PDA

View Full Version : Major Political Issues In The United States - Appropriate Due To Upcoming Election!


AmericanAssassin
19-01-08, 21:50
Prepare For Contraversy... I Tend To Get A Little Nasty About My Politics! ;)

For today, instead of my usual ramblings about nothing, I've decided that I'm going to show some of my liberal political views. Those of you who know me, know that I'm a full supporter of the Democratic Party. (Hillary Clinton for President!) In my personal opinion, Republicans are out to destory the world. They say they want to help, however, everything they've done (with the exceptions of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan) has created nothing but disaster. What these people, if you can call them that, want to do is steal everything from others and pretend that they're helping out society. *Cough* Oil. *Cough* Iraq. *Cough* Did I just say that out loud? You bet your ass I did and that's not the half of it. Anyway, what follows are a bunch of my views:

The War in Iraq:
First off, I need to start off by informing all of you that the War in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. That is a fact. Black and White. Period. Also, it has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. There aren't any. Empty. Never existed. President Bush only used that as an excuse so that he could invade an innocent country and steal all of their oil. :) Sure, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy who killed thousands of innocent civilians during his presidency. Compared the the United States government, however, he was like Oprah Winfrey on her Christmas day special. Since 2003, the U.S. has murdered over 80,000 innocent civilians in Iraq. (iraqbodycount.org) Who are the real terrorists, I wonder? Sure, there are road side bombers and terrorists there. Duh! We're trying to kill them. They're just protecting their own, as any country (beside the U.S., due to the Bush administration) would.

Gay Rights/Marriage:
Did you know, that approximately 2.5% of the United Stated population is either homosexual or bisexual? Almost every sinlge one of those people say that they were born that way. I, personally, believe every single one of them. I heard an argument once, where somebody said that their (foolish) family believed that homosexuality was an attempt by many to get the attention of others. Personally, if I wanted attention, I would go streaking or yell something crazy at the top of my lungs. I wouldn't decide to have sex with a member of the same... well, sex. Most homosexuals also say that they've, at one point or another, denied their sexuality and attempted to appear straight. I believe them. Nobody would choose to be ridiculed on a regular basis. In my opinion, it's rediculous that the American society can't step up and support gay rights. They should be able to be happy too. For this reason (and the existence of the Bush administration), I am ashamed to call America my home. Aren't we supposed to be the revolutionary country, the one who will accept everybody because we believe in freedom? There's is nothing that upsets me more than how ficticious that is. What a joke!

Abortion:
Abortion is one of the more difficult topics to discuss. I, personally, am pro-choice. I believe that a woman should have options. Now, that's not to say that a girl shoudl be able to **** (pardon my French) everybody and abort the consequence monthly. There should be restrictions. For example, let's say a woman is walking through Central Park late at night (which you should never do) and gets raped by some old drunk who lives in a rose bush. Well, then, she should have every right to get an abortion. She didn't choose to get pregnant, to have her life destroyed in an instant. She should be able to live a fullfilling life. Another example: Let's say that Tiffany is 14 years old. Sadly, Tiffany is a giant ho bag who screws everything with legs. She gets pregnant. Well, she's only 14 years old. Everybody makes mistakes. I believe that Tiffany deserves a second chance in life. She should be able to have an abortion, hopefully learning not to lay everything she sees over on her bedspread. Same situation, but Tiffany is 34? By now, Tiffany has started a life style. She's not going to learn anything by getting an abortion. She'll just be back in the clinic a month later. This time, do not give her the procedure. She's trash and she doesn't deserve it.

Illegal Immigration:
This is one of the extremely rare cases in which I'm not sure what side to go with. Howeever, I believe that we need to look at government as America first. Sure, we're kind of like that now (from stealing), however, I think we need to earn it. That's not the point. I just though I'd throw that out there. Illegal Immigration: I think we should ban all illegal immigrants. If they want to live here bad enough, (which I don't understand why, since we're a country of terrorists) they should pass the exam that we have available to them. You know what I think... I think we should just build a wall on the entire Southern border of the United States. That exam can be the key... And, they need to be able to spreak English.

Gun Control:
Ha! This is one of the few things that I actually agree with the *shudders* Republican party about. I think that every family should have the right to own, at least, one hand gun to protect themselves. As we all know, the occassional child accidently blows his head off. Whoops! In that case, the parents are to blame. They should have made sure that the gun was safely locked in a drawer or tucked away in their attic. Whether or not the government should pass more gun laws, I'm not sure. More classes to aquire a gun sounds good on paper, but it would cost the government, and people a great deal of money. People should just be more careful with things and all of that could be avoided.

President Bush:
It's the year 2020... America is still fighting in Iraq, people are still out of jobs, and oil prices average around $8.50 a gallon. This is how I imagine the United States, with the way that things are going. President George W. Bush has done nothing to benefit our country. He's wasted billions and billions of federal dollars. Majority of the country didn't even vote for him! Al Gore won the popular vote, which credits each individual person, by 543,816 votes. (wikipedia.org) Who should be governing this country? People can tell me that Gore wouldn't have handled an event like 9/11 any better. Yes, he would. Unlike Bush, Al Gore would most likely have went to war with Afganistan. You know, the country who house Al Qauda, the group who actually attacked us. He wouldn't use 9/11 to get the country amped up for war with another country called Iraq. A country never threatened to hurt us... ever. Hmmm... The only real things I've seen Bush accomplish is the destruction of approximately 3,927 families lives, due to war casualties (antiwar.com), and a skyrocket in gas prices. :) How anybody could have ever supported him in the first place is extremelyt sad to me. How anybody could have supported him in 2004 causes me to lose faith in all of humanity. Lord, save us from this dumb ass!

I will now leave you with one last comment... Our government should kill idiots like Ann Coulter. She agrees with everything the Republican party says, simply because she's anti-Democrat. Those of you who vote in the coming election, please do not do this. If you vote for the Republican party because you feel that they're right, okay. (You'll actually be wrong about everything, but oh well...) Do not vote for that side because you feel like it. If you do, I hate you. Peace out. ;)

*This was initially just a blog on my MySpace page, however, I thought it was my duty as an American, to educate other of our politics.

Indiana Croft
19-01-08, 22:06
Okay here are my controversial answer, so be warned


The War in Iraq:
I think that it is absolutely necessary! That's all I'm going to say about that.


Gay Rights/Marriage:
I'm all for it:) Two people who love eachother shouldn't be prosecuted and constricted. What kind of question is that? "Do you believe in Gay rights?" It's idiotic. If you take away homosexuality from the equation, they are AMERICAN HUMAN BEINGS and should be allowed the rights of such a person. America is a country of freedom, and we need to remember that before we decide that we get to run the lives of people we consider "godless." They also forget that America is founded on freedom of religion and taking away a man/woman's rights because they are "abomination under the eyes of the lord" according to the bible should be unconstitutional.

Abortion:
Honestly, I don't think it's anyone's business whether a woman gets an abortion or not. That's her choice. That's all I'm going to say about that as well:)

Illegal Immigration:
Close the borders! I'm sorry, but the law is the law.

Gun Control:
People need full background and psychological checks before they can purchase a gun. Everyone has a right to bare arms, but it's rediculous that kids think they can go around shooting each other. This is a problem only in America because...? No one can really answer that, but we just can't give a gun to everyone. Restriction, restriction, restriction! People, this is the key:)

President Bush:
I liked him! Call me crazy, but I think he only did what was necessary.

These are my views, please don't hate me:o

Bowie
19-01-08, 22:06
Umm... those issues pale in comparison to the US economy. America cannot afford its huge government and its far-reaching warmongering empire without printing more money and thus reducing the dollar's overall value. China is buying America's debt, and America will have to pay back.

China will eventually own America at this rate, which poses more problems than the risk of another terrorist attack.

And as if fighting in Iraq for 10 years isn't going to **** off the terrorists even more.

AmericanAssassin
19-01-08, 22:22
The War in Iraq:
I think that it is absolutely necessary! That's all I'm going to say about that.

So, you thought it was necessary to invade a country who posed no threat to the United States, so that we could steal their oil? Oh, and so that we could kill over 80,000 innocent civilians... Okay...

And, I don't hate you... I just think you're wrong. About most things, right, but on the matters of the war and Bush, you're wrong. :)

Umm... those issues pale in comparison to the US economy. America cannot afford its huge government and its far-reaching warmongering empire without printing more money and thus reducing the dollar's overall value. China is buying America's debt, and America will have to pay back.

This was only part one of my views... I don't know enough about the economy to judge on that matter yet. Do you know the views of each side?

Hack
19-01-08, 22:24
Umm... those issues pale in comparison to the US economy. America cannot afford its huge government and its far-reaching warmongering empire without printing more money and thus reducing the dollar's overall value. China is buying America's debt, and America will have to pay back.

China will eventually own America at this rate, which poses more problems than the risk of another terrorist attack.

And as if fighting in Iraq for 10 years isn't going to **** off the terrorists even more.

That War in Iraq is probably having a nasty effect on the US economy too.

AmericanAssassin
19-01-08, 22:25
That War in Iraq is probably having a nasty effect on the US economy too.

I do know this... And for no other reason, but to rob them of one of their few resources. :hea:

Hack
19-01-08, 22:33
I do know this... And for no other reason, but to rob them of one of their few resources. :hea:


Well, We can't rob them directly. Thats not exactly how it works, but in principle you're right! Its all about who controls the Vast Energy reserves of the Middle East. Whomever controls that, controls the World.

Iraq Oil prodution is very low since the 2003 war. The rules of Oil economics are, the lower the supply the higher the price!!!

Distabilising the Middle East pushes up the price of oil to $100+ a barrel, which makes a few Oil corporations very very rich and helps rip off ordinary Americans.

The currents threats against Iran have alot to do with the amount of Oil in that country.

PARANOIA
19-01-08, 23:24
Gay rights? Abortion? Spare me the ****ing Freud! Economy, illegal immigration, and taxation are the three primary issues.

Quasimodo
19-01-08, 23:26
The war in Iraq: An absolute quagmire, but we're obligated to clean up our mess. The new Iraqi government needs to grow a pair and help get the country back on its feet, too. I don't feel I know enough to have an opinion about the terrorism situation, though.

Gay Rights/Marriage: In a biblical sense, marriage is between a man and a woman. However, if no one currently has a problem with a man and a woman of no denomination getting married (and being recognised as such by the government), then I don't see why it's such a stretch to let gays marry. Society needs to quit making such a novelty out of sexual orientation.

Abortion: I'm unsure about this. Personally, I'd probably never get an abortion (probably would feel too guilty about doing it). Some women very close to me have had abortions before, and I don't judge them for it.

Illegal Immigration: Send 'em all back to their home countries, put them in the back of the line to get visas. Everyone is looking for a better life, and even if we granted amnesty to all the illegal aliens here it'd be a drop in the bathtub on a global scale. If you feel sorry for them, help pay for their visas and healthcare, etc. out of your OWN wallet. It's a slap in the face to citizens to use taxpayer's money to cater to people who come to this country illegally; amnesty for illegals would be a slap in the face to people who wait several years and pay thousands of dollars to come to this country legally.

Gun Rights: I'm a strong supporter of the NRA and the second amendment. Guns shouldn't be taken away from lawful citizens because the government should be afraid of the people, and not the other way around. No amount of gun control will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. When someone breaks into your house ready to rob and murder, are you really satisfied with waiting for them to shoot your family and for the cops to come after all is said and done to write up a report? Are you really satisfied to let murderers get sheltered and fed with your tax dollars, and some of them even get parole? Don't buy into any bull**** any politician tells you that you're safer without a gun.

Economy: Giving every middle-class joe a $500 check to 'stimulate' the economy is not going to help in the long run. Government spending must be extremely reduced, and something must be done to entice corporations into bringing factories and jobs back to America. I have two suggestions to help bring about the former:

1. Give the president the power of the line-item veto. This should nip some pork barrel projects in the bud.
2. Put a cap on/eliminate spending for pork barrel projects made by state and local politicians.

I'm no economist so correct me if I'm wrong :)

Indiana Croft
19-01-08, 23:31
The war in Iraq: An absolute quagmire, but we're obligated to clean up our mess. The new Iraqi government needs to grow a pair and help get the country back on its feet, too. I don't feel I know enough to have an opinion about the terrorism situation, though.

Gay Rights/Marriage: In a biblical sense, marriage is between a man and a woman. However, if no one currently has a problem with a man and a woman of no denomination getting married (and being recognised as such by the government), then I don't see why it's such a stretch to let gays marry. Society needs to quit making such a novelty out of sexual orientation.

Abortion: I'm unsure about this. Personally, I'd probably never get an abortion (probably would feel too guilty about doing it). Some women very close to me have had abortions before, and I don't judge them for it.

