this should've been handled when it first hit the courtroom.

It was. Several times.

Apparently that wasn't good enough for the 'Christian right'.

everyone who hates the us come to britan where it is applauded to hate and dispise bush and everything he stands for..

...and yet your limpwristed prime minister sheepishly agreed to join the 'Coalition of the Willing' in Iraq.

Do you really think that he has a brain for himself.. It WAS in his ass..

Now its in bushes trousers..

Wow. That is pretty messed up, Bacon >_< That is so true. How can he say such bull. Damn Texan *sorry any Texans who read this * lol, Hypocricy at its finest, ladies and gentlemen.

*shakes head*

It's stupid... really, it all is...

But all I can say is, euthanasia and abortion are moral wrongs and no huffing or puffing from the government is gonna change that fact. Both are murder. Case closed...

What's the big deal on murder?

Well people shouldn't let religion be mixed in with things such as this!

I have to say that Bush's tactics are somewhat peculiar; he tries to stand strongly for certain issues but is supported by nothing but hot air.

I lost my moral outrage years ago in the Regan administration. I have no ability to be morally outraged any more, so I have now set into a steady diet of apathy (at least with presidents since my vote doesn't count for them anyway in Massachusetts).

[bangs head repeatedly against wall]

You really need to understand that your version of morality isn't the end-all and be-all. Both are very grey issues. Not at all black & white.

I agree with Bling on the abortion part but I do believe euthanasia is OK in certain cases. I haven't been paying attention enough to this whole case but I do beleive keeping people unneccesserilly alive is wrong. If there are no signs of a conscious mind and are in a vegetative state than it is OK to let them go. Keeping someone artificially alive isn't OK in my opinion. It costs money, wastes resources, and is unnecessary. If I were in that state I would not want to bourden my loved ones with my body without my mind.

Excuse me while I open up a can of worms.

I used to feel the same way about abortion that you and Bling feel until I started reading several accounts of child abuse that made my blood run cold. I used to be a christian and bought into the whole 'abortion in murder' crap until I started reading about babies being thrown in outhouses and dumpsters alive, basically having post natal abortions performed on them after they became sentient beings. Children being horribly abused by their drugged out parents having things done to them such as being pimped out for drug money. Then there was the account I read recently about a woman who grabbed her toddler by the ankles and slamed her repeatedly into the groud while screaming "You runined my life, you ruined my life!"

Now, I defy anyone to read things like this and tell me abortion should be illegal with a straight face.

Now on with euthanasia. This is a very personal issue with me.

My grandfather was one a very social, vibrant man with many interests and who ran a successful business. As it tends to do, age caught up with him and wasn't kind. He developed cancer and had to go through radiation treatments which killed his taste buds so he cannot taste food anymore. On top of that he is blind and mostly deaf which robs him of the pleasure of watching ball games on TV like he used to love to do. He is diabetic and that is wreaking havoc on his circulation, he has had a few toes removed on his foot and is constantly in pain. He can barely walk. On top of that he is on a truckload of medication which is playing hell with his digestive system.

This once robust, vibrant man has told me if euthanasia was an option he would gladly go for it and when I had to have my old dog put to sleep he asked if I could get a two-fer.

As far as I'm concerned, American society only lets people like this go in suffering is because the doctors make so much money off of them.

The first part is just sick. I'm a guy and I was about to cry about that first stuff. And sorry to hear about your grandfather.

I cant get started on this topic of discussion......I hate the news. They make everything a circus. The only thing I hate more than the news is Bush! And the hate I have for that man is soo deep that I cant find the words to express it.

Reminds me of the abortion debate that Bacon and I once had with Bling in this other thread. Though I cannot remember which it was.

That would be the 'where do you stand politically?' topic.

Thank you, Bacon. Good memory. Or did you go look for it?

interesting topic... but there really is nothing that can be done. basically i blame any state that does not touch an ocean for this... and that gulf of mexico shit don't count. think about it, almost all the traditionally conservative states are in this category. there are just too many ignant (yes ignant... they don't deserve the o-r) fools that believe in the tripe that is being told to them.

Thank you Blade.





*goes and reads*

Why do I miss all the good discussions here?
Then when I do try to start a sociological/political discussion everyone runs screaming in the opposite direction.

*sigh*
Oh well.



My theory about that is the lack of fresh ocean air. That and the damn humidity in the summer time. When they say "It's not the heat it's the humidity" they aren't whistling dixie let me tell you. I think those two factors hinder brain development, at least it seems to for a good portion of them.

Just my crackpot theory.

