Printable View
What is the difference between the two scenarios though? One is proformed by the doctor and the other is proformed by the mother. Sounds close enough to me. I am really talking about the birth control abortion though, so we agree there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantrithor
Don't bring abortion into this, because that's a whole different issue. You need to define things such as "living" and the like to have a decent argument. And even there people argue, so it cannot be resolved.
Indeed you are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
DINGY ALERT.............
http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=20241Quote:
Why is it so difficult to understand what a brainless fool that bush is...I can't understand...very very frustrating. Someone give me a plane ride to washington and give me a gun so I can shoot the son of a bitch...
Apparently, she couldn't afford a ticket to DC, so she had to settle with a Bush/Cheney campaign HQ in Knoxville, TN but she is still at large though. Beware...........
OK, you're saying that you want devout Christian politicians to act more like "closet Christians." If I told an openly gay politician to keep the public gayness down, you would all call me an intolerant bigot. I've got more to add, but I think I'll post that for Xaenn's response.Quote:
Unless you think of, say, the 16th century as the peak of human development, you shouldn't really be a big fan of any politician being openly religious, much less flaunting their beliefs to win an election.
Awwwww, did I miss anything good? Damn class schedule makes me miss everything.......Quote:
Pay attention, silly. reagan80 was calling Xaenn a religious fanatic, and I sarcastically responded with that. I'm far above doing so seriously, you should know that.
Actually, I didn't call Xaenn a religious fanatic. If I would have said, "Xaenn IS a religious fanatic," then you would have been right. Didn't you notice the punctuation at the end of my original quote? I didn't say he is one, but MAYBE he COULD BE one.
Religion doesn't have much of a place in our government today as it is. Nothing much has changed since the Clinton days. Bush hasn't changed any rules or laws that would discriminate against non-Christians or squeamish Church/State Christians. He doesn't make welfare recipients swear an oath to God before they can get their checks. He doesn't have an Affirmative Action program for Christians trying to get jobs over infid......err...I mean non-Christians. He doesn't make the elderly pray the Rosary before they can get their prescriptions or medicare. Nodody makes you say the God part in the Pledge of Allegiance. My former Catholic high school still doesn't get a dime in taxpayer's money even though my parents are paying taxes for the fuckin' mediocre public schools. Christians aren't the ones trying to make fundamentalist governments around the world. That's the Muslims' problem.Quote:
Religion had its place in government... during the 12th and 13th centuries. And, of course, nothing bad came out of those years. Oh, except for things like, you know... the crusades, where religion and politics were one and the same concept, and it left thousands of people dead, in God's name.
How is it fundamentalist? Bush didn't ban abortion even though it goes against his faith. He only banned the Treblinka-styled partial birth flavor, so you shouldn't be so distressed. Anti-gay? If you are just basing that assertion on the gay marriage issue, well that is beneath my expectations. I'm not a big fan of gay marriage, but I could TOLERATE it only if a majority of voters in the states support it as opposed to liberal activist Federal judges telling us what to do. Give me a worse example of Bush being anti-gay, then I'll think about agreeing. How is he whipping these values onto you then? There must be more than that..........Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
OK, maybe I made a mistake. Maybe you are a fanatic. Afterall, you have a sig of an ideology that was proven FUBAR a little over a decade ago. Only a Leftist fanatic would cling to an ideology that even China has started abandoning(econmically anyway) so they could more effectively compete with us capitalists. Maybe this will convince you that Communism never works without Capitalism to prop it up..........http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../dprk-dark.htmQuote:
The implications of that are really uncalled for. And you're really just pulling them out of your ass. I have no more to say about that.
It's funny you bring up the subject of my ass because my clingy sphincter is getting tingly. If you'll excuse me.......... O_O
EDIT: I just wanted to inform my readers that while I was gone from EP I hung around many interesting bloggers. An atheist pro-Bush conservative chick(she made an appearance on Dennis Miller's show last summer) and a second generation Iraqi-American that reminded me somewhat of Dingy(except she was pro-Bush, pro-Israeli, and bashes terrorism everywhere including when the Palestinians do it) are among my favorite bloggers. While away, I learned how to be like Jimmy Onestroke, but without the parts where he pisses down my back and tells me it's rain. Come back, Jimmy. We have much to discuss.........