Illegal Immigration: Send 'em all back to their home countries, put them in the back of the line to get visas. Everyone is looking for a better life, and even if we granted amnesty to all the illegal aliens here it'd be a drop in the bathtub on a global scale. If you feel sorry for them, help pay for their visas and healthcare, etc. out of your OWN wallet. It's a slap in the face to citizens to use taxpayer's money to cater to people who come to this country illegally; amnesty for illegals would be a slap in the face to people who wait several years and pay thousands of dollars to come to this country legally.

Gun Rights: I'm a strong supporter of the NRA and the second amendment. Guns shouldn't be taken away from lawful citizens because the government should be afraid of the people, and not the other way around. No amount of gun control will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. When someone breaks into your house ready to rob and murder, are you really satisfied with waiting for them to shoot your family and for the cops to come after all is said and done to write up a report? Are you really satisfied to let murderers get sheltered and fed with your tax dollars, and some of them even get parole? Don't buy into any bull**** any politician tells you that you're safer without a gun.

Economy: Giving every middle-class joe a $500 dollar check to 'stimulate' the economy is not going to help in the long run. Government spending must be extremely reduced, and something must be done to entice corporations into bringing factories and jobs back to America. I have two suggestion to help bring about the former:

1. Give the president the power of the line-item veto. This should nip some pork barrel projects in the bud.
2. Put a cap on/eliminate spending for pork barrel projects made by state and local politicians.

I'm no economist so correct me if I'm wrong :)


:tmb: I agree

PARANOIA
19-01-08, 23:32
Best plan for the primary three: FairTax. HR25.

Quasimodo
19-01-08, 23:34
Best plan for the primary three: FairTax. HR25.

Agree :tmb: Taxing from the rich to give to the 'deserving' only defeats the egalitarian, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" principles of our Founding Fathers. Let's just tax everyone the same.

Ward Dragon
19-01-08, 23:44
The war in Iraq: An absolute quagmire, but we're obligated to clean up our mess. The new Iraqi government needs to grow a pair and help get the country back on its feet, too. I don't feel I know enough to have an opinion about the terrorism situation, though.

Gay Rights/Marriage: In a biblical sense, marriage is between a man and a woman. However, if no one currently has a problem with a man and a woman of no denomination getting married (and being recognised as such by the government), then I don't see why it's such a stretch to let gays marry. Society needs to quit making such a novelty out of sexual orientation.

Abortion: I'm unsure about this. Personally, I'd probably never get an abortion (probably would feel too guilty about doing it). Some women very close to me have had abortions before, and I don't judge them for it.

Illegal Immigration: Send 'em all back to their home countries, put them in the back of the line to get visas. Everyone is looking for a better life, and even if we granted amnesty to all the illegal aliens here it'd be a drop in the bathtub on a global scale. If you feel sorry for them, help pay for their visas and healthcare, etc. out of your OWN wallet. It's a slap in the face to citizens to use taxpayer's money to cater to people who come to this country illegally; amnesty for illegals would be a slap in the face to people who wait several years and pay thousands of dollars to come to this country legally.

Gun Rights: I'm a strong supporter of the NRA and the second amendment. Guns shouldn't be taken away from lawful citizens because the government should be afraid of the people, and not the other way around. No amount of gun control will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. When someone breaks into your house ready to rob and murder, are you really satisfied with waiting for them to shoot your family and for the cops to come after all is said and done to write up a report? Are you really satisfied to let murderers get sheltered and fed with your tax dollars, and some of them even get parole? Don't buy into any bull**** any politician tells you that you're safer without a gun.

Economy: Giving every middle-class joe a $500 check to 'stimulate' the economy is not going to help in the long run. Government spending must be extremely reduced, and something must be done to entice corporations into bringing factories and jobs back to America. I have two suggestions to help bring about the former:

1. Give the president the power of the line-item veto. This should nip some pork barrel projects in the bud.
2. Put a cap on/eliminate spending for pork barrel projects made by state and local politicians.

I'm no economist so correct me if I'm wrong :)

That's pretty much my view on the topics mentioned.

Best plan for the primary three: FairTax. HR25.

The "Fair Tax" isn't fair. It's impossible to enforce and it will only reward the people who are better at cheating the system. A value-added tax would be better, but also very difficult to enforce. I think a flat tax is the most practical option.

PARANOIA
19-01-08, 23:47
The "Fair Tax" isn't fair. It's impossible to enforce and it will only reward the people who are better at cheating the system. A value-added tax would be better, but also very difficult to enforce. I think a flat tax is the most practical option.

How is it impossible to enforce? Did you read the book?

AmericanAssassin
19-01-08, 23:47
Gay rights? Abortion? Spare me the ****ing Freud! Economy, illegal immigration, and taxation are the three primary issues.

As I've already said, the topics I posted about above are only a few that concern me... I will be posting a lot more. ;)

Ward Dragon
19-01-08, 23:49
How is it impossible to enforce? Did you read the book?

Alright then. How will it be enforced?

AmericanAssassin
19-01-08, 23:52
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w66/AmericanAssassin/VoteHillary08-1.jpg :whi:

Quasimodo
19-01-08, 23:53
Re-evaluating the requirements for citizenship could also help the illegal immigration problem. For example, the government could change it to: you can only be considered an American citizen if you:
a. Gain citizenship legally with the right paperwork, etc.
b. Are born from American parents.

PARANOIA
20-01-08, 00:07
Alright then. How will it be enforced?

I'm not the one challenging the FairTax here, junior. You said it cannot be enforced. Explain why not, since you obviously know enough information to state your reasoning.

Ward Dragon
20-01-08, 00:10
Re-evaluating the requirements for citizenship could also help the illegal immigration problem. For example, the government could change it to: you can only be considered an American citizen if you:
a. Gain citizenship legally with the right paperwork, etc.
b. Are born from American parents.

Agreed. Having all babies born here count as citizens was only established in the first place because freed slaves were being discriminated against in the South when people said they didn't count as citizens. That problem is long since gone, so I don't see a reason for still granting citizenship to all babies born here if they do not have at least one parent who is a citizen already.

In any case, I'm coming to the conclusion that the best way to stop illegal immigration is out of our hands. If all of these illegal immigrants continue to come here and live under horrible conditions, they must think that things would have been even worse if they had stayed in Mexico or whichever country they are from (otherwise they would just go back, right?). So probably the best way to eliminate illegal immigration into the US would be to improve living conditions in Mexico and the other countries from which we receive a lot of illegal immigrants. Unfortunately I don't think we can do that ourselves.

I'm not the one challenging the FairTax here, junior. You said it cannot be enforced. Explain why not, since you obviously know enough information to state your reasoning.

You're the one claiming it would be better than the current system. I have searched all over the internet for how this tax could possibly be enforced, and the best solutions I've found say that basically the IRS will expand even more and start collecting sales taxes which would require even more paperwork than our current system. That sounds unwieldy and impractical to me.

PARANOIA
20-01-08, 00:14
You're the one claiming it would be better than the current system. I have searched all over the internet for how this tax could possibly be enforced, and the best solutions I've found say that basically the IRS will expand even more and start collecting sales taxes which would require even more paperwork than our current system. That sounds unwieldy and impractical to me.

You don't know jack about the FairTax. Read the book before you start making assumptions off the wall.

Ward Dragon
20-01-08, 00:15
You don't know jack about the FairTax. Read the book before you start making assumptions off the wall.

Nice. If you're going to bring it up in the first place and say it's better than our current system, then be prepared to explain how.

PARANOIA
20-01-08, 00:17
Nice. If you're going to bring it up in the first place and say it's better than our current system, then be prepared to explain how.

The system explains itself. If you read about it you can understand. You obviously haven't.

Very well then, if you're not willing to perform a simple task, go here and then counter the points presented within: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

rowanlim
20-01-08, 00:23
Well I'm not an American, so I can't give a very good opinion about most of the stuff that's being said here...hopefully I can tell you what people I know (meaning non-Americans) feel about the US government now...:wve:

Firstly the war in Iraq was a BAD idea. The US loses money & man power trying to obtain some "immaterial" control over the oil industry. Companies that specialize in warfare gain stupid profits because they control the sales of weaponry to the government. Plus, the Iraq war just made the global community feel that US is just a big bully with guns. Not a good feeling. The death of innocent civilians is something huge, guilt is not a strong enough buffer. I wonder if President Bush feels grief/sorrow about the deaths of these innocent people.

As for issues like gay rights, abortion, etc, they run hand in hand with religion. We can't persuade those very-religious people to accept stuff like that, but we need to PROTECT those affected by it. That's the reason why they should have laws to protect homosexuals, women who want to undergo abortion (for medical purposes & rape victims); they are people too who deserve to lead their lifes free from worry & prejudice.

Illegal immigrants are a problem everywhere. In my country, we round 'em up & ship them back to their native lands. The needs of the US citizens comes first. Letting them stay in the country isn't charity, it's stupidity & a depletion of the national income.

I think I'll stop here...correct me if I've said anything wrong/offensive. This is a really good thread. Thanks for sharing the current situation in the US with the rest of us :tmb: :)

Mr.Burns
20-01-08, 00:25
Paranoia, give it a rest. Play nice or you'll get a time out.

AmericanAssassin
20-01-08, 02:38
Religion in Politics:
To those of you who insist on clogging up this country with your religious ramblings, I have one thing to say to you: Shut the :cen: up! I consider myself a Christian, however, I do not believe that religion and politics should ever coincide. It's simply impossible to reason with a religious guru. So, if any of you are as such, you might as well close your trap now because you're wasting all of our time. :) Nothing you have to say matters. Now, if you want to talk about religion one day and politics the next, fine. Just don't freaking combine the two! Before any of you yammer on about how our country was founded with religion in mind, I also have one thing to say to you: I don't care. Aren't we also supposed to have freedom of religion? How do you think it makes the Muslims feel when they have Christianity forced down their throats by the government? Probably not that good. Peace. ;)

ihatecold17
20-01-08, 02:57
The War in Iraq:
It was needed but its time to leave


Gay Rights/Marriage:
Yeah, i think everyone should be able to do whatever they want.

Abortion:
Im ok with abortions, especially if youre in a position where you wouldnt be able to take care of it

Illegal Immigration:
tighter border control.

Gun Control:
more baackground checking. and

President Bush:
hes an idiot.

I think there are some other things too.

Circumcision:
I think it is horrible for routine circumcisions and babies should not be. If anything, it should be their choice when they are older.


Marijuana Legalization:
It should be legalized so it loses its stigma and people wont even smoke it.


Death Penalty:
I think it really is too loose with this one. I dont want to pay taxes only to keep someone who killed people in jail with possibilites of being released.

Not really a political issue, but i think sexual education should be taught sooner to reduce teen pregnancies. *cough* Jaime Lynn Spears *cough*

And speaking of which, i think that there should be laws about paparazzi and celebrities. They shouldnt be allowed so close to them.

SamReeves
20-01-08, 03:05
*puts on flak jacket*

Prepare For Contraversy... I Tend To Get A Little Nasty About My Politics! ;)

For today, instead of my usual ramblings about nothing, I've decided that I'm going to show some of my liberal political views. Those of you who know me, know that I'm a full supporter of the Democratic Party. (Hillary Clinton for President!) In my personal opinion, Republicans are out to destory the world. They say they want to help, however, everything they've done (with the exceptions of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan) has created nothing but disaster. What these people, if you can call them that, want to do is steal everything from others and pretend that they're helping out society. *Cough* Oil. *Cough* Iraq. *Cough* Did I just say that out loud? You bet your ass I did and that's not the half of it. Anyway, what follows are a bunch of my views:

Huh? The liberals are good at taking away from everyone and giving to the government. The Republicans have given uprecdented growth in the economy, low taxes, a better standard of living, and socially continued to perserve America's taste for conservatism.

The War in Iraq:
First off, I need to start off by informing all of you that the War in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. That is a fact. Black and White. Period. Also, it has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. There aren't any. Empty. Never existed. President Bush only used that as an excuse so that he could invade an innocent country and steal all of their oil. :) Sure, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy who killed thousands of innocent civilians during his presidency. Compared the the United States government, however, he was like Oprah Winfrey on her Christmas day special. Since 2003, the U.S. has murdered over 80,000 innocent civilians in Iraq. (iraqbodycount.org) Who are the real terrorists, I wonder? Sure, there are road side bombers and terrorists there. Duh! We're trying to kill them. They're just protecting their own, as any country (beside the U.S., due to the Bush administration) would.