Mmmhhhmm. Miniskirt brings up a good point about cjild abuse and all that other disgusting crap. I don't see why they just can't give that baby up for adoption. I mean, there are plenty of people who aren't able to have children or people who want to adopt. If you can't provide a good home, then let someone else do it if you are a crack head.

[begins humming]

EEEEVERY SPEEERM IS SAAAAACREEEED
EEEEVERY SPEEERM IS GREEEEEEAT
IIIIIIF A SPEEEERM GETS WAAAAASTEEEEED
GOD GETS QUITE IIIIIRAAAAAAATE...


Because it's probably the most difficult thing in the world to give birth to a child, then have to give it up.

I'll say it again: Abortions should be legal, safe and rare.

Sing it brother!!




You assume a crack head would think of someone besides themselves.

When it comes to people who would abuse or negelct a child they are not the most generous, thoughful people now are they? Their attitute is "It's MY CHILD and I'm going to keep it and do with it as I please!" People like I described above are not the kind to think of what's best for the child. That is why things like this happen.





Like Bacon said, it's not easy to carry a child for nine months then give it up, besides there are far to many unwanted children in the world and the sad thing is the children who have the best chance of being adopted are the lilly white children. None of those snotty yuppie types want to raise a black child why, people would know that it's not really their child. Unless it's an asian child which is apparently quite fashionable among the child-as-fashion-accesory crowd.

I'm not saying that only non-white people should get abortions that's the way of the world as sick and sad as it is. White and male is the most desirable from what I've heard. I've also heard it's not all that easy or cheap to adopt a child and often people who would be good parents are turned down due to financial status despite the fact that they would provide a loving family and raise a good human being.




Agreed.

^Just a random, non-coherent thought: If we have abortions than we'll have a world of evil, whiney, piece of crap humonculi Wraths running around XD

And yes, I do realize that crack heads usually aren't the most considerate people in the world. And it is difficult carrying a baby for 9 months XP I would die >_< I just can't stand having to sacrifice innocent unborn children T.T But I guess that is kinda of idealistic. I have the answer... Controled breading XD Anyone who I see unfit to have children will be neutered I am above the law, I shall critique the humans

I do think abortion should be legal but I am just saying if I were a woman I don't know if I could kill my own blood.

One last thought before I shut my yap: If you don't want to have children and are not going to take responsibility if you do have one *because I hate the idea of abortion but some people are just f***ed up * then you should chug as many birth control pills. And don't be a fool, wrap your tool

Removing a feeding tube is a barberiec way to end Terry Schivio's life dude. I would do something quick and painles a shot to the head, snap the neck, youthenasia anything but remove the feeding tube and torture. Well I gotta go back to my cross and sing the bright side of life, good day gentlemen and dudets.

Actually, I saw a news report that sais someone in Terry Schiavo's condition wouldn't feel pain if their tube was removed. They said that people who were able to speak said that that they know they should feel hungry, but they don't. After awhile, they just drift into infinity peacefully. I know depriving someone of nutrients sounds horrific but it doesn't cause pain and suffereing. Again, I haven't been paying enough attention to have a true opinion but that's what a doctor said.

Well, I just have to put my opinion in here.

I think euthanasia should be okay, because otherwise things like starving a semi-comatose vegetable would happen.

And SlashRose, i would really doubt that comatose people lose feeling. Most likely that's a doctor who's feeling guilty about starving someone to death and trying to rationalize what he's doing. There is no reason why she would lose feeling in any part of her body, and most likely the others didn't feel anything because they were hopped up on morphine.

In any case, that's my opinion. And now on to abortion:

Abortion should not be legal unless the life of the baby, mother, or both in endangered. People try to rationalize what they're doing, but the simple fact is that they're killing a child.

People have said that having a child is worse than killing it before it's born. Well, how do you know? Do you say to yourself, "gee, I sure wish my mommy killed me"? And how many famous people have been born in extreme poverty only to rise above it and better themselves? How many more people didn't become stars, but still landed a decent job, got a wife, and led a happy life? And how many of them would say, 'I'm better off dead'? NOT MANY. And if the atrocity of poverty is so bad we should kill children rather than have them, MAYBE WE SHOULD STOP THE POVERTY!!!

It's flawed reasoning because most of the time, abortions are among the upper-middle-class snobs who don't want a kid because they don't want to be inconvenienced.

Then pro-choicers wail, "What about the rape victims who become pregnant? That should be grounds for abortion!" Well, think about it statistically. How many people are raped every year? Maybe 100 for a medium- to large-size city. How many of those victims then become pregnant? Maybe 1/4, and that's giving them the benefit of the doubt.
So, we have about 25 per city, averaging about 175 per state? And don't add more for Maryland and the highly populated East Coast, because they are much smaller than Texas, Nevada, etc.
So all in all there are about 5000 people PER YEAR that need an abortion because of rape, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of these can just take a morning-after pill and take care of it.
Then we come to the staggering number of abortions a year, and I don't have any solid statistics, but I'd estimate that the % of rape-based abortions to be 10% at the very greatest.