What else could on try to do? Put someone in jail for being gay? It's denying them of a basic right for couples...obviously meaning that you are opposed to homosexuals...Quote:
Originally Posted by reagan80
Communism is entirely related to religion afterall...Quote:
OK, maybe I made a mistake. Maybe you are a fanatic. Afterall, you have a sig of an ideology that was proven FUBAR a little over a decade ago. Only a Leftist fanatic would cling to an ideology that even China has started abandoning(econmically anyway) so they could more effectively compete with us capitalists. Maybe this will convince you that Communism never works without Capitalism to prop it up..........
If you want to get into that, there's a place for it.
First, being anti-gay marriage doesn't make you opposed to homosexuals. That's like saying being anti-pedophile makes you opposed to homosexuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
Secondly, I said I would be okay with gay marriage becoming a law if people in the states decided whether or not to allow it. I am NOT okay with Federal liberal activist judges legislating from the bench and telling states or the nation how we should run society. In my state of Louisiana, 80% of voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage here. I don't want some asshole judge to come over here and tell us that our votes didn't mean shit........
LOL so you realy think that "liberal activist judges" make an HUGE diffrence in society. LOL... Their are not as many Liberal Activist Judges in the US as you would think. I would say under 100... and most of them are local or state judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by reagan80
See the thing is Judges make decisions, that's their job, when that decision does not suport the consertives, or the public for that matter, Somthing like Brown V Board of Edu., Then those Judges are labled as "Liberal Activist" wether or not the decison was well founded. It's quite silly and stupid to call an Judge you dont know an "Liberal Activist" unless you have read all the justifications of their decisions... bah what's the use your so indocrinated that it does not matter what i say...
Bush all the way, end of story.
My little speech to Skinner now goes to you too. If you're going to start labeling people then just stop posting here altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by reagan80
Then please tell me why one would have a problem with gay marriage other than being against homosexuals?Quote:
Originally Posted by reagan80
There is no other reason, because the sanctity of marriage doesn't exist.
Meh, I begrudgingly say that you've got a point there...... :damn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
Afterall, I should have learned that lesson well from Fable.
EDIT: Who in the hell had a problem with my new old sig? First, everyone went apeshit over the cat-punching sig a few months ago. Now, everybody has a problem with an Evil Dead still. Pardon my Spankrish, but has teh sux phacter gun up cins I'z bin gun phrum teh phoroms? I'm leaning towards yes....... :nod:
That is the best sig I've seen in at least 3 hours. :wacko:Quote:
Originally Posted by reagan80
I'd have no problem with Bush being openly religious... If he believed in all religions equally. You don't think having Christian fundamentalist president who's going to war against terrorism in the middle east puts any pressure on, say... Muslims in the US? Really. I'm 16 years old, and still I've studied history enough to clearly see that church and state should be separated at all times.
There is a problem with what people deem "separation of Church and State". People forget who founded the United States, pilgrims, who fled England from religious tyranny. They did not want to be a part of the Church of England anymore, living to it's moral code. So they moved here. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they took this into account. They did not want a theocracy. Which was what england was at the time, the king being the head of the church of england. They wanted to be able to practice their own religions without being forced to practice a state 'sponsored' one. That is where separation of church and state comes from. Not because they didn't want input from religion.
However, I think it is good that religion does not play a major role in politics because then you do get 'true believers*' that can't get over their righteousness and expect everyone to believe the same things they do. I just don't see that in this or any administration. It is ridiculous to say that any president (at least recent president) has acted solely on his religious beliefs and forced his ways upon the rest of the world because he is a religious man.