Saddam Hussein paid on average $25K to the families of suicide bombers. Whether they bombed Israel or the US is not in question. They would be in the crosshairs of the US eventually since Iraq sponsored terror, period. The U.S. miltary has not executed 80,000 civilians as you have erroneously reported here. Every Navy and Army medic in fact have taken time and money to treat all Iraqi civillans who have been affected by ops in Iraq.

Gay Rights/Marriage:
Did you know, that approximately 2.5% of the United Stated population is either homosexual or bisexual? Almost every sinlge one of those people say that they were born that way. I, personally, believe every single one of them. I heard an argument once, where somebody said that their (foolish) family believed that homosexuality was an attempt by many to get the attention of others. Personally, if I wanted attention, I would go streaking or yell something crazy at the top of my lungs. I wouldn't decide to have sex with a member of the same... well, sex. Most homosexuals also say that they've, at one point or another, denied their sexuality and attempted to appear straight. I believe them. Nobody would choose to be ridiculed on a regular basis. In my opinion, it's rediculous that the American society can't step up and support gay rights. They should be able to be happy too. For this reason (and the existence of the Bush administration), I am ashamed to call America my home. Aren't we supposed to be the revolutionary country, the one who will accept everybody because we believe in freedom? There's is nothing that upsets me more than how ficticious that is. What a joke!

Homosexuals have every right just like every other citizen in the United States. They can engage in civil unions, but not marriage. That is currently defined as a relationship between a man and woman. A family undoubtedly needs a father and mother to exist. There are no doubts about this. Blindly donating sperm doesn't make a family.

Abortion:
Abortion is one of the more difficult topics to discuss. I, personally, am pro-choice. I believe that a woman should have options. Now, that's not to say that a girl shoudl be able to **** (pardon my French) everybody and abort the consequence monthly. There should be restrictions. For example, let's say a woman is walking through Central Park late at night (which you should never do) and gets raped by some old drunk who lives in a rose bush. Well, then, she should have every right to get an abortion. She didn't choose to get pregnant, to have her life destroyed in an instant. She should be able to live a fullfilling life. Another example: Let's say that Tiffany is 14 years old. Sadly, Tiffany is a giant ho bag who screws everything with legs. She gets pregnant. Well, she's only 14 years old. Everybody makes mistakes. I believe that Tiffany deserves a second chance in life. She should be able to have an abortion, hopefully learning not to lay everything she sees over on her bedspread. Same situation, but Tiffany is 34? By now, Tiffany has started a life style. She's not going to learn anything by getting an abortion. She'll just be back in the clinic a month later. This time, do not give her the procedure. She's trash and she doesn't deserve it.

I used to be sympathetic to cases like this when I was younger. However as I become older and more aware of what life means with God, I am opposed to all abortions. Even in cases of rape. When we disrespect the conception of life there is no hope for the human race. Roe vs. Wade will be overturned at some point.

Illegal Immigration:
This is one of the extremely rare cases in which I'm not sure what side to go with. Howeever, I believe that we need to look at government as America first. Sure, we're kind of like that now (from stealing), however, I think we need to earn it. That's not the point. I just though I'd throw that out there. Illegal Immigration: I think we should ban all illegal immigrants. If they want to live here bad enough, (which I don't understand why, since we're a country of terrorists) they should pass the exam that we have available to them. You know what I think... I think we should just build a wall on the entire Southern border of the United States. That exam can be the key... And, they need to be able to spreak English.

Here we agree. However we don't need to ban "illegal immigrants." We just need to enforce the law as it is on the books, and avoid any kind of accelerated pathway for citizenship for illegal immigrants. As they say, pay your fine, get to the back of the line and speak English!

Gun Control:
Ha! This is one of the few things that I actually agree with the *shudders* Republican party about. I think that every family should have the right to own, at least, one hand gun to protect themselves. As we all know, the occassional child accidently blows his head off. Whoops! In that case, the parents are to blame. They should have made sure that the gun was safely locked in a drawer or tucked away in their attic. Whether or not the government should pass more gun laws, I'm not sure. More classes to aquire a gun sounds good on paper, but it would cost the government, and people a great deal of money. People should just be more careful with things and all of that could be avoided.

I'm glad you agree here. A carry permit could have avoided VT and other massacres. Bad people will still be out there to the best of the police department's abilities. Also a sportsman's right to hunt should be protected.

President Bush:
It's the year 2020... America is still fighting in Iraq, people are still out of jobs, and oil prices average around $8.50 a gallon. This is how I imagine the United States, with the way that things are going. President George W. Bush has done nothing to benefit our country. He's wasted billions and billions of federal dollars. Majority of the country didn't even vote for him! Al Gore won the popular vote, which credits each individual person, by 543,816 votes. (wikipedia.org) Who should be governing this country? People can tell me that Gore wouldn't have handled an event like 9/11 any better. Yes, he would. Unlike Bush, Al Gore would most likely have went to war with Afganistan. You know, the country who house Al Qauda, the group who actually attacked us. He wouldn't use 9/11 to get the country amped up for war with another country called Iraq. A country never threatened to hurt us... ever. Hmmm... The only real things I've seen Bush accomplish is the destruction of approximately 3,927 families lives, due to war casualties (antiwar.com), and a skyrocket in gas prices. :) How anybody could have ever supported him in the first place is extremelyt sad to me. How anybody could have supported him in 2004 causes me to lose faith in all of humanity. Lord, save us from this dumb ass!

Bush has had his shortcomings with Republicans alike. The expansion of government is un-Republican like. DHS needs to be dissolved. It was nothing more than an appeasement to the Democrats. Other than that, President Bush has been a rock with the military and economy. No other President has gone as many times as him to see and shake hands with the boots in the field. I can't tell you what a boost it is to see your commander-in-chief in person. The American economy has fared well until late. Seven years of unprecedented growth, jobs, low interest rates, expansion of the internet, technology, and low taxes. Nobody in the liberal media will point that out nor will they want to. I voted for Bush twice and would do so again.

I will now leave you with one last comment... Our government should kill idiots like Ann Coulter. She agrees with everything the Republican party says, simply because she's anti-Democrat. Those of you who vote in the coming election, please do not do this. If you vote for the Republican party because you feel that they're right, okay. (You'll actually be wrong about everything, but oh well...) Do not vote for that side because you feel like it. If you do, I hate you. Peace out. ;)

That's a cold blooded and if not stupid idea to advocate the killing of someone else. As much as I dislike Keith Olbermann and other liberals, I would never, ever want harm done to them. Killing those who you oppose is no different than what Joe Stalin did in the early days of the Soviet Union.

*This was initially just a blog on my MySpace page, however, I thought it was my duty as an American, to educate other of our politics.

Thus you have. I know more than ever that people who advocate this malarky can't be taken seriously. :wve:

Hack
20-01-08, 03:11
Gun Rights: I'm a strong supporter of the NRA and the second amendment. Guns shouldn't be taken away from lawful citizens because the government should be afraid of the people, and not the other way around. No amount of gun control will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. When someone breaks into your house ready to rob and murder, are you really satisfied with waiting for them to shoot your family and for the cops to come after all is said and done to write up a report? Are you really satisfied to let murderers get sheltered and fed with your tax dollars, and some of them even get parole? Don't buy into any bull**** any politician tells you that you're safer without a gun.



I hate to **** on your parade but the goverment isn't afraid of its people.
It carries out numerous policies that are in direct opposition to wishes of the public. There is gun control in plenty of western countries that have not yet become horrible dictatorships, have lower violent crime rates than the US so on and so on. I would hate to be in fear that someone was going to break in to my house and rob and murder all the time.

Don't worry, I'm not opposed to the right to bare arms itself, just that there needs to be tighter gun control.

I'm sure there are some very big buisness interests that would oppose tighter gun control, profit enormously from the illegal use of firearms.

AmericanAssassin
20-01-08, 03:12
I found a couple of your comments interesting... Here are my views on your views. Everything is opinion, of course...

The War in Iraq: It was needed but its time to leave

Wrong. The War in Iraq was never needed. Instead, we should have been focusing our attention and federal funding on issues like Osama Bin Ladan, the man who attacked the twin towers. If either war matters, it's the War on Terror, or in other words, on Afghanistan. Afghanistan, according to intel from the CIA, is the country in which Osama Bin Laden, and several other members of Al Qaeda are hidden. George Bush used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to scare the country and get them amped up for war. Then, he sent us there to kill over 80,000 innocent civilians and to lose almost 4,000 U.S. military soldier, just so he could steel a bunch of oil from their country... Trying to stop a dictatorship? I think not.

Circumcision: I think it is horrible for routine circumcisions and babies should not be. If anything, it should be their choice when they are older.

Wrong. Well, I've never really thought much on the matter, but I kind of disagree with you. I've read studies before that suggest a circumsized ***** is less likely to become infected... Those who have said that it leaves a traumatizing effect on a child are being overdramatic. The baby was just pushed out its mothers uterus, where it had been for nine months, in a short period of time. The clipping of some extra skin isn't going to affect it that much.

Marijuana Legalization: It should be legalized so it loses its stigma and people wont even smoke it.

Wrong. I promise you, I'm not disageeing with you just for the sake of it. I actually don't agree with a lot of what you've posted. Sure, it might take the stigma off for a little while... However, I don't want a bunch of dumbasses running around town. We already have problems with drunks. I really don't want to add to the problem. I know that they're not necessarily creating any danger, but annoyances can be just as bad, if not worse.

Chris.Talg0
20-01-08, 03:14
Illegal Immigration:
This is one of the extremely rare cases in which I'm not sure what side to go with. Howeever, I believe that we need to look at government as America first. Sure, we're kind of like that now (from stealing), however, I think we need to earn it. That's not the point. I just though I'd throw that out there. Illegal Immigration: I think we should ban all illegal immigrants. If they want to live here bad enough, (which I don't understand why, since we're a country of terrorists) they should pass the exam that we have available to them. You know what I think... I think we should just build a wall on the entire Southern border of the United States. That exam can be the key... And, they need to be able to spreak English.



so why not build a wall on the entire northern border of the US?

AmericanAssassin
20-01-08, 03:17
so why not build a wall on the entire northern border of the US?

Canadians don't often try to jump the borders... like Mexicans do. :p

@ Sam Reeves: I'll have some comments on your comments in a while... Even though I think you're wrong about almost everything, I'm glad you actually replied to all of my views in a lengthy post. ;)

Chris.Talg0
20-01-08, 03:29
Canadians don't often try to jump the borders... like Mexicans do. :p


so ur saying that the few canadians that come here illegally is ok?

Chiki Mina
20-01-08, 03:29
Why do people's opinions has to be classified as wrong. Every one has different opinions and views. None are wrong. That doesn't make you to be right on your opinions.

Either you agree or don't agree. None are wrong none are right.

Ward Dragon
20-01-08, 03:29
Wrong. Well, I've never really thought much on the matter, but I kind of disagree with you. I've read studies before that suggest a circumsized ***** is less likely to become infected... Those who have said that it leaves a traumatizing effect on a child are being overdramatic. The baby was just pushed out its mothers uterus, where it had been for nine months, in a short period of time. The clipping of some extra skin isn't going to affect it that much.

I don't understand why male circumcision is acceptable when female circumcision is not. They are both equally wrong in my opinion. Why would anyone want to cut up a healthy baby? :(

amiro1989
20-01-08, 03:31
Okay here are my controversial answer, so be warned


The War in Iraq:
I think that it is absolutely necessary! That's all I'm going to say about that.




Do you have any reasons for that?

AmericanAssassin
20-01-08, 03:33
so ur saying that the few canadians that come here illegally is ok?

I don't think you know what you're talking about... You're putting words in my mouth. No, I think that the same rules should apply. However, it is a fact that we have problems with Mexicans and Cubans that are much more serious than Canada! :rolleyes: Now, seriously, don't comment on this again, because this is by far the most stupid debate I've ever had.

I don't understand why male circumcision is acceptable when female circumcision is not. They are both equally wrong in my opinion. Why would anyone want to cut up a healthy baby? :(

Female circumcisions are usually performed to keep girls from having sex with men other than their husbands. A male circumcision is done for health reasons. :) A female circumcision makes females lose sexual pleasure. Male circumcisions have been known to do the same, on rare occassions, but they're usually harmless... I think it should be up to the parent, as it is, at birth.

amiro1989
20-01-08, 03:36
^Sorry, that one cracked me up :vlol:

Ward Dragon
20-01-08, 03:40
Female circumcisions are usually performed to keep girls from having sex with men other than their husbands. A male circumcision is done for health reasons. :) A female circumcision makes females lose sexual pleasure. Male circumcisions have been known to do the same, on rare occassions, but they're usually harmless... I think it should be up to the parent, as it is, at birth.

Why shouldn't it be the child's choice? A potentially life-altering surgery like that should not be done merely out of routine. I'm against circumcising all babies, regardless of gender.