Then there are the people who have complications and trouble with pregnancy and need to have an abortion or risk their life. That is only about 1-5% of all pregnancies, but they don't count because I'm for abortion in this case anyway.

Finally there is the faulty reasoning that life isn't really life until it's born. WRONG. When abortions are done in the second trimester, the process involved is this: A sharp-tipped tube is stabbed into the soft spot of a baby's head, then his brains are unceremoniously sucked out. After that, the body is broken at the joints so the individual pieces can be pulled out without too much inconvenience to the 'mother'.

It is common for doctors to fail again and again to get the needle into the baby's head for one reason only: THE BABY DODGES. This lifeless sack of tissue moves around in response, trying to get out of the way of the needle.


And still people try their hardest to rationalize the discreet murder that is usually done because they "don't want a baby". Hmm. So you kill it? Good reasoning. Why not offer the child for adoption? True, there are quite a few babies in orphanages already. BUT - if you care enough about the baby to kill it so it doesn't suffer in this harsh, cruel world, why not adopt one yourself, then use contraceptives?

It's faulty reasoning, and most people accept it because they desperately want to have their cake and eat it too.


I'm not going to try and push my ideas on others, however. If you want to create a baby, then kill it, go ahead. Just don't try to rationalize what you're doing with crappy reasoning.

I know this is generalization, but there's a trend that I have observed in about every liberal I've met:
(Ooh I know someone's going to hate me for this...)

They think abortion is fine, as long as they're not the ones getting killed.
They think the government needs radical change, as long as they get to end up on top.
They think whales and birds and fish and bugs and trees and the Red-Edged Crabgrass need to be saved from the Evil Mister Dubya, as long as their businesses don't have to halt production, move to another location, then carefully nurture seedlings to replace the poor defenseless trees they so mercilessly killed.
They think war is really bad, as long as they aren't the ones getting liberated from a dictator.

In general: Why don't you see many liberals in construction businesses? Why aren't they farmers? Why aren't they hardworking blue-collar citizens? Because they like the jobs that don't require much actual work.
Liberals are always wailing about how we need to stop cutting trees and save the environment, but they expect other people to lose profits in their businesses, they expect other people to pay thousands more for oil because OH NO we can't hurt the goddamn caribou in alaska, and they do little more than recycle their cans, spew propaganda, and hold yet another rally about how we're doing this now and it's killing Mother Gaia, G. Dubya is bad, war is bad, Kennedy was bad, kill the babies...

My challenge to the liberals: DO YOUR OWN GODDAMN WORK AND STOP BITCHING AT US!!!

Ummm, no. The patient wasn't in the exact same condition as Schiavo and the they were awake to say they weren't hungry and all that other jazz. I don't think a doctor would put his crdibility on the line on public television over something like this, maybe in court... I dunno, seems plausible, if your brain isn't functioning correctly... anywho I am too lazy to read all of that but I am sure I can find things i agree and disgree on.

i hate this money envious, self-comforting, ignorant blue collar trash... how maybe the fact that these morons didn't have the potential/brains/drive to get real jobs that can't be done by machines or well trained chimps. seriously you go down and you talk to the local contractor/taxi driver/iron worker; ask him if he had the chance to switch place with a mircosurgeon that makes over 50k per operation, would he? only a fool would turn down an offer like that, they don't do what they do out of pride or whatever... thats just crap they tell themselves and others so they don't have the face the reality of their wasted potential and their crappy existance.



actually most "liberals" are concerned more with small inconsequential issues such as education, government corruption, or social reform. the people you speak of are a very small minority of the a larger whole, though it would be prudent to point out the fact that this faction is still smaller the amount of conservatives that base their decisions on god or have been linked to white supremacist groups.



lose profits? well what about the countless conservatives that whine, bitch and moan about outsourcing... but wait that doesn't matter now does it?! cause that helps white americans while hurting non-white people around the world....

oil? hmmm... maybe... just maybe if you didn't go and decide to bring war to one of the leading oil producers in the entire god damned world there wouldn't be a need to tap domestic reserves just to offset the loss of oil production due to strife, war, and deliberate burning of wells.



rallies? you mean like the religious nutbags that protested the stem cells or anything else that is "unnatural" or "against God"

oh yeah one more thing... kennedy was considered one of the most liberal and progressive leaders of his day. in fact many believe that this is why he was killed.

so here's my challenge to you: READ A <censored for the kiddies> BOOK!!