It isn't a matter of being against homosexuals, it is a matter of what the definition of marriage is. To a lot of people (in the US and around the world), marriage is not only seen as a bond between a man and a woman, or a man and woman and God (depending on religious view). Also, a lot of people think that marriage is used to create a family, which can't happen naturally, (unless you adopt) in a homosexual relationship. This is probably why people in the US and other areas are still against it. I agree with Reagan80, if the majority was for it, I would tolerate it.Quote:
Then please tell me why one would have a problem with gay marriage other than being against homosexuals?
* "True Believer" by Eric Hoffer, read up on it if you get a chance, it talks about what motivates theological fanatics.
Yeah, they left for freedom, then enslaved people, funny that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusikFreak00
What about Jamestown the First Colony (1607), that was founed to make money... It's founding did not having anything to do with the church... why do people forget that...Half of the people that came to america were not doing so for Religious reasions... and they fully suported Seperation of Church and state, as it what made England such an bad place to live at the time.
Oh that makes since... it we dont want them to get married, because that's not what we define marriage as, So where is the problem with Civil Unions? That are not called Marriage, but give them equal treatment under the law as Married people.Quote:
Originally Posted by MusikFreak00
I don't know about the situation of un/employment of soldiers, troopers, etc. however I do know that the instability that is in Iraq today is because of US intervention. The Iraqis don't want them there. Atleast the majority of them, cosisting of the poor, lower middle class common man, whose opinion doesn't matter anyway. Everyday the death toll is easily above 50 for both the Iraqis and the Americans. This rising instability in Iraq can only be settled of the US leaves.
Bush, because Kerry can't make a stand without standing against it.
Oh sure, we'lkl pull out. Then we will leave Iraq in a civil war that will cost tens-of-thousands of lives and they'll blame it all on us. And then Iraq will hate us even more than they did when Saddam was in power only this time it won't be the lies of a dictator that spurs them on it will be pure facts that make them hate us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
You sure do live in your little bubble, don't you? "We'll leave Iraq in a civil war...dahdahdah...Oh! and they'll hate us for it!" What do you expect, thankyou notes and invites to fancy parties?Quote:
Originally posted by Paladin Hammer
Oh sure, we'lkl pull out. Then we will leave Iraq in a civil war that will cost tens-of-thousands of lives and they'll blame it all on us. And then Iraq will hate us even more than they did when Saddam was in power only this time it won't be the lies of a dictator that spurs them on it will be pure facts that make them hate us.
If you leave Iraq in a civil war situation, it's your goddamn fault! Bush is a daft prick if he thought it's going to be a ride with Barney and his friends in La-La land when he first bombed Iraq on 13th April. You were meant to stabilize Iraq and leave ages ago...what is he waiting for? Another barrel of oil?
Where was all this kindness Uncle Sam is showing now, when all the world was begging at America's knees to fight Iraq when Saddam was committing genocide against the Kurds and the Shi'as?
Bush is increasingly making America a global hate-target, but instead of realizing that and doing something about it, he's expecting kudos and praises for doing what he is.
Saddam lies about how bad America is, Bush proves he's right! He's got a way to correct it...leaving Iraq. Do you know how the common man of Iraq feels? He doesn't care! He's being opressed the same way he was under Saddam.
Does America even care to find out whether Iraq can govern itself or not? Let it atleast function as an independant country if you really mean democracy.
Right, not all people that came here first were because of religious freedom. Saying that would be stereotyping. What my point was is the definition of 'Separation of Church and State' is a different definition now that what it was when this country was founded. And like I said, I don't think our definition is bad, I just think it's ridiculous when someone pulls the separation of Church and State card whenever a leader (president, senator, representative, teacher, federal employee, judge, etc.) makes a comment about God. What's so offensive about it? It's not like just because the president's christian that he's only gonna take advice from the pope or other leaders of the Christian religion. If he did, abortions would be outlawed, there would be no death penalty, and no anything else that christianity is against.Quote:
What about Jamestown the First Colony (1607), that was founed to make money... It's founding did not having anything to do with the church... why do people forget that...Half of the people that came to america were not doing so for Religious reasions... and they fully suported Seperation of Church and state, as it what made England such an bad place to live at the time.