Chris.Talg0
20-01-08, 03:40
Female circumcisions are usually performed to keep girls from having sex with men other than their husbands. A male circumcision is done for health reasons. :) A female circumcision makes females lose sexual pleasure. Male circumcisions have been known to do the same, on rare occassions, but they're usually harmless... I think it should be up to the parent, as it is, at birth.

then wouldnt it be the same for them with their husbands?

AmericanAssassin
20-01-08, 03:42
Why shouldn't it be the child's choice? A potentially life-altering surgery like that should not be done merely out of routine. I'm against circumcising all babies, regardless of gender.

To be honest, I've never thought all that much on the topic... It's customary for it to happen in the U.S. as of today, and it's not causing any major medical problems. It's actually helping with them, so... :p

then wouldnt it be the same for them with their husbands?

Yes, but in most cultures that perform such surgeries, sex is for reproduction only for the women... It's cruel, I know. :(

Ward Dragon
20-01-08, 03:45
then wouldnt it be the same for them with their husbands?

Yeah, pretty much. Female circumcisions are only done in countries where the women are treated lower than dirt. I only brought it up because everyone here acknowledges it's wrong to mutilate little girls, so I wanted to know why they don't think twice about doing it to baby boys. I remember when my little brother was born, the nurse kept harassing my father about why he didn't want the baby to get circumcised, so finally my father asked her if she was circumcised. She was so shocked and angry that she finally just left us alone :p I don't understand why there's a double standard. I think it's wrong in both cases.

Hack
20-01-08, 03:46
I don't understand why male circumcision is acceptable when female circumcision is not. They are both equally wrong in my opinion. Why would anyone want to cut up a healthy baby? :(

Both are different. Female cicumcision removes the Clitoris so the girl cannot have any sexual pleasure. It is a much more horrible practice.

Male cicumcision just removes the foreskin. Health benefits are claimed about this, but they are pretty dubious. It mostly just an ancient religious tradition that has weeded its way into general medical practice. This may also reduce sexual pleasure because the foreskin has alot of nerves in it and glides over the ***** to reduce friction in masturbation and sexual intercourse.

I really think it should be up to the indvidual when they grow up to choose this. A little hunch tells me that all mammals are born with a foreskin for a good reason.

Quasimodo
20-01-08, 03:53
I hate to **** on your parade but the goverment isn't afraid of its people.
It carries out numerous policies that are in direct opposition to wishes of the public. There is gun control in plenty of western countries that have not yet become horrible dictatorships, have lower violent crime rates than the US so on and so on. I would hate to be in fear that someone was going to break in to my house and rob and murder all the time.

Don't worry, I'm not opposed to the right to bare arms itself, just that there needs to be tighter gun control.

I'm sure there are some very big buisness interests that would oppose tighter gun control, profit enormously from the illegal use of firearms.

Show me the statistics where tightening gun control has significantly lowered the violent crime rate.

I believed I phrased it that government should be afraid of the people, not that they are afraid of the people.

Ward Dragon
20-01-08, 03:58
I really think it should be up to the indvidual when they grow up to choose this.

That's the point I was trying to make :)

Hack
20-01-08, 03:59
Show me the statistics where tightening gun control has significantly lowered the violent crime rate.

I believed I phrased it that government should be afraid of the people, not that they are afraid of the people.

You implied that right to bare arms would make a goverment afraid of its people. But this isn't the case.

Show me the statistics where super easy access to guns has signifigantly lowered the violent crime rate, robberies, home break-ins and murders.

Quasimodo
20-01-08, 04:01
You implied that right to bare arms would make a goverment afraid of its people. But this isn't the case.

Show me the statistics where super easy access to guns has signifigantly lowered the violent crime rate, robberies, home break-ins and murders.

I asked you first ;)

Melonie Tomb Raider
20-01-08, 04:05
*puts on flak jacket*



Huh? The liberals are good at taking away from everyone and giving to the government. The Republicans have given uprecdented growth in the economy, low taxes, a better standard of living, and socially continued to perserve America's taste for conservatism.



Saddam Hussein paid on average $25K to the families of suicide bombers. Whether they bombed Israel or the US is not in question. They would be in the crosshairs of the US eventually since Iraq sponsored terror, period. The U.S. miltary has not executed 80,000 civilians as you have erroneously reported here. Every Navy and Army medic in fact have taken time and money to treat all Iraqi civillans who have been affected by ops in Iraq.



Homosexuals have every right just like every other citizen in the United States. They can engage in civil unions, but not marriage. That is currently defined as a relationship between a man and woman. A family undoubtedly needs a father and mother to exist. There are no doubts about this. Blindly donating sperm doesn't make a family.



I used to be sympathetic to cases like this when I was younger. However as I become older and more aware of what life means with God, I am opposed to all abortions. Even in cases of rape. When we disrespect the conception of life there is no hope for the human race. Roe vs. Wade will be overturned at some point.



Here we agree. However we don't need to ban "illegal immigrants." We just need to enforce the law as it is on the books, and avoid any kind of accelerated pathway for citizenship for illegal immigrants. As they say, pay your fine, get to the back of the line and speak English!



I'm glad you agree here. A carry permit could have avoided VT and other massacres. Bad people will still be out there to the best of the police department's abilities. Also a sportsman's right to hunt should be protected.



Bush has had his shortcomings with Republicans alike. The expansion of government is un-Republican like. DHS needs to be dissolved. It was nothing more than an appeasement to the Democrats. Other than that, President Bush has been a rock with the military and economy. No other President has gone as many times as him to see and shake hands with the boots in the field. I can't tell you what a boost it is to see your commander-in-chief in person. The American economy has fared well until late. Seven years of unprecedented growth, jobs, low interest rates, expansion of the internet, technology, and low taxes. Nobody in the liberal media will point that out nor will they want to. I voted for Bush twice and would do so again.



That's a cold blooded and if not stupid idea to advocate the killing of someone else. As much as I dislike Keith Olbermann and other liberals, I would never, ever want harm done to them. Killing those who you oppose is no different than what Joe Stalin did in the early days of the Soviet Union.



Thus you have. I know more than ever that people who advocate this malarky can't be taken seriously. :wve:

All I can say to this is dude, you rock! :tmb:

I agree whole heartedly. :jmp:

Hack
20-01-08, 04:06
I asked you first ;)

I'll show u mine if u show me ur's :cln:

Quasimodo
20-01-08, 04:10
You might find this document of interest: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.2/GunFacts4-2-Screen.pdf

ihatecold17
20-01-08, 04:29
Wrong. Well, I've never really thought much on the matter, but I kind of disagree with you. I've read studies before that suggest a circumsized ***** is less likely to become infected

Well ill tell you this much. I, personally, am not circumcised, and I have never had a UTI or infection of any sort down there.

Camera Obscura
20-01-08, 04:34
*puts on flak jacket*



Huh? The liberals are good at taking away from everyone and giving to the government. The Republicans have given uprecdented growth in the economy, low taxes, a better standard of living, and socially continued to perserve America's taste for conservatism.



Saddam Hussein paid on average $25K to the families of suicide bombers. Whether they bombed Israel or the US is not in question. They would be in the crosshairs of the US eventually since Iraq sponsored terror, period. The U.S. miltary has not executed 80,000 civilians as you have erroneously reported here. Every Navy and Army medic in fact have taken time and money to treat all Iraqi civillans who have been affected by ops in Iraq.



Homosexuals have every right just like every other citizen in the United States. They can engage in civil unions, but not marriage. That is currently defined as a relationship between a man and woman. A family undoubtedly needs a father and mother to exist. There are no doubts about this. Blindly donating sperm doesn't make a family.



I used to be sympathetic to cases like this when I was younger. However as I become older and more aware of what life means with God, I am opposed to all abortions. Even in cases of rape. When we disrespect the conception of life there is no hope for the human race. Roe vs. Wade will be overturned at some point.



Here we agree. However we don't need to ban "illegal immigrants." We just need to enforce the law as it is on the books, and avoid any kind of accelerated pathway for citizenship for illegal immigrants. As they say, pay your fine, get to the back of the line and speak English!



I'm glad you agree here. A carry permit could have avoided VT and other massacres. Bad people will still be out there to the best of the police department's abilities. Also a sportsman's right to hunt should be protected.



Bush has had his shortcomings with Republicans alike. The expansion of government is un-Republican like. DHS needs to be dissolved. It was nothing more than an appeasement to the Democrats. Other than that, President Bush has been a rock with the military and economy. No other President has gone as many times as him to see and shake hands with the boots in the field. I can't tell you what a boost it is to see your commander-in-chief in person. The American economy has fared well until late. Seven years of unprecedented growth, jobs, low interest rates, expansion of the internet, technology, and low taxes. Nobody in the liberal media will point that out nor will they want to. I voted for Bush twice and would do so again.



That's a cold blooded and if not stupid idea to advocate the killing of someone else. As much as I dislike Keith Olbermann and other liberals, I would never, ever want harm done to them. Killing those who you oppose is no different than what Joe Stalin did in the early days of the Soviet Union.



Thus you have. I know more than ever that people who advocate this malarky can't be taken seriously. :wve:

I agree with everything you say except for the part about abortion.

It seems you are religious when it comes to abortion so I understand what your point is. However I try to keep religion out of my views and I have to say that if a person wanted to have an abortion they should be able to do so. Whether it is because of rape, a mistake, or even if they are too stupid to use a condom, abortion should still be allowed while the baby is still a fetus. The choice should fall onto the parent/s.

Quasimodo
20-01-08, 04:36
I agree with everything you say except for the part about abortion.

It seems you are religious when it comes to abortion so I understand what your point is. However I try to keep religion out of my views and I have to say that if a person wanted to have an abortion they should be able to do so. Whether it is because of rape, a mistake, or even if they are too stupid to use a condom, abortion should still be allowed while the baby is still a fetus. The choice should fall onto the parent/s.

Not all pro-lifers are religious. (http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9602.htm)

Chiki Mina
20-01-08, 04:44
Not getting my religion in the way of the topic of abortion, but I don't find it to be fair for the baby to suffer the consequences. If the the female is sexual active, and was, I guess, woman enough to open her legs, why can't she be woman enough to accept responisbility in raising a baby.

About rapes, I know cases that the mothers were raped by 12 and got pregnant. But didn't want abortion because even if the baby is the result of forced sex, it wasn't the baby's fault. That is something that I admire and have a great deal of respect.

It is true that you own your body and can do whatever you want with it. But what right do you have in killing a human being? It's not a toy, it's not a thing, it's alive. Abortion is only necessary when the mother is at risk or complications ocurring.

Not saying I'm wrong nor I'm saying I'm right. Just giving my own little POV on abortion :wve:.

Camera Obscura
20-01-08, 04:47
Not all pro-lifers are religious. (http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9602.htm)

I know that not all "pro-lifers" are religious but I was referring to SamReeves's mention of God. The way he phrased it made it seem like he holds religious views when it comes to abortion.

But I have looked at the article you posted which was an interesting read. :wve:

Chiki Mina
20-01-08, 04:53
I do very much agree with SamReeves :). I am Christian and see it that way as well. But I decided to add my POV without injecting my beliefs. I might later on. But decided to do something different :wve:.

SamReeves
20-01-08, 05:16
I agree with everything you say except for the part about abortion.

It seems you are religious when it comes to abortion so I understand what your point is. However I try to keep religion out of my views and I have to say that if a person wanted to have an abortion they should be able to do so. Whether it is because of rape, a mistake, or even if they are too stupid to use a condom, abortion should still be allowed while the baby is still a fetus. The choice should fall onto the parent/s.

So I am. The founding fathers built the United States on a basis of faith and morals. Abortion should not be allowed period. It is immoral.

Not all pro-lifers are religious. (http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9602.htm)

Very true.

Ward Dragon
20-01-08, 05:18
It seems you are religious when it comes to abortion so I understand what your point is. However I try to keep religion out of my views and I have to say that if a person wanted to have an abortion they should be able to do so. Whether it is because of rape, a mistake, or even if they are too stupid to use a condom, abortion should still be allowed while the baby is still a fetus. The choice should fall onto the parent/s.

The part in bold is what I disagree with since the baby is technically a fetus right up until birth. I am fairly certain that the baby is developed enough to feel pain at about 20 weeks / 5 months of development. Because of that, I think that if the woman wants an abortion she should do it before the baby can feel pain. If she's dead certain she wants an abortion, then several months should be plenty of time to get one. After the point where the baby can feel pain, then I don't think abortions should be allowed (if the mother's life is in danger, then the mother must be saved. I consider that to be medical complications rather than an abortion). If it really takes a woman more than several months to decide she wants an abortion, then she's probably indecisive enough that she'd end up regretting it in the end. So, to sum up, I don't think I'd ever get an abortion myself, but I wouldn't object to another woman getting an abortion as long as she did it before the baby was developed enough to feel pain, which is about 5 months into the pregnancy.