*looks at location of Remy* Wisconsin, eh? You live on a cheese farm by any chance? Or is that just a question that you truly take to heart

I didn't bother to read all of your post and by the raging criticism by Hito I probably won't now. lol, Ah well. I still stand by my possitions on Abortion and Euthenasia until someone convinces me otherwise ^^

Drilling for oil in ANWAR won't do much to improve oil prices, and it certainly won't do a damn thing to end our dependency on fossil fuels.


...but I didn't start this topic to talk about whether you think the idea of euthanasia is right or wrong. I started this topic to talk about the repugnant hypocrisy that pervades 'conservative' America in this day and age. These people talk about morals and values, and then turn around and do everything to betray those morals and values. They never practice what they preach, and they engage in political opportunism to exploit the beliefs of those who do.

Okeeday - first of all!

When I made the generalization about blue-collar workers being mostly conservatives, I worded that wrong. What I meant to say is that liberals are always pushing for radical change in the system, in policy, in this and that. Hell, that's their entire platform in a nutshell: change.
BUT what I meant to say is that they're hypocritical because all these changes and new policies will affect other people, will be implemented by other people, and will ultimately have nothing but good effects on the liberals. My whole point was that they really don't give a sh*t what happens to anybody else, they just want their little world to go okay.

And environmentalists are a section of liberals I singled out: I don't mean to say that's the only part I have a beef with. Okay, the 'inconsequential issues' that liberals really do have a platform on:

EDUCATION-
Education? No, indoctrination. They want to stuff pro-gay, evolutionist liberal ideals down the throats of every kid they can, because they know that it will pay off in a decade.
Pro-gay: I'm not a homophobe, I don't hate gays, I just don't want my kid to grow up thinking that being gay is just grrreat! Everybody is gay! Try it sometime! In the attempt to pussyfoot around the issue of gays, schools are promoting it, 100%.
Evolution: This is the indoctrination part. Remember that sticker on the science books that went to the state supreme court a little while ago? It was just a little harmless sticker, on the front of the book where kids are likely to see it maybe ten, twelve times in a year. And, on top of that, it doesn't even promote creationism! All the sticker said was this:

Hmm, so the liberal people made such a big stink about that? It seems to me that we're regressing back to the Dark Ages, when Galileo was imprisoned for hypocrisy by saying the world was not the center of the universe. Liberals love their evolution theory because it means that they can rationalize anything away: we're gonna die anyway, there is no god, there are no consequences, have fun while you can!
To sum up: People aren't making a big deal about the stickers because they are afraid of letting creation into schools, they are afraid of doubt being let into the Religion of Evolution. And it is a religion, because there are massive leaps of faith (the same size as those required by Cristianity, might I add) required just to assume we could have created life in the first place!

Don't get me started about evolution. I will fight to the death. And I will win. I swear it.

Liberals defend evolution ferociously because it completely destroys the foundation of conservatives, and that is Christian ideals. (Not Christianity, because OH NO we can't have religion mixed in here or we're all wackos) Simple things like Do Not Lie, Do Not Steal, Do Not Commit Adultery, Do Not Murder, Do Not Cheat Others, all the simple decencies of life. This is what religious people base their decisions on, NOT their religion. If you find fault with these ideals, please tell me. Because after all, our f*cking CONSTITUTION is based on it, so OH NO we need to get rid of that too!


POLITICAL CORRUPTION:
Well, you'll have to name exactly what you mean anyway. However, the topic of oil is always a big deal to people. Why? We buy oil at a high price from the Middle East mostly out of charity, because we did and do have oil in Alaska, Texas, all over America and Canada. People scream the G Dubya is corrupt because he buys oil from the Middle East - well dammit, we did that for years and years before he got into office! I think it's a smart move - to keep a little nest egg of oil yourself, then buy it from others while the economy is good. That way if they ever run out of oil, we're not gonna be screwed ten ways to Thursday by the Saudis.
I do believe oil had a part to play in the war on Iraq, but for the most part it was to keep the nation economially stable once we've flushed out Saddam. I mean, seriously - if G Dubya's main motive was oil, then why doesn't he just annex the entire oil field and claim the resources as repayment for liberating Iraq?
BECAUSE HE IS LOOKING FOR BOTH AMERICA AND IRAQ'S BENEFIT. If they have oil, we can continue to keep our reserves for a rainy day. If they have oil, then the nation will not fall to pieces, because oil is about the #1 export of Iraq. And of course if it does fall apart, all the blasted liberals will simply leave them to rot, maybe throw some taxpayer's dollars at it every once in a while. Conservatives instead stay there and offer support until we're sure Iraq can stand on its own, then leave once the job is done.