I agree, I didn't say that I am against having gay marriage, I gave you the argument that a lot of people have in their minds. It's still Taboo to people who think marriage is a union between a man and a woman only. And that may never change. Civil Unions/gay marriage would not bother me at all. But I am not gonna actively go out and seek to legalize it. I just don't feel that strongly about it.Quote:
Oh that makes since... it we dont want them to get married, because that's not what we define marriage as, So where is the problem with Civil Unions? That are not called Marriage, but give them equal treatment under the law as Married people.
I should clarify then, that when I say marriage, I don't care what it's called. It's still the same thing. They can call it civil union if they wanna, it doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by MusikFreak00
But one can't try and deny someone rights in a state because of their religious views of marriage. Marriage is much more than the bond between man and woman in the Christian faith. The fact that it has significance in our politics, demands that it must NOT be treated as it would solely in the religion.
That being said, I know a lot of people who are not christian and/or religious that don't agree with homosexual unions. Like I said, it's a matter of view, and not always to do with religion.Quote:
But one can't try and deny someone rights in a state because of their religious views of marriage. Marriage is much more than the bond between man and woman in the Christian faith. The fact that it has significance in our politics, demands that it must NOT be treated as it would solely in the religion.
ugh... normally I"m up for a good debate, but i remember arguing in this same thread maybe 5 months ago, nah, I'll just say I'd vote kerry and leave it at that
Damn...the joy of a Karragh post wasted on not debating...:P
yep, It's a tragedy it is, i did post a rather lengthy arguement over in the cheerleading thread if you wanted to read that though :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
In fact I did just read it, but wasn't sure how I should reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by karragh
ah well, as long as the specific people I replied to reply, that's what counts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
Indeed...perhaps we should stop junking up this thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by karragh
I'd reply to that except i"d be junking up the thread...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
/me looks at his monitor
oh shit!
oh well, last post now.
ah! Karragh is back with a spam bang!:P Anyway, no one replied to what I said, so I'm simply going to reiterate my vote for the gazzilionth time- Anyone but Bush.
What? Believe in all religions equally? Are you saying that he has to believe in Allah, Buddha, Jesus, Satan, and Scientology in order to get your blessing? The Christian religion doesn't take too kindly to polytheism among its followers as does Islam and Judaism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziegfried
I'm telling you that he's not a fundamentalist and church and state are still as separate as can be. When Bush banned partial birth abortion, Congress still left some room in the bill he signed that allowed women to get PBA's if they met the criteria for rare extreme cases. That sounds reasonable to me. Bush hasn't done anything else to hinder a woman's "right to choose" except maybe cease government funding for abortions.
He didn't ban stem-cell research. He just didn't want to give the researchers much government funding since half the country doesn't want to open the door for a government-sponsored industry of trading cloned or aborted body parts & tissue. If stem-cell research is so great, the pharmaceutical and medical-related corporations would pour money into it.
"My fellow Americans, this is our moment. Let us lift our eyes as one nation, and from the mountaintop of this American century, look ahead to the next one, asking God's blessing on our endeavors and on our beloved country."
Take a guess as to who said the above quote..........(Hint:NOT Bush)
Do you consider this person a fundamentalist that violated the church/state separation as well?
About Iraq and American Muslims........Would it have made any difference if an atheist President invaded Afghanistan and Iraq instead? An atheist could have come to the same conclusion as Bush and still invaded Iraq. In any case, the Muslims over there are going to be just as pissed at being invaded by an infidel whether it be atheist or Christian. I don't understand the part about Muslim pressure in the US. Are you referring to anti-Muslim or anti-Arab hate crimes committed by whites or Christians or Jews? I haven't heard of any rampant incidents lately.
"He who hath not sinned, cast the first stone." Almost every civilization, nation, and religion in existence has committed atrocities somewhere down the line, but over time they usually reform the error of their ways. If I did some research, I could probably find some atheist that committed genocide. Would you want me to hold a past incident like that against you or your group?Quote:
Yeah, they left for freedom, then enslaved people, funny that.