Tthe Spirit
20-01-08, 06:49
The War in Iraq:
USa has made a big mistake by doing this.
Just that USA and Israel are together giving themselves the freedom to do whatever they want and 90% of the world just clapps for them.
Wonder when thy hear The sky screaming at them.
I would like to see how they will look like ;)

Gay Rights/Marriage:
Did you know, that approximately 2.5% of the United Stated population is either homosexual or bisexual? Almost every sinlge one of those people say that they were born that way.

Well having disbeleif in the religious law indicates the weakness of man and incapability of fighting self desires to restore back the health.
I know, they have to be repected and they have to be known.
They even must nnot be exceuted or whatever bad punishement is said about them.
It depends.
I know it may sound a bit rude, but someone saying that he was born Gay or so, this is a big infidel and an irony to the Strength of God himself that he creates gay people and then will put them in hell or be punished by the laws of the prophets.
The act has been denied since it first occured during the Era of Loot and Abraham and the whole nation was cursed just because they denied the laws of God (dont take this as against anyone of you.. that nation had gays as tresspassers and evil men who used to steal immigrants and forced them to lay with them or they would kill them).
Anyway, saying that i was born as a gay or homo is false.
Because sexual feelings are the sensation coming from sexual glands and the excitatation of the sex hormones that push the sexual urge.
Disbalance leads to either case.
just as someone may become nervous due to rapid increase in the release of excited nervous influx right through the synapses, many other cases that cause disbalance are even included in sex.
Estrogen, progesterone and testesterone which are the hormones responsible for male and female characteristics.
This is a huge subject and needs much focus, but being homo is disbalance in the amounts and can be restored to quite the normal level again, but eveything needs a wise decision and the intension to do it.
so basicaaly i dont think it is good to give a right for someone to do something that is against the law of nature.
Dont support them to do it, but be of aid to let them shift and stabilize again.


Abortion:
Abortion is one of the more difficult topics to discuss. I, personally, am pro-choice. I believe that a woman should have options. Now, that's not to say that a girl shoudl be able to **** (pardon my French) everybody and abort the consequence monthly. There should be restrictions. For example, let's say a woman is walking through Central Park late at night (which you should never do) and gets raped by some old drunk who lives in a rose bush. Well, then, she should have every right to get an abortion. She didn't choose to get pregnant, to have her life destroyed in an instant. She should be able to live a fullfilling life. Another example: Let's say that Tiffany is 14 years old. Sadly, Tiffany is a giant ho bag who screws everything with legs. She gets pregnant. Well, she's only 14 years old. Everybody makes mistakes. I believe that Tiffany deserves a second chance in life. She should be able to have an abortion, hopefully learning not to lay everything she sees over on her bedspread. Same situation, but Tiffany is 34? By now, Tiffany has started a life style. She's not going to learn anything by getting an abortion. She'll just be back in the clinic a month later. This time, do not give her the procedure. She's trash and she doesn't deserve it.
I support you in all that you said.

Illegal Immigration:
This is one of the extremely rare cases in which I'm not sure what side to go with. Howeever, I believe that we need to look at government as America first. Sure, we're kind of like that now (from stealing), however, I think we need to earn it. That's not the point. I just though I'd throw that out there. Illegal Immigration: I think we should ban all illegal immigrants. If they want to live here bad enough, (which I don't understand why, since we're a country of terrorists) they should pass the exam that we have available to them. You know what I think... I think we should just build a wall on the entire Southern border of the United States. That exam can be the key... And, they need to be able to spreak English.
Though i am not american.. i am lebanese, but yes.
Even for my country.
It is so ugly being very much owning a global kind heart.
sometimes you have to put an end to others.

Gun Control:
Perhaps there should be a tool for defense of the family.
Just need some restriction laws.

President Bush:
And the Oscar for Best Actor of the Year goes to.......
Drums plz....

Mr. George Bush......

Capt. Murphy
20-01-08, 13:24
What about Health Care?

Edit: Oh wait. I suppose that's too boring of an issue to discuss. Everyone would like Health Care. Not matter which side of the fence you drink your Kool-Aid.

Edit2. On Topic Reply.

The War in Iraq: Gotta take out the Terrorist supporter. Gotta get them folks back on their feet. Wouldn't be prudent to leave 'em there with that... Bully. Not gunna do it. He hates Israel. Anyone that likes Saddam is an Antisemite and I say screw you! *points finger*

Gay Rights/Marriage: Just have Unions. :-/

Abortion: Only if - and I mean ONLY if the life of the Mother is at risk.

Illegal Immigration: There are 2 things here. Illegal Immigrants taking advantage of our economy, and terrorist sneaking in to do harm. What's wrong with doing it (coming here to America) the Right way?

Gun Control: Maybe gun REGULATION in the way of checking a persons background, criminal history... I don't know if a psych evaluation would be practical. But I feel everyone should have the freedom to defend themselves, their loved ones, well being, and property. And if by "Control" you mean someone can't go out and buy a Semi Automatic, a Gatlin Gun, or an Uzi to "protect" themselves, that's over the top and silly. Yeah. I agree with that.

President Bush: Seems okay to me. At least he's not Al Gore, or John Kerry. Mostly he's not Al Gore. That's the most important thing!

I want to find (or have made if it doesn't exist) a bumper sticker that reads:

Anybody but...
Hillary Clinton
for President!!!

:D

mizuno_suisei
20-01-08, 14:01
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w66/AmericanAssassin/VoteHillary08-1.jpg :whi:

Is it just me or is this picture highly amusing :vlol:

calico25
20-01-08, 14:06
this thread is very humorous for so many different reasons...

Mona Sax
20-01-08, 14:18
A family undoubtedly needs a father and mother to exist. There are no doubts about this. Blindly donating sperm doesn't make a family.
Actually, I do have some doubts. I think what children need is loving and caring role models, the gender doesn't matter that much. Ideally there'd be both men and women around, but I think two mothers or two fathers are still much better than many 'traditional' families where the father's so busy working that he doesn't have any time at all. Besides, if you consider the many, many married couples without children, there is literally no reason why gay couples shouldn't have the right to marry as well.
I used to be sympathetic to cases like this when I was younger. However as I become older and more aware of what life means with God, I am opposed to all abortions. Even in cases of rape. When we disrespect the conception of life there is no hope for the human race. Roe vs. Wade will be overturned at some point.
Well, that's okay, but don't you think other people should be able to make that decision for themselves?

SamReeves
20-01-08, 16:01
I want to find (or have made if it doesn't exist) a bumper sticker that reads:

Anybody but...
Hillary Clinton
for President!!!

:D

Amen brother. Gotta pick up mine soon! :D

Well, that's okay, but don't you think other people should be able to make that decision for themselves?

When it means willfully taking another life away, no.

AmericanAssassin
20-01-08, 16:04
The War in Iraq: Gotta take out the Terrorist supporter. Gotta get them folks back on their feet. Wouldn't be prudent to leave 'em there with that... Bully. Not gunna do it. He hates Israel. Anyone that likes Saddam is an Antisemite and I say screw you! *points finger*

There's just one problem with what you just said... Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al Qaeda, the group who attacked us! In fact, he never even threatened us. Oh, and guess what... He never even had any weapons of mass destruction! :rolleyes: Instead, we're wasting billions of dollars on oil robbery, rather than catching... hmmm, Osama Bin Ladan!

@ Mona Sax: Finally, somebody I agree with! :tmb:

Actually, I do have some doubts. I think what children need is loving and caring role models, the gender doesn't matter that much. Ideally there'd be both men and women around, but I think two mothers or two fathers are still much better than many 'traditional' families where the father's so busy working that he doesn't have any time at all. Besides, if you consider the many, many married couples without children, there is literally no reason why gay couples shouldn't have the right to marry as well.

Exactly. None of us have the right to judge whether or not a gay couple should have a child. A gay-father or -mothered child will be just as loved, I'm sure.

Well, that's okay, but don't you think other people should be able to make that decision for themselves?

Let's all give Mona a round of applause. :tmb: I do think that people should be able to choose. Especially in cases of rape, incest, and in child pregnancies. I, personally, don't look at it as "taking a life," so I don't see where you're coming from Sam Reeves...

SamReeves
20-01-08, 16:17
Let's all give Mona a round of applause. :tmb: I do think that people should be able to choose. Especially in cases of rape, incest, and in child pregnancies. I, personally, don't look at it as "taking a life," so I don't see where you're coming from Sam Reeves...

I am fond of Mona, but I can't agree with her here. Let's look at it this way. You were a glob of stuff in your mother's womb at one time. What if she pulled the plug to attempt an abortion? No TRF, no arguing with me, no good times to remember with your family, etc. Once conception happens you don't touch it, period. It's in God's hands after that.

AmericanAssassin
20-01-08, 16:20
I am fond of Mona, but I can't agree with her here. Let's look at it this way. You were a glob of stuff in your mother's womb at one time. What if she pulled the plug to attempt an abortion? No TRF, no arguing with me, no good times to remember with your family, etc. Once conception happens you don't touch it, period. It's in God's hands after that.

Actually, my mom got pregnant with me at age 16 and did almost get an abortion... Honestly, it doesn't bother me. If she would have, I believe that my soul (or spirit or whatever) would have went to heaven, which isn't exactly a bad thing... :)

And, we're not arguing... We're discussing... With a lot of disagreement.

Lara's home
20-01-08, 16:26
When it means willfully taking another life away, no.

Did you kill a flower if you throw a seed?
When a guy masturabates, he 'prevents' those cells to become life.
Its the same thing, really.

SamReeves
20-01-08, 16:26
Actually, my mom got pregnant with me at age 16 and did almost get an abortion... Honestly, it doesn't bother me. If she would have, I believe that my soul (or spirit or whatever) would have went to heaven, which isn't exactly a bad thing... :)

And, we're not arguing... We're discussing... With a lot of disagreement.

I highly respect your mother for making the moral decision to keep you. You should search in your faith if you are Christian and carefully study the issue of abortion. It pretty much contradicts the teachings of the Lord. Anyway, that's my sermon for today.

Did you kill a flower if you throw a seed?
When a guy masturabates, he 'prevents' those cells to become life.
Its the same thing, really.

Not a chance. It's about the point of conception (aka, when sperm meets egg).

Draco
20-01-08, 18:31
The War in Iraq:

The war in Iraq should end right now. Pull out everyone and let them sort it out. We never should have been there in the first place.

Gay Rights/Marriage:

Since the only 'right' gay couples do not have is 'marriage' and all that such a status entails, the issue is simple: Change 'marriage' to 'civil union' and let anyone make one with whomever they want...within reason...no dogs, sheep, or children below age of consent of course.

Abortion:

I have an admittedly extreme position on this issue. Abortion shouldn't be necessary, because 'accidental' pregnancies should not be possible. I won't go into detail, but essentially I'm against abortion.

Illegal Immigration:

You break the law, you pay the price. Period.

Gun Control:

Why is it even an issue? Guns aren't out of control.

President Bush:

Irrelevant to this discussion.

tranniversary119
20-01-08, 18:38
I'm anti abortion.
I want Hilary to win, half the reason is she's a girl :p

AmericanAssassin
20-01-08, 19:16
As I mentioned in my first post, I hate Ann Coulter... Here's a hilarious video I found poking fun at her. ;) The second video is Ann Coulter being prejudice against all Jewish people... She disgusts me... :mad:

O7NcfDOL71o 2wnPHFSdrME

Twilight
20-01-08, 21:21
The War in Iraq:

Should end and is unnecessary

Gay Rights/Marriage:

People are people, this shouldnt even be a debate

Abortion:

i find it hilarious when men are anti-abortion, even more when women are. if some girl gets raped, and pregnant, she should have an abortion. if a poor woman of 2 children is pregnant, and cant support another child or itll dig her and her family deeper in a hole, and make the new baby's life miserable, she should have an abortion. and some people should not be parents, there are enough orphans as it is. Abortion should be legal.

Illegal Immigration:

no wall, fix the policy.

Gun Control:

shouldnt be legal.

President Bush:

should be impeached for so many reasons.



i would write more, but its been asked so many times, drilled so many times, on TV, ive just gotten bored with it. if another idiot gets elected, i am moving to Canada.

ThomasCroft
20-01-08, 21:36
so basicaaly i dont think it is good to give a right for someone to do something that is against the law of nature.
Dont support them to do it, but be of aid to let them shift and stabilize again.