That's another thing that irks me: liberals seem to think that they can stop any war at any time, and the other nation will magically go back to how it was before we went in, they will harbor no ill will about our half-assed job of helping them, and of course they will gushingly thank the nice liberals for saving them from the army that keeps all the terrorists away.

THERE IS NO 'BACK' BUTTON. IT IS TOO F*CKING LATE TO PULL OUT OF IRAQ WITHOUT MAKING SURE THEY CAN SUPPORT THEIR OWN ECONOMY AND DEFEND AGAINST THE TERRORISTS THAT ARE STILL THERE!!

If you want to replace the corroded support beams of a building, you can't just walk away before putting the new ones in - finish the job or the whole thing is gonna fall down.

And again - blue collar workers would take the job as a brain surgeon, but the fact is that no matter what job they do, it will be done, done well, and finished the first time. They wouldn't promise a patient a full heart transplant and halfway through pull off their gloves and say,
'I don't really feel like it. Here, you cover for me.'

Oh and I really like that comparison, because a liberal would also promise them an organ transplant without a single thought about who would be donating the organ. They just want this to get done, and if you have to give your liver, then you should be glad to. Otherwise you're an insensitive bigot who can't deal with changing times or some bullsh*t.


RALLIES -
I never said anything bad about rallies , it just seems like that's about 75% of all liberal groups do. They create organizations that pat each other on the back for doing almost nothing, then hold another rally to complain about something new.
AT LEAST WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! I'd put ten grand down that if the liberals were in power when 9/11 occurred, they would just throw money at the victims, create a support group to counsel the families affected, and not give another thought to the terrorists who did the deed. I know I'm being stereotypical, but that is the way liberals handle problems.

Again, back when being liberal was a join-or-die kind of movement years ago, they would protest the cutting of trees, protest the war, but then the companies that had to halt production because a bunch of hippies were on their property were just collateral damage. All the people that died in the war so far would have died for absolutely nothing, because we'd just pull out and give up.

I know I'm being stereotypical, but I haven't met a single liberal who isn't:
Squeamish about handling a difficult issue, (Better to let the conservatives handle it, then whine about how it is being done.)
Has a political attention span of about two months,
And wants radical change to every aspect of the nation -- as long as they don't need to do the work.


End Rant.

I love how utterly warped Christian perceptions of what liberalism means are. Nothin' but comedy.

====================================

'God' is a concept invented by people who don't believe people are good enough or smart enough to be left to their own devices.
Capitalism is a concept that hinges on the presumption that people are good enough and smart enough to be left to their own devices.

Modern American conservatives try as they may to shove a square peg into a round hole, but they won't succeed.

so many holes in your argument... this is gonna be alot of typing.... well lets get started and break this down point by point...



wrong.... the philosophical basis of the democratic national party is centralized government, whilst the repulican national party is supposed to be all about states rights and the non-centralization of government.



ok this really has nothing to do with your argument, but you obviously need a better grasp of the concept of SARCASM... now back to work...



indoctrination you say... like the fake new reports that the government produces for airing on TV? how about the 50's-esque america for americans nationalist crap that is being promoted? maybe we can discuss the military has taken up the practice of creating video games to recruit kiddies?



i don't know about that... argument does seem to be skewed towards the anti-gay side of things... but we'll stick to the facts for now... schools aren't really promoting homosexuality, its more like nowadays they are trying to lift the stigma and educate people on the matters as well... as opposed to previous ideal of "its wrong.... oh shit wait, now those freakin butt pirates are actually a political force... i guess we'll just ignore the issue but press the statistic that homosexual men are more likely to get AIDS to scare the kids.... "



evolution does not rule out God, in fact there are groups of devout christian scientist that theorize that evolution is the real divine plan... however creationism DOES rule out evolution... yes there are leaps of faith uin evolution, but don't equate them to those of creationism.

let's see what's more likely... the macro-evolutionary chain was accelerated due to the introduction of foreign biomatter or some big invisible all powerful deity that has never shown himself to anyone, but a few random people in the bible and the occasional dude from the middle nowhere, making a species with certain inherent urges... only to turn around dictate rules that are contrary the nature of the beings he created and telling them that if they broke the rules he'll basically bend em over and stick it up their asses (aka Hell)?



ok... its not that christianity (or any religion) is the basis of the rules of society... its that the rules of society are the basis of religion.... early religions started as a form a rulership and government. historical texts dicate that almost all of the earliest governments were theocracies based around a centralized figure claiming to be either the extension a deity or at least a hand picked messenger, and used the concept of divinely mandated manifest destiny to conquer other lands to incorporate these lands into themselves.

think about it...ok say i'm an old school king, now i lead my troops in a war, slaighter the hell out of my enemies, take their lands, and tell my new subjects the truth... i'm just some warlord that basically enslaved them and there is nothing they can do about. well i'm gonna be viewed as a tyranical despot.

but now what if i say that a great, powerful and all loving god as hand picked me to "liberate" them from their heathen ruler and i'm a living extension of said god; therefore my will is that of this god. now i proceed to tell them that if they are all good boys and girls and follow my/god's orders, donate money, and promote this religion they will be rewarded with eternal bliss. but if they don't, they will be punished for all eternity. now i'm the nice guy, the liberator of the people and the savior of their souls.



ok other the issues i have brought up in the above rebuttal, there is another flaw in this constitution is based on the ten commandments or whatever stuff... here are the three basic principles of the constituion (note that these principles are the basic ideals behind it but they weren't really executed very well)

- the complete seperation of church and state, after the whole catholic empire thing and then the angelican church fiasco the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with religion playing ANY role in politics.

- equality of people.... not really quite all there yet but we're kinda close...

- isolationism... the US wanted nothing to do with any country. the idea is simple... we're us and you're you, let's keep it that way. almost all of the founder father would puke all over themselves in disgust if they saw the us policy of nation building that the goverment has adopted in the last 60 years.



no... the reasons why oil has been bought at those prices are twofold...

- OPEC can name whatever price they want since they collectively control over 70% of the world's tappable oil. its like being the only person that has food during a famine.

- oil is a limited resource that has been gobbled up due to over 100 years of just wantonly using oil without a concern of running out.



the oil reserves within the us borders is such a small amount when compared to what is required for sustained use, its not even funny. now the yukon reserves of canada are a semi-viable option, but even though those canucks seem to be really nice folk... they ain't gonna give the us shit if it comes down to them having to tap their reserves, and if they do its gonna be way higher than what OPEC charges now. its simple when it comes to oil the only country that can even begin to come close to OPEC's level of production would be russia and their siberian reserves... however these are virtually impossible to access on a large scale due to the fact that most of them are encased under permafrost.



cause i highly doubt the general public would stand for it... people may not be mostly good but something like that won't just go away. also more importantly even the generally mild mannered european union would turn around and try to bitch slap the living crap out of the us for not only invading (cause that would be what you are doing then, when you take land its NOT liberation) but trying to control a source of oil they depend on. now if they were to talk either russia or china into helping, which woudn't be hard if the us did indeed invade a major oil producing country, there would be virtually no chance that the us would win, if both joined there is NO chance... the best the us would be able to do would be to go nuclear and make sure nobody wins.

really? cause this is contrary to what has happened historically... generally it was the conservatives that convinced these nations to let the us "help" them, to the us's benefit exclusively of course, and then abandon them. the cuban rebels and the bay of pigs, the chinese nationalists and taiwan, the miltias of afghanistan (this will come to bite them in the ass later as we all know), the guerillas of many various south american nations, almost any project in eastern europe after the fall of the USSR, haiti (i'm almost certain haiti was done more than once).... do i really have to keep going? all of these projects were the work of conservatives... most of the liberals didn't even want to go, the just wanted to send aid. which is the only thing these nations and groups really wanted, they had no wish for the us to play any role in their governments. the us has to understand that just because they see something wrong, it doesn't mean they have the right to fix it. no nation wants to trade one crappy government for another that is just puppet of another nation.



what terrorists in iraq?! there has been NO proof other than hearsay about a letter here or an alleged meeting there to indicate terrorist involvement, just like there were no wmds. in fact the rate of violence and terrorist acts has DRAMATICALLY increased since the troops arrived. i hate this idea of using the word terrorist to justify any idea the military has.

i was raised in and still live in NYC, i lost 3 life long friends when the towers went down... they would go postal if they were around to see what is being "done in their memory"



actually the proper engineering protocol would be to tear down the structure and start anew with a better blueprint. if the support beams are shot, most likely the rest of the support and secondary structures are shot as well... its simply not worth it do keep going just for the sake of finishing... just scrap it and build a new one.

its simple just pull out and give it over to the un, who actually does have a decent track record when it comes to these type things, with NO us involvement other than donation of aid. better yet give it over to the eu so there can be NO us involvement what-so-ever.



ok i have no idea what this is supposed to be based on... it seems that you want to just make it so that all liberals are lazy... where is your factual basis for this?



ok first off other than donations from a friend or family member all organs come from deceased organ donors... your making it out to seem like there's some liberal organ harvesting van just driving around abducting people to ransack them for organs.seriously WHERE IS THE FACTUAL BASIS?!



again i'm gonna have to refer to historically facts on this one... african american rights, women's lib, the anti-monoply movement of the late industrial revolution... all VERY important issues that were only changed due to these liberals. conservatives by deifinition want the status quo.



honestly, thats the best solution from the mental health point of view. when it comes to loss any kind, the ultimate goal is to accept and move on... which very hard to do when revenge is constantly being pushed.

also due to their very nature you can't beat terrorism as a whole, the best you can due is the delay the next big attack and catch a few cells here or there.

at this point in time i would like raise the issue demonizing terrorists... yes they should be considered evil, but my concern is why aren't the main terrorist threats talked about. the majority of terrorist attacks in the last 10 years weren't done by foreign terrorists, most of them were done by us nationals. anti-abortionist bombings in the offices of doctors, white supremacists blowing up black churches, midwest militas targeting government officials.... this reminds me of the japanese american concentration camps of ww2, it was just easier to target those that look different... it promotes nationalism, which almost always leads to VERY bad things.



but what HAS been accomplished? the completion of daddy bush's war against sadam? the upheaval of a government and subquent chaos that insued?! the iraqi people just traded one set of horrible problems for another. the fact remains that there was no VALID reason to go to iraq, and to keep going just to finish what you started at the cost of even more lives is just plain pigheaded and arrogant.

i'm not even gonna touch the last part since thats just opinion with nothing factual to back it up. seriously do your homework, learn the historical facts, THEN present an argument.

sorry about the double post but after 30 mins of playing with the tags i found out that for some reason it won't work as only one post so i had to break it up

It's absolutely fine in this instance, hito. You have made very good comments as well.

Bravo, hitokiri. You obviously have more patience for ignorant, self-righteous douchebags than I do.

I know they said it wont cause pain, but even if she can't feel it it is still a brutal practice. I just can't stand people starving together. We are studying the Holocaust in school right now, so I guess I do feel strongly about the sentance. I'm getting a little worked up here, there is nothing I can do, I must find my center. I am an angry person in general /sigh

And I was in favor of the UN having some control when the war started - HOWEVER, at this point pulling out would make the US look like a coward and a fool to almost every other country in the world. Too late, compadre. Like I said before, we've reached the point of no return.





It was a metaphor. Someone used it before me, and I just continued it.




Apparently the concept of a metaphor is a little difficult: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ORGAN DONORS HERE!
What I'm trying to illustrate is the general mindset of how liberal activists want their policies carried out: BY OTHER PEOPLE. That's why there are so many in politics: They get to make all the calls, but never have to do anything themselves.


And just because you've spent time as a construction worker doesn't mean you're qualified to be Prez. What I'm trying to say is this: both liberals and conservatives (Although liberals much more, I believe) in politics don't really give much weight to the costs of projects because they're not the ones who will do the heavy lifting.





BUT STILL - what happened in the black rights cause? Liberals organized rallies and complained. It's what they're good at. Sure, Bible-thumping conservatives hold rallies too, but they also DO things about it. The liberal activists instead hold rallies until someone else does it for them.








Sorry I need to leave RIGHT NOW - I will edit this post later.

so here we are, once again.....


so you want to keep going just so the US can save face?! what is this a pissing contest?! do you really think that the 4 year child whose father was blown into chunks just because he happened to be a the same street as us troops when they were attacked gives a shit about the reputation of the us?!

who cares what the us looks like? that''s just self important, self serving crap... if you are gonna say that this military operation is to help the iraqi people then they are who matter, the us troops don't mean shit. when you go into a country with a military force uninvited you are an invading force... therefore your lives no longer mean shit.

now if you are gonna back the troops instead, you are there to take over the country.... with this option your argument is valid. however, now you no longer are able to take the positition of being the good guys.

so basically the us is either there as the most incompetent liberators of all time (this fiasco is quickly approaching vietnam levels of incompetence) or oil greedy, revenge seeking war-mongers...

my problem isn't with the organ analogy its the fact that nothing you say has any semblance of fact backing it up.. so far i've approached this with the same approach i would a debate, arguments back by FACTS... now if you want to base this on opinion.. i could do that too...

like my opinion that you are an ignorant, brainwashed, cheese farming hick... but i can't back this argument up with fact since i don't actually know you in person; thus it could be picked apart easily and proven wrong...

facts lead to enlightened debate, opinions lead to torch wielding mobs.

yes damn those shiftless negroes, doing nothing but walking everyday, even in the rain and under threats of having their houses bombed, for almost an entire year during the montgomery bus boycott...

what the hell did you want them to do? start a race war?! this is how you gain equal rights, through making people understand that you are there and won't take this shit. but at the same time if you take violent measures the public opinion backlash with undo everything you worked for... why do conservatives always equate passive resistance to being lazy or weak? force isn't the solution to everything.

seriously back your argument up with fact... so far all you've accomplished is making yourself look like an ass..

Well there's another reason Gush is going to Hell.

Who's Gush. I know no, Gush.

This is me jumping in late to take a bit of a pot-shot, but this guy talked about 'winning' the debate over evolution... Winning what, exactly? It's not a sporting event. There's no medal or trophy that goes to the victor. All you'd be accomplishing is blurring0 the constitutional line that separates church and state. That line is there in this country for a reason, and has always been there. It's perfectly fine to teach evolutionary theory in public schools, because even if it isn't airtight, it's still the most plausible and scientifically sound theory on the origin of life that exists. If you don't want your kids being 'indoctrinated', as you put it, then teach them to question what they read. Unfortunately, Christians aren't very good about that because it also means questioning what the Bible says, too. And we don't want that, now do we?

Bacon, you have no idea what you're talking about.

1 - I never claimed to 'win' the debate about evolution, but I don't know if anybody else started one or not. Last I checked, I had a monopoly on being the Christian wanker that everybody wants to hit.

2 - Destroying evolution (Even if it is possible - people cling to it like a *gasp* religion) would NOT blur the line between church and state for some simple reasons:
-----Just because a false theory is removed from school doesn't mean everybody will suddenly be bringing the Pope in to supervise or anything like that. The intellectual vacuum created by evolution's downfall would instead draw in some even more ludicrous theory, like 'The world fell out of a singularity and we just happened to be on it.'
-----People seem to think that the separation of church and state means no religious person should be allowed within a hundred feet of any public school. WRONG. What the founding fathers meant when they wrote this was to safeguard against a sadly corrupt Catholic church accusing scientists of heresy when they showed their new findings. The separation of church and state, I believe, is being twisted into a way to get every Christian as far away from schools as they possibly can. I repeat: It is not wrong to talk about God in school, it is not wrong to be a teacher and a deacon at your local church, and it is NOT NOT NOT wrong to tell other people about your faith! If some person from another religion hates God so much that he flies into an uncontrollable rage at the merest mention of His name, then maybe (just maybe) it's not the Christian at fault here? And I also want to note that despite what you've been told, the average ratio of Christians to Atheists to other religions is something like 3-1-1. (That's our school though, so don't think I'm talking about the US or anything)

3 - Evolution is to Airtight as Wet Paper Bag is to Durable. I've illustrated in the other thread several times that the key operations needed to create life even in an infinite galaxy is horrendously unlikely at best, completely impossible at other points! I don't want to get in a big involved deal here, because this isn't a science thread - but if you're looking for info about it, read that thread. It's around in this category somewhere.

4 - I don't want my kids to be indoctrinated. I want them to access all the facts on a given issue (Which you cannot do in schools - I cite the science book sticker incident and many others.) and then analyze the information, and finally come to a conclusion. I repeat: Christianity should NOT be taught in public school, but NEITHER should Evolution. They are both *religions* because it takes just as much faith to believe we came from sloshing sea foam than it does to believe God made us from the dust of the earth.


My Parthian Shot: Christianity will never be a scientific theory - the whole point of it is belief based on faith. HOWEVER, Evolution is more like a recipe: Prepare forged bones, (Almost 30% of important evolutionary fossils found in the 19th and early 20th century were forgeries.) rub vigorously with faulty logic, (These bones are in this soil. Therefore the bones are X years old. This soil is the only place these bones are found. Therefore the soil is X years old. Circular reasoning.) and insert in half-baked theory. (We were all a little teeny dot. The dot exploded. The explosion turned into the universe. See? No more God. Now we can all ditch our consciences and have fun!!) Let stand for thirty minutes and serve over hostility. (What? You dare attack our theory? Hypocrisy! To me, my brothers! We must lynch the unbeliever!)

Okay, that's all for now.

As far as the whole separation of church and state goes, it's orginal purpose to be included in this place was to prevent a national religion that was run by the government. The original reason for the first immigration from the UK, as I recall, was to escape the religion that was pressed upon them. If you feel that my statement is wrong, feel free to correct it, but that is simply my opinion on this matter.

That was I guess what I meant. The big thing is that although the founding fathers went to america to escape the oppressing catholics, they did not abandon their religion.
If they saw the kind of systematic elimination of all things religious that happens today, I think they would be spinning in their graves.

still my opinion.