I would be sooo COOL with that. If these people would just drop the word "marriage" and call it a civil union, I bet Bush & the GOP would cease seeking to ban gay marriage. It would be a nice compromise.Quote:
So where is the problem with Civil Unions? That are not called Marriage, but give them equal treatment under the law as Married people.
If we leave now, that is the best way to piss away any chance of the Iraqis ever achieving a free democratic society. When we leave, the Iranians and Syrians are going send dumptrucks of AK-47's to their fellow fundamentalist loons in Iraq. Since Iraq doesn't have enough of its own cops and military to provide stability, the current transition government in Iraq would be overthrown by these terrorists. When their government is overthrown by these fuckwits, the major factions there aren't going to stand idly by to get fucked over by another ethnic or religious group's dictator. The Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis will secede their territory from each other and then start battling over who has control of the oil reserves. In any case, the terrorists win and they get a new area of operations to start conducting their next attack on American soil.Quote:
However I do know that the instability that is in Iraq today is because of US intervention. The Iraqis don't want them there. Atleast the majority of them, cosisting of the poor, lower middle class common man, whose opinion doesn't matter anyway. Everyday the death toll is easily above 50 for both the Iraqis and the Americans. This rising instability in Iraq can only be settled of the US leaves.
Do you honestly think we'll leave now just to end up coming back later to finish the job again because of another terrorist attack that originates from there? Either we properly finish the job there now, or we send our troops back to Iraq later when we find out that al Qaeda made a dirty bomb on their soil that they used to kill hundreds here. In any case, you're gonna bitch about the awful Americans and the evil boosh.......
1. Really?Quote:
If you leave Iraq in a civil war situation, it's your goddamn fault! You were meant to stabilize Iraq and leave ages ago...what is he waiting for? Another barrel of oil?
2. Let me see your country work a miracle and turn a country that has been under the iron fist of a brutal dictator for decades into a stable free society in less than a year.
3. Silly goose, the war was never about oil. Let me tell you some interesting trivia.........
A) Bush wasn't the only president to give Halliburton no-bid contracts, Clinton did too when he was in the Balkans. So I don't understand why people keep giving the shrub, "Ohnoes, he's turning Iraq into a subsidiary of Halliburton!!!!11111"
You ought to look at Halliburton the same way you view Microsoft. Sure, it sucks that Microsoft receives the majority of the business. But there aren't many companies who can do what they do on that scale. Oh, I forgot to mention that the only viable alternative to Halliburton was a French company. Like we really need to give the French our taxdollars.........
B) The UN Security Council rejected American efforts to place sanctions on the Sudan to stop the genocide. Why? The French torpedoed it. Why did France object? The Sudanese have oil reserves and the French have a stake in them. Any other American "blood for oil" conspiracies that I need to know of?
Because someone else was on their knees at the time giving Clinton a hummer........priorities.......priorities......Quote:
Where was all this kindness Uncle Sam is showing now, when all the world was begging at America's knees to fight Iraq when Saddam was committing genocide against the Kurds and the Shi'as?
Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Bush's presidency or terrorist attacks? We were hated before Bush. We'll be hated after Bush. I don't give a shit what anyone outside my country thinks and I sure as hell don't care what the terrorists think or why they hate us. If you hate us enough that you are plotting to kill us, then you deserve a MOAB colonic.....Quote:
Bush is increasingly making America a global hate-target......
I'm going to use the Cameron Alien flick to prove my point. If there is one alien parasite(facehugger), do you leave it alone and hope that it doesn't spread to kill everything on the face of the planet. If the actions of humans cause the alien population and threat to grow, do you still leave the threat alone in the hopes that it doesn't come back to haunt you?
Now, imagine that initially bin Laden only has around 10 thousand terrorist followers. He successfully pulls off the 9/11 attacks with 19 men. We send our military to wipe out the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. bin Laden gets 100,000 new followers because of American anti-terrorist activities. Do you just retreat and leave the terrorists alone in the hope that they won't come back to haunt us later? No, not a single terrorist should be breathing on the face of the earth, so if there are 100,000 of them they should all be taking a dirt nap. Retreating won't make that happen. If 19 guys could kill 158 times as many people on 9/11, imagine what 1 could do with a nuke.