You say that you don't believe in something "that is against the law of nature" - i.e. homosexuality - yet you believe in the injection of chemicals to alter someone's genetic characteristics. Isn't that in itself a complete and utter contradiction?

In addition, there are no hocus-pocus remedies to my knowledge which can 'cure' homosexuality. So far, the majority of attempts to alter someone's sexual orientation have been highly unsuccessful (I remember reading this on the Internet somewhere months ago).

So I say, support homosexuals - they are human, and they therefore deserve human rights. Why should they even have to attempt to change to fit in with outdated and blasphemous conventions in society?

Quasimodo
20-01-08, 21:53
Well, that's okay, but don't you think other people should be able to make that decision for themselves?

The more thought I give to abortion, the more I'm against it. I used to be in the "I won't get an abortion, but I won't tell you what to do with your pregnancy" camp, but is it really fair to say that an abortion is just a woman's right to do as she pleases with her own body? What about the baby? Calling a baby a fetus doesn't make it any less important. Really, really think about it - what could be more awful than killing a baby when it is at its most vulnerable stage of life?


Abortion:

i find it hilarious when men are anti-abortion, even more when women are. if some girl gets raped, and pregnant, she should have an abortion. if a poor woman of 2 children is pregnant, and cant support another child or itll dig her and her family deeper in a hole, and make the new baby's life miserable, she should have an abortion. and some people should not be parents, there are enough orphans as it is. Abortion should be legal.

I'm sorry but that's like saying "You don't get to live because it's just not convenient for me to have to deal with you right now,"

Capt. Murphy
20-01-08, 22:04
I'm not replying to anyone, just elaborating on some of my views. I replied to this already some pages back.

Gay Marriage: If you know me you know I don't agree with it. I believe it's Immoral. I also think that even two people of the opposite sex (with or without kids) that "shack-up" or "Live-In Lovers" is also Immoral. But people are going to do it anyway. It can't be stopped.

I had the thought of: "It's not so much the (wo)man on (wo)man lovin' as it is the sodomy. Which is disgusting." But would a married man and woman (that are married to each other -you dirty minded...:p ) commit "sodomy" too? Is this what it means (as when a Man is) to Lie with another man as he would a woman? Hmmm... That's a good question that I don't know the answer to. Like when (and please accept my apologies for being a bit crude here) a husband using the back door to his wife. That isn't ******l intercourse. Then there's the other way. If I believe that 2 peeps of the same sex doing this is immoral - is 2 married people of the opposite sex doing these things immoral also? Eh, *thinks* ....yeah. :o *but isn't sure*

Abortion: I'm against killing an innocent human being. Why punish the baby/fetus/embryo? It didn't rape the mother. Killing the child is only passing the buck or taking the easy way out of responsibility for a moment of fun or irresponsibility. In the cases of rape and incest... I know it's hard - but taking an innocent life won't undo what happened. Two wrongs never make a right.

Also, about making Abortion Legal. This is another thing, like the gay on gay thing is going to happen anyway. People that have unplanned pregnancies will want to kill their baby that's inside of them. So, if it's legal - people won't have to go to a back alley somewhere to get questionable "help" where things like safety, cleanliness, etc. aren't as good as they'd be if (being legal) the murder was performed in a regular Hospital... You know. Typically known for Saving Lives. :-/ Ironic, I know.

-------

There are many many things that go on and happen anyway that I don't agree with or believe to be moral. Like child molesting, murders, rapes, frauds, robberies, bullying, jealously, drunkeness, lust, ...I'm not meaning to make a laundry list here. It's just part of the human condition, part of life just like death and suffering. It's all really sad, but it can't be helped.

And to anyone that is itching to quote me and ask something like: "But who says / gives you the right to say / makes you think.... [bla-bla] is immoral?" To save both of us our time and trouble - I won't be answering that. I said what I said. That's the end of it.

myrmaad
20-01-08, 22:19
My opinion:

As has been going for at least 1000 years, women will get abortions whether they are legal or not. Rich women will just go to a country where it's legal to get theirs done. And poor women will risk their own lives and unsanitary conditions to get theirs done. And it will be the same old same old discrimination as usual in America.

People should have legal protections to see their partners in the hospital, sign important health documents, take care of funeral documents, insure their domestic partners, and leave their will and testament and assets without penalty in the hands of their partners. Otherwise it's just the same old same old discrimination as usual in America.

The Founding Fathers never said a damn thing about "Bootstraps", and if you say they did, PROVE IT Right now. I know they didn't. I have read more history than you've lived, obviously.

We could easily solve the illegal immigration problem by becoming better trade partners with our neighbor to the south. Helping them to bring up their own standard of living would actually make us stronger in the long run.

Ward Dragon's points regarding the Flat Tax were RIGHT ON. She's soooo SMART!!

Forwen
20-01-08, 22:32
I always wonder if those calling forth the argument of unnaturalness live in trees and wear animal skin.

Not to mention the logical impossibility of something occurring against the "laws of nature", but hey, who needs that decadent logic in the first place?

Hack
21-01-08, 00:26
Abortion:

i find it hilarious when men are anti-abortion, even more when women are. if some girl gets raped, and pregnant, she should have an abortion. if a poor woman of 2 children is pregnant, and cant support another child or itll dig her and her family deeper in a hole, and make the new baby's life miserable, she should have an abortion. and some people should not be parents, there are enough orphans as it is. Abortion should be legal.

I thought being pro-choice didn't mean a bunch of moralising "Shoulds", that it was a matter of personal for each individual? :confused:

Quasimodo
21-01-08, 00:42
My opinion:

As has been going for at least 1000 years, women will get abortions whether they are legal or not. Rich women will just go to a country where it's legal to get theirs done. And poor women will risk their own lives and unsanitary conditions to get theirs done. And it will be the same old same old discrimination as usual in America.


Isn't that like saying we should be more lax about murder because we'll never be able to completely stamp it out?

myrmaad
21-01-08, 00:46
Isn't that like saying we should be more lax about murder because we'll never be able to completely stamp it out?

Hardly.

Chiki Mina
21-01-08, 00:51
Abortion:

i find it hilarious when men are anti-abortion, even more when women are. if some girl gets raped, and pregnant, she should have an abortion. if a poor woman of 2 children is pregnant, and cant support another child or itll dig her and her family deeper in a hole, and make the new baby's life miserable, she should have an abortion. and some people should not be parents, there are enough orphans as it is. Abortion should be legal.

So a baby deserves to die because the mother doesn't feel like raising a child? The baby should be killed because the woman couldn't keep her legs closed and had to have sex without a condom.

A woman may have the right to do what she wants to do with her body. But the right to kill?

AmericanAssassin
21-01-08, 00:55
So a baby deserves to die because the mother doesn't feel like raising a child? The baby should be killed because the woman couldn't keep her legs closed and had to have sex without a condom.

A woman may have the right to do what she wants to do with her body. But the right to kill?

The difference between you views and mine and Chiki's views is that we don't look at the medical procedure of an abortion as "killing". I look at it as a second chance. AmericanAssassin = Extreme Liberal! ;)

Chiki Mina
21-01-08, 00:57
A second chance of what? Chiki Mina= Extreme anti-abortion.

AmericanAssassin
21-01-08, 00:58
A second chance of what? Chiki Mina= Extreme anti-abortion.

A second chance at life... In the case of a teen, rape victim, incest, etc. I feel that that woman should have a chance to live an unchanged life... In some of those cases, bringing a baby into the world is 1,000,000x worse.

Chiki Mina
21-01-08, 01:03
Wait a minute. That's not giving a chance. Second chance of life?? That's giving an unfair advantage for the mother. I'm talking about the ones that go ahead and have sex without protection. I had a friend who simply told me she was just lazy to raise a child. If she can be woman enough to have sex without protection, she cane be woman enough to raise a child. A child shouldn't pay for the mother's or father's consequences.

In cases of rape, it is the most horrible thing that could happen. But having a baby is not a mistake or a bad seed that was planted by the person who raped that woman. It's a living creature. Sacrifing a child so that the mother could be satisfied is selfish. I know cases of women that were rape but kept their child because she knows that it wasn't the baby's fault. That is something that I admire and that is bravery.

Hack
21-01-08, 01:04
My views on this differ slighlty to the norm.

I totally view abortion as killing, but I'm not against it at all!

Quasimodo
21-01-08, 01:06
A second chance at life... In the case of a teen, rape victim, incest, etc. I feel that that woman should have a chance to live an unchanged life... In some of those cases, bringing a baby into the world is 1,000,000x worse.

Sounds like playing God to me.

myrmaad
21-01-08, 01:06
Wait a minute. That's not giving a chance. Second chance of life?? That's giving an unfair advantage for the mother. I'm talking about the ones that go ahead and have sex without protection. I had a friend who simply told me she was just lazy to raise a child. If she can be woman enough to have sex without protection, she cane be woman enough to raise a child. A child shouldn't pay for the mother's or father's consequences.

In cases of rape, it is the most horrible thing that could happen. But having a baby is not a mistake or a bad seed that was planted by the person who raped that woman. It's a living creature. Sacrifing a child so that the mother could be satisfied is selfish. I know cases of women that were rape but kept their child because she knows that it wasn't the baby's fault. That is something that I admire and that is bravery.


Thank God that you're not in charge.

Chiki Mina
21-01-08, 01:10
Thank God that you're not in charge.

Well, that goes the same thing for you. That is, if you want to play God in killing innocent babies. That wasn't necessary, myrmaad. I admired you a lot. But this...this is attacking. No need for that.

myrmaad
21-01-08, 01:13
I'm sorry but I don't think it's attacking, I disagree with so much of your premise, that it's truly hard to know where to start.

But I have an idea to start with this:
Originally Posted by Chiki Mina http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?p=2427483#post2427483)
Wait a minute. That's not giving a chance. Second chance of life?? That's giving an unfair advantage for the mother. I'm talking about the ones that go ahead and have sex without protection. I had a friend who simply told me she was just lazy to raise a child. If she can be woman enough to have sex without protection, she cane be woman enough to raise a child. A child shouldn't pay for the mother's or father's consequences.

It is utterly Naive to think that child would not be paying for its mother's mistake for the rest of its life, if an unfit mother such as you describe here, were to be forced to try to raise this child.

And that's just for starters.

AmericanAssassin
21-01-08, 01:16
As I said in the original post:

Abortion is one of the more difficult topics to discuss. I, personally, am pro-choice. I believe that a woman should have options. Now, that's not to say that a girl shoudl be able to **** (pardon my French) everybody and abort the consequence monthly. There should be restrictions. For example, let's say a woman is walking through Central Park late at night (which you should never do) and gets raped by some old drunk who lives in a rose bush. Well, then, she should have every right to get an abortion. She didn't choose to get pregnant, to have her life destroyed in an instant. She should be able to live a fullfilling life. Another example: Let's say that Tiffany is 14 years old. Sadly, Tiffany is a giant ho bag who screws everything with legs. She gets pregnant. Well, she's only 14 years old. Everybody makes mistakes. I believe that Tiffany deserves a second chance in life. She should be able to have an abortion, hopefully learning not to lay everything she sees over on her bedspread. Same situation, but Tiffany is 34? By now, Tiffany has started a life style. She's not going to learn anything by getting an abortion. She'll just be back in the clinic a month later. This time, do not give her the procedure. She's trash and she doesn't deserve it.

Quasimodo
21-01-08, 01:19
As I said in the original post:

So no one should feel obliged to consider the consequences of their actions?

myrmaad
21-01-08, 01:20
I've known several women who had abortions, quite a few actually, and I guarantee there are consequences that they must live with every single day of their lives. It is not a decision that thinking women take lightly.

Personally, it isn't a choice I would ever make, nor encourage. However it is a personal decision, in my view.

AmericanAssassin
21-01-08, 01:20
So no one should feel obliged to consider the consequences of their actions?

Did you not read what I posted? I said that I think it should depend on the situation. If a woman gets pregnant from being raped, she doesn't deserve the consequences because an action was forced upon her...

Chiki Mina
21-01-08, 01:21
Ever heard of an adoption? There are so many couples out there that can't have a child of their own. Why not bring a second chance to that child and for the mom as well.

EDIT- re read.

Go confused with posts.

Quasimodo
21-01-08, 01:22
Did you not read what I posted? I said that I think it should depend on the situation. If a woman gets pregnant from being raped, she doesn't deserve the consequences because an action was forced upon her...

Should the baby have to suffer because of how it was conceived?

AmericanAssassin
21-01-08, 01:22
Right, kill the baby. The baby is just going to get in her way to **** more men.

To make a point, you should quote that entire segment, not just one snippet. It's now out of context.

*On another note, check the AOD thread... I posted another shirt design! :D

Should the baby have to suffer because of how it was conceived?

Suffering? Nothing is suffering! The so-called "baby" doesn't feel a thing... I believe that its soul goes to Heaven, which is way better than this world...

myrmaad
21-01-08, 01:23
Chiki: It seems you have very little faith in people to make their own decisions. I am a woman who couldn't have children, who had several miscarriages and who wanted to adopt, but my husband was against it. There are scores of children waiting to be adopted today, and that's with legal abortion available.

Chiki Mina
21-01-08, 01:25
To make a point, you should quote that entire segment, not just one snippet. It's now out of context.

*On another note, check the AOD thread... I posted another shirt design! :D

No - I said EDIT- "re read" on my previous post. I really can't see well without my glasses and read every thing wrong. Though, I am afraid I'm still against it.

Look, I am against killing. Period. I can't give in this debate without injecting my beliefs because then EVERY ONE will have a fit and I'm probably going to be told "Thank God you're not in charge."

*I'll go and look*.

SamReeves
21-01-08, 01:25
Ever heard of an adoption? There are so many couples out there that can't have a child of their own. Why not bring a second chance to that child and for the mom as well.

Exactly. It's a heck of a lot better option than choosing abortion.

AmericanAssassin
21-01-08, 01:28
I am also against KILLING! :mad: I don't consider abortion of form of that!

When it comes to adoption, it's a lot harder than you think. A mother has to give birth, which is said to be an instant bonding experience. At this point, she might was to keep it / screw up her life because she cares too much. If the baby does go up for adoption, you don't know what freaks are going to get the child. They could be child molestors...

Quasimodo
21-01-08, 01:30
I am also against KILLING! :mad: I don't consider abortion of form of that!

When it comes to adoption, it's a lot harder than you think. A mother has to give birth, which is said to be an instant bonding experience. At this point, she might was to keep it / screw up her life because she cares too much. If the baby does go up for adoption, you don't know what freaks are going to get the child. They could be child molestors...

Why don't you consider abortion a form of killing?

AmericanAssassin
21-01-08, 01:31
Why don't you consider abortion a form of killing?

I just don't... It's kind of unexplainable. I feel just as strongly about this as you are against it, so I'm not changing my mind.

Quasimodo
21-01-08, 01:33
I just don't... It's kind of unexplainable. I feel just as strongly about this as you are against it, so I'm not changing my mind.

While I respect your opinion, the reason you gave just won't cut it for debating purposes. Why isn't abortion a form of killing?

Chiki Mina
21-01-08, 01:33
What is abortion? Now I'm confused lol.

I can understand when a mother is at risk during pregnancy. Compications that could kill her and the baby. That's when abortion can be necessary.

I just don't... It's kind of unexplainable. I feel just as strongly about this as you are against it, so I'm not changing my mind.

Well, I didn't came here to convert anyone or to be converted :p.

Hack
21-01-08, 01:34
Why don't you consider abortion a form of killing?

I do consider it a form a killing. Undoubtedly you're killing a living creature.

Doesn't mean that I'm against it though.

AmericanAssassin
21-01-08, 01:35
While I respect your opinion, the reason you gave just won't cut it for debating purposes. Why isn't abortion a form of killing?

I consider an abortion a second chance for the woman. I don't consider an embryo to be a child... Therefore, I don't consider it a murder. Is that clear enough?

On another note: Do you consider the morning after pill an abortion?

Emergency contraception (also known as the morning-after pill) is recommended to be used after sexual intercourse, over a period of 72 hours, to achieve the goal of preventing (or ending) pregnancy. There are three different ways birth control pills are currently being promoted for this use: progesterone alone, estrogen alone, or both of these artificial steroids together. (http://www.morningafterpill.org/mapinfo1.htm)

Chiki Mina
21-01-08, 01:43
I consider an abortion a second chance for the woman. I don't consider an embryo to be a child... Therefore, I don't consider it a murder. Is that clear enough?

No lol. Not really clear. It's killing. Weather it's giving a second chance to the poor, helpless woman. It's still killing the baby.

AmericanAssassin
21-01-08, 01:44
No lol. Not really clear. It's killing. Weather it's giving a second chance to the poor, helpless woman. It's still killing the baby.

The point is that I don't consider it killing because an embryo, in my eyes, is not a baby...

Anyway, I have something else to ask all of you:

WHICH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DO YOU WANT FOR PRESIDENT AS OF TODAY?

Chiki Mina
21-01-08, 01:48
What is it?

WHICH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DO YOU WANT FOR PRESIDENT AS OF TODAY?

To be honest, it's not my problem. Since I live in Puerto Rico. But, they did a poll on which president they would like for the US and many said Hillary.

AmericanAssassin
21-01-08, 01:49
What is it?

A embryo, IMO, is... *DRUMROLL* an embryo and nothing more. :)

myrmaad
21-01-08, 01:50
Maybe this will help:
I. Abortion is not Immoral
Given the facts as we can at present prove them to be, there is no good reason to regard abortion as immoral. To demonstrate this we must first explain what it means for something to be moral or immoral, and also what abortion is.
A. The Facts of Morality
The Nature of Moral Disputes
The foundation of every moral system is the combination of values with facts. To disagree on a point of morality can thus be a dispute about the facts (such as the circumstances and consequences of an action), or a dispute about values, or both. If a disagreement hinges on facts, one case or the other is vindicated when both sides honestly investigate and acknowledge the facts that can be known. If a disagreement hinges on values, inquiry must be made as to why each holds the values they do. Values are either the conclusions derived from certain facts in combination with certain other values, or else they are fundamental. Disputes over values that are the conclusions derived from certain facts in combination with certain other values are resolved as for all other moral disagreements--by investigating the facts more carefully.
Disputes over fundamental values, however, are irreconcilable. Both sides must agree to disagree, or develop a mutually agreeable compromise. It is even possible, within certain limits, to respect the individual moral sentiments of others even when we do not adopt those principles ourselves. But disputes that appear irreconcilable are not necessarily about fundamental values. They may simply result from either side failing to understand the reasons for either position, or from the inability to establish certain facts as true or false. Such cases must be resolved by first tolerating eachother or working out a compromise, while continuing to logically analyze the dispute and to investigate the facts. In law, this principle is manifest as moratoria, temporary injunctions, and holding suspects in custody (with or without allowance of bail), all of which being necessarily temporary solutions pending investigation, trial or judicial consideration. These observations must be kept in mind throughout this debate.
The Values We Share
Those who argue that abortion is wrong generally base their argument on respect for individual human existence. Usually, this value, or something similar, is rightly assumed to be universally shared, and then the dispute arises only on matters of fact. I will continue this assumption. There are those, we can imagine, who not only have no value for respecting individual human existence, but also could not even in principle be persuaded to adopt such a value (e.g. by appealing to some other values they did possess which would be fulfilled by adopting a value for human life). But such people would not be persuadable on any point of morality anyway, rendering this debate of no use or interest to such a creature. We are thus speaking to, and for, everyone else.
The Nature of This Debate
Given the above, the required set of circumstances for abortion to be immoral are any which violate respect for individual human existence. The question here is thus not whether the value for individual human existence is justified (this will be assumed for this debate), but whether any circumstances of abortion contradict the object of that value. This is therefore a dispute about the facts, not values. Moreover, there are in almost all moral systems cases when killing is not immoral, and some when it is even moral. Self defense (or the defense of others) is the most prominent and relevant example here. But I imagine there will be no secular dispute in actual matters of self defense. In other words, I will assume for now that everyone agrees that abortion neither is immoral, nor should be illegal, when necessary to save the mother's life. This leaves only one issue for debate: whether elective abortion is immoral.
Digression on Moral Relativism
Something must first be said briefly about the moral subjectivism inherent in this analysis. Based on the above, it follows that some things could be "immoral" for some people and "moral" (or amoral) for others, since people vary in their values. For example, some people may possess a fundamental value for all animal life of any kind, which would entail not eating meat, not allowing suicide, nor even allowing the removal of life support for a brain-dead patient. But this value system would only exist for them, not for others. However, my analysis does not entail moral relativism in the usual sense, since it is also possible (and I believe it is the case) that some fundamental values are shared by all people, or very nearly all people (I allow some rare exceptions for the sociopath, who is generally regarded as having a mind alien to the vast majority of humankind, devoid of all ordinary moral sentiment).
If the above is true, it follows that there is a universal moral truth for everyone (or every sane person), a truth which derives from this set of shared values, whatever it happens to be. And this universal moral truth would exist side by side with other quasi-moral principles derived from non-universal values, shared within various groups or not shared at all. It is thus possible for abortion to be "immoral" for some but not all people, in this sense--just as it is possible for eating pork to be "immoral" for some but not all people. However, it might be better to call such things principles rather than morals, in order to reserve the title "morals" for only those principles that are universal (or would be universal, if everyone knew all the facts and all the ways these facts interacted with their values). From now on, when I employ the term "moral" or its cognates, I am referring to this universal truth, and not to the equally true but necessarily parochial principles found everywhere in human society.
Therefore, my argument here is not addressed to parochial "principles," which are valid for those individuals who hold them in conviction (and often worthy of respect even from those who do not hold them, but understand their basis). Instead, I am addressing myself to the question of whether abortion is universally immoral, i.e. immoral on the grounds of a value possessed by all non-sociopathic human beings. And I believe that a value for individual human existence is one of these universally shared values, or else one or more other values is universally shared which in turn entail such a respect, even if a person who possesses these values is unaware of this connection (and thus lacks respect for individual human existence out of ignorance or error).
To put this all simply, the proposition "abortion is immoral" means to me that every non-sociopathic human being has some value which is contradicted or undermined by the practice of abortion, even if they are unaware of this contradiction. My position is thus that such a value does not exist, with respect to abortion, as the facts are presently understood.
B. The Facts of Abortion
What Abortion is and How it Happens
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica (s.v. "Abortion"), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has defined abortion as "the expulsion or extraction of all (complete) or any part (incomplete) of the placenta or membranes, with or without an abortus, before the 20th week (before 134 days) of gestation." This definition is based on the scientifically-established fact that a developing human organism cannot survive outside the womb before this date and therefore premature birth is not even an elective option. In reality, before the 24th week the chance of a baby's survival outside the womb is almost nil, but doctors use the 20th week as the cut-off because there have been some rare cases of survival at that early a point, but none before, and the degree of organ development that is necessary for survival even to be feasible occurs between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation.
Most abortions are conducted before the 85th day (within the first trimester). An abortion conducted between the 85th and 134th day of a pregnancy (second trimester) is formally called a "late-term abortion." Recent invention in political circles of the term "partial-birth abortion" refers not to abortion at all, but to the killing of a premature (third trimester) baby who is considered to have a remote chance of survival outside the womb. Such a procedure is almost unheard of and is conducted only under the most unusual of circumstances, such as when a baby is already dead, or cannot be prematurely delivered--due to deformity or injury of the womb or birth canal--but must still be removed to save the mother's life. In almost every other case, after the 20th week, "abortion" is neither safe nor necessary--the baby would simply be delivered. Before that period, however, it is likely that most abortions are either spontaneous (i.e. a miscarriage) or elective (i.e. at the mother's choice, and not medically necessary to save her life).
However, abortion statistics, such as appear in any World Almanac, only measure medical procedures, including the use of prescription abortifacients like the "Abortion Pill." What is rarely understood in this issue is the fact that the most popular means of birth control actually partly relies upon inducing early abortion, and is very likely responsible for many times as many abortions as occur in counted procedures. Hormonal medications of this sort include "The Pill," and Norplant, as well as the numerous herbal solutions which share the same or similar chemical properties and are thus employed in third world countries as a less expensive alternative to the manufactured pharmaceuticals that they mimic. All these chemicals operate simultaneously on many levels, primarily by preventing ovulation and hindering sperm, but also by preventing implantation (and thus causing expulsion) of an egg that, despite all else, is fertilized anyway. In other words, all chemical forms of birth control, including the pill, cause abortions--and no one can know whether or when they have worked by their primary means or in this last-resort manner. This means that any discussion about the morality or legality of abortion necessarily entangles us in the morality and legality of the use of the pill and related implants and injections. This is all the more true given that women can deliberately cause this early-abortion effect up to three days after intercourse by taking a double or triple dose of their ordinary birth control pills.
The Essential Nature of Abortion
The immediate and obvious effect of abortion is the killing of a developing human organism. What this actually entails varies according to stage of development. As of fertilization there exists a zygote (a single cell with the genetic blueprint for constructing a unique person) which begins travelling towards the uterus, taking roughly three days to reach it. In this period, the zygote grows into a mass of sixty or more identical (undifferentiated) cells. Another two or three days and this mass begins to form an embryo (meaning that some simple differentiation occurs among the cells) and attaches to the uterine wall. It is this event which birth control medications prevent, if they first fail to prevent ovulation or fertilization. An abortion at this stage is clearly a very different affair than at later stages.
Nerve cells do not appear until the third week, and though full cellular differentiation occurs in the fourth week, no functioning organs appear until the end of the second month, at which point the entire embryo is little more than an inch long, and is now formally called a "fetus" because preliminary organ development is complete and most of the remaining development is a matter of mere growth in size. At that stage, simple reflex nerve-muscle action is possible (the sort of event that doctors test for in adults by striking the knee with a hammer), and electricity can be conducted just as it can in a disembodied nerve cell. But the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month (an event we call "quickening"). This activity might only be a generative one, i.e. the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human--in contrast with animal--brains, begins to develop, and is typically complete, though still growing, by the sixth month. What is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a human mind to exist in at least a primitive state.
The great majority of elective abortions occur before the fourth month begins, and there is effectively no such thing as an elective abortion in the fifth month or later. No competent doctor would advise it, no intelligent mother would risk it. Consequently, I will not argue for the legality or morality of "abortion" after the 20th week. Certainly, such a procedure could be immoral, in that it could be an act of disrespect for an individual human's existence. Though it is doubtful that this argument can rightly be applied to elective abortions prior to the 20th week (the only period in which the word "abortion" is properly applied in medical terminology), it is clear that caution is certainly warranted after that--perhaps even sufficient caution to consider the act immoral and to make it illegal--except, as we have noted, in cases of genuine necessity.
Individual Human Existence
Until the 20th week, the cut-off date for an actual "abortion" to occur, there is no complex cerebral cortex and no major central nervous activity. That is a condition universally regarded as a state of death in adults. An adult human being in such a state cannot really be "killed," just unplugged. And such an act would not be disrespectful of their individual existence because that existence has already ceased, and only a body remains. Even if we were able to regenerate a brain-dead patient's cerebral cortex, using the genetic blueprint in her cells, we would still fail to resurrect her. We would instead merely create an identical twin inside a used body, with an infantile mind and no memories, no complex personality traits, and no intellectual skills. Although this fresh brain would be ready to learn and develop anew, it would be a different person. None of the unique features of the deceased would exist any more--the only mental features that would survive are the very same features that would be shared by any natural identical twins.
The fetus before quickening is in the very same state as this hypothetical regenerated person. And the analogy of identical twins is a crucial one. Twins share the exact same blueprint for brain and body, and there is nothing "individual" about a blueprint that can be shared by more than one individual person--their individuality does not derive from their blueprint, but from their unique personal development, which begins almost certainly before birth, but without any doubt upon birth, when there can be no mistake that novel sensory data has begun transforming the brain and educating it in unique ways. None of this individualization can occur before the existence of a complex cortex that can be individualized (pre-fifth-month)--certainly none before there is a central nerve organ of any kind (pre-third-month). Therefore, an individual human (as opposed to a vacant body) cannot exist when a medically-defined abortion occurs. This entails that abortion cannot counter our shared value for individual human existence.
C. The Moral Status of Abortion
I conclude that abortion is not immoral. But I have assumed that my facts are correct, and that there are no other values contradicted by allowing or performing abortion. In particular, I have carefully defined a value for human life in a particular way which may be incorrect, though I believe my definition most acurately reflects common human values. Whether this must be defended remains to be seen.



II. Abortion should not be Illegal
Given that abortion--an elective termination of pregnancy before the 20th week--does not violate anyone's rights and does no substantial harm, and actually performs some limited positive good, there is no good reason to make abortion illegal.
A. Abortion Does No Harm
From a point of view outside of this affair, the killing of a neurologically inactive fetus is no greater a harm than the killing of a mouse, and in fact decidedly less--a mouse is neurologically active, and though it lacks a complex cerebral cortex, it has a brain of suitable complexity to perceive pain (and I would argue that the mouse deserves some moral consideration, though less than humans). A fetus cannot perceive pain (and perception is not quite the same thing as sensation: sensation can exist without a brain, but perception cannot). The neural structures necessary to register and record sensations of pain transmitted by the appropriate nerves either do not exist or are not functioning before the fifth month of gestation. A fetus can no more feel pain than a surgical patient under general anasthesia, or a paraplegic whose lower-body nerves continue reacting to stimuli, but cease sending signals to the brain. And we have already established that a fetus does not contain an individual human personality of any kind, any more than a brain-dead adult does. With no perception of pain, and no loss of an individual personality, the act of abortion causes no immediate harm.
However, there may be indirect harm caused by abortion. For instance, there may be unacceptable medical risks to the mother, as there always are with any surgical procedure, even surgery of the outpatient variety. But I doubt such risks are unacceptable enough to warrant making the procedure illegal. I recently had elective surgery to remove a benign cyst from my wrist. This required general anasthesia and a 45-minute cutting-and-suturing of my flesh. The risks I voluntarily undertook were no less and almost certainly greater than the risks attending competently-performed abortions (especially chemical abortions). Since it would be absurd to outlaw the procedure I underwent, it would be absurd to outlaw abortion on the same ground. Mothers should be informed of the risks, as all surgical patients should be, but they should not be denied the right to voluntarily accept those risks. Whether there is any other kind of harm caused by abortion which would justify outlawing it remains to be seen.
Something must briefly be said about the risks of sex in general, since sex--voluntary or involuntary--is itself necessary for abortion to ever become an issue. The fact that celibacy is always safer than being sexually active is irrelevant here, since most things we do are more dangerous than not doing them (such as driving rather than walking to the theatre), and if it were appropriate to force everyone to live safely, then not only should abortion be illegal, but so should sex in all but the most limited of circumstances (and so should driving a car for that matter). I will assume no one wishes to argue for such an Orwellian society.
B. Abortion Performs a Limited Positive Good
First, abortion is a notable benefit to society. The harm to a society that is caused by an excess of unchecked population growth is severe and well-documented. The ability of societies to check population growth without legalizing abortion has proven nearly non-existent: there are few countries in which abortion is outlawed or stigmatized that are not suffering harshly from overcrowding, with all the attendant economic, criminal, or political troubles. In contrast, most nations that allow the procedure are maintaining stable populations with nearly zero growth, and exhibiting more or less general prosperity. From a purely pragmatic perspective aimed at the interests of the commonwealth, abortion is at best a great benefit to mankind and at worst a necessary evil. And for women who regard zero growth as a moral imperative, abortion can even be a moral necessity from their point of view--although this would be better called a matter of principle, so as to distinguish this personal belief from the morally universal.
Second, abortion is a significant benefit for the individual woman. The risks of death or permanent disability certainly must be greater for a woman who carries a fetus to term and bears a child, prematurely or not, than for a woman who aborts before the third trimester of her pregnancy. And the social and economic ruin that can ensue from an untimely motherhood is a serious harm as well, and although this could be alleviated by recourse to adoption, free medical care for pregnant women, and public welfare for women unable to work as a consequence of their pregnancy, these solutions are not as simple as they sound, and are not so universally available as people might think (even the United States, among the wealthiest of nations, has no such welfare system in place, not to mention a very poor excuse for a medicare system, and there is no desirable option for orphans in nations like India or Chad). Moreover, the potential physical harm from bearing a child simply cannot be alleviated. Abortion thus supplies some benefit for many women.
C. The Appropriate Legal Status of Abortion
An act that causes no involuntary harm and produces some benefits for individuals and society in general should never be outlawed. This is based on the principle that laws should only exist to preserve and protect the liberty of individuals and, when no liberty is at stake either way, to increase the general welfare of all citizens. Whether that principle is misinformed remains to be seen. But from the above analysis, there appears no way in which outlawing abortion would even indirectly preserve or protect the liberty of any individual, or provide any general benefit to the citizen body without uneccessarily depriving individuals of their liberty.

Chiki Mina
21-01-08, 01:53
I'm really sorry. But reading all that won't change my mind. The same thing that my posts won't change anyone's mind in here. Not that it is my intention.

I am against abortion. Always have and always will.

SamReeves
21-01-08, 01:59
OMG, where did that come from? Planned Parenthood???

Anyway…

Anyway, I have something else to ask all of you:

WHICH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DO YOU WANT FOR PRESIDENT AS OF TODAY?

Congressman Duncan Hunter. The best choice for me for the military, economy, illegal immigration, foreign policy and social issues. And yes there's a little bit of California nepotism in me too! :D Though I doubt he'll win in the primary, I still voted for who I liked best.

myrmaad
21-01-08, 02:01
A novel concept, hm? PLANNED Parenthood. No that's not where it's from, though.

AmericanAssassin
21-01-08, 02:02
Congressman Duncan Hunter. The best choice for me for the military, economy, illegal immigration, foreign policy and social issues. And yes there's a little bit of California nepotism in me too! :D Though I doubt he'll win in the primary, I still voted for who I liked best.

Honestly, I've never even heard of the guy... However, I found loads of information, so it looks like I'll have some studying to do:

Right to Life Amendment
I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.

Philosophy of Judicial Appointments
I support people with good judgment, proven values, a belief in God, and a heart for the least of us, including the unborn. I believe it is important that those sitting on the bench understand that they have a responsibility to strictly interpret our nation’s laws and not legislate from the bench with their own political or social agenda. I will not appoint judges who do not believe that the unborn are precious and should be protected.

Federal Legislation and Votes
I have cosponsored the following pieces of legislation:

· The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would amend the federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, if this action circumvents the minor's native state's parental involvement law. I voted in favor of this bill when it passed the House 270-157 on April 27, 2005.

· The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2005, which would prohibit and criminalize efforts at reproductive cloning.

· The Parent's Right to Know Act of 2005, which would prohibit federal funding to carry out federal family planning programs in which service providers in the project knowingly provides contraceptive drugs or devices to a minor, except in specific circumstances.

· The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, which would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain and they may request anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate the pain.

I have also supported human life protection efforts with the following votes:

· I supported the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, banning the practice of fetal farming, the creation of embryos specifically for the purposes of scientific research.

· I voted in favor of the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, which would direct federal funding to stem-cell research that does not rely on embryos.

· I voted against the Stem-Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which would have directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem-cells, regardless of the date on which the stem-cells were derived from a human embryo.

· I voted against amendments offered to the National Defense Authorization Act permitting taxpayer funded military facilities overseas to be used to support abortions on demand for military women and military dependents.

· I voted against amendments providing UN funding to groups that support coercive abortion programs.

Marriage
Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage
I firmly believe that marriage is one of the most important social institutions we have and that it is central to promoting family values and raising children in a healthy environment. It is for this reason that I cosponsored and voted in favor of H.J. Res. 88 (Musgrave-CO), which proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. I firmly believe that children need the unique influence offered by both a father and a mother.

Parental rights
Educational Choice and Home Schooling
I strongly believe Congress needs to remain actively involved in ensuring parents’ rights are protected and I have significant concerns with recent judicial rulings recognizing “de-facto” or “psychological” parents, individuals who assist in raising a child. These types of decisions undermine parental authority, allowing any adult with an association with the child to make parental claims.

I support taking the actions necessary to strengthen our public educational system and school vouchers are a great opportunity to provide students and their families with additional educational choices.

According to national studies, a significant percentage of high school students have difficulty reading at a proficient level, test well below the international average in math and science, and lack basic knowledge in history. Clearly, parents have a reason to be concerned. Many Americans support innovative plans that address our current education shortcomings and I believe school vouchers are an effective way of achieving this goal.

Taking into consideration that approximately 2 million children are taught at home, it is important that we make every effort to ensure these students have the same access and opportunities to federal benefits, such as financial aid, as those who attend public school.

Hate Crimes & Sexual Orientation
In the past, Congress has considered legislation that would allow the federal government to assist local authorities in the investigation and prosecution of crimes motivated by a person's race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, or religion. Current law allows the federal government to intervene in cases deemed hate crimes only if they occur on federal property, or if the victim was participating in one of six very specific activities, such as voting.

I have always voted against this type of legislation because I firmly believe that the use of violence against any innocent person is wrong, regardless of that individual's race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation. Despite the intentions of these bills, I sincerely doubt that increased federal involvement in these state issues would have any significant effect on these crimes. If crimes are prioritized based on the victims’ status, we threaten the very tenet of equal protection under the law that is the foundation of our legal system. Instead, all violations of the law should be dealt with in a manner that delivers justice on behalf of the victims and their families. I support strict punishment for heinous crimes, like murder, regardless of the social circumstances. The idea espoused in so called “hate crime” legislation that some murders are less serious than others rebukes common sense.

First Amendment
I believe the current decisional law on the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment is inconsistent and flawed. For example, the recent decisions on the Ten Commandment display, where the Supreme Court ruled that in Texas