I don't care if there are a million terrorists. It is possible to kill every one of them. If we could perforate a few million Axis soldiers in WW2, we could do it again today.
Post-war Iraq = Saddam's Iraq............LMAOQuote:
Saddam lies about how bad America is, Bush proves he's right! He's got a way to correct it...leaving Iraq. Do you know how the common man of Iraq feels? He doesn't care! He's being opressed the same way he was under Saddam.
You don't like how we treat terrorist and militant inmates that were trying to kill our troops at Abu Ghraib? Fine, but at least we gave up the former regime's policy of rape, mutilation, and execution of kids during our administration. You've gotta give us credit for something.......
Do you care to find out what can happen to a country that doesn't have an effective national security apparatus and has hostile neighbors trying to take advantage of a power vacuum?Quote:
Does America even care to find out whether Iraq can govern itself or not? Let it atleast function as an independant country if you really mean democracy.
Bush sucks, Kerry is a wanker. I no longer care for American politics other than the fact that they can be entertaining if one watches the Daily Show. I am 17, and I'm not a US citizen so I couldn't vote anyway. I went to see this concert in Pennsylvania which was sort of an anti-Bush movement to get the undecided states to vote for Kerry, and it featured Pearl Jam. :D Didn't care much for Eddie Vedder's speeches, though.
If I really cared about making a difference, Kerry would earn my vote. I don't think your country needs an ape in office for another four years to progress.
Edit: Of course Americans were hated well before Bush was in office. Here is the problem: Bush hasn't done shit to improve international relationships. He's only enfuriated middle Easterns even further after invading Iraq.
More examples of international-relation fuck-ups:Take a look at Kim-Jung-Il, Vladimir Putin, and countless other governors from small countries you've probably never heard of.
I've been with Kerry since the beginning and I'm there with him now. Oh and did you guys hear about the FOX news allegations? Yeah as it turns out, they have been passing false Kerry quote to put republicans on top. I could care less about the shit going on in Iraq right now. I have repeatedly voiced myself on that front. But this is simply unforgivable. Republicans are starting to lose and they knew that they could lose to my man, and they got scared. So scared that they are trying to put him down by the most underhanded of methods. Fucking annoying. So yeah, Kerry gets my vote. Easy.
Dude, Fox News has always been suspect. I'm not suprised that they'd pull this shit. They got thier own agenda going on....
Now, you know how we felt before Fox came into existence and ended the liberal media empire's monopoly......Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyberxion
Hmmmm.......What did Fox news do this time anyway?Quote:
I've been with Kerry since the beginning and I'm there with him now. Oh and did you guys hear about the FOX news allegations? Yeah as it turns out, they have been passing false Kerry quote to put republicans on top. I could care less about the shit going on in Iraq right now. I have repeatedly voiced myself on that front. But this is simply unforgivable. Republicans are starting to lose and they knew that they could lose to my man, and they got scared. So scared that they are trying to put him down by the most underhanded of methods. Fucking annoying. So yeah, Kerry gets my vote. Easy.
BTW, what did you think of Rathergate?
Call me uninformed, but what the fuck is so bad about being liberal? or moderate? or fucking communist, for that matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by reagan80
The media is not liberal...no matter how many times you say it...it will never be right...
Edit: Damn, Karragh quoted my typo :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
:nod: <---- nod of agreement
there is about one or two liberal stations, hardly the entire media..
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by karragh
TV: CBS, NBC, ABC are all liberal.
Newspaper: Many, but most notably The New York Times are liberal
I would say the most moderate would be CNN or Fox.
You will prolly say Fox is conservative, that may be, but it is still more moderate than most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fett aka hmm
okay, fair enough, if you want to say CBS, NBC, and ABC are liberal, can you find me an example or two of them being praticularly so, then i will se if i can find examples of fox being praticularly conservative....
oh, and i still don't think 3 tv stations counts as the whole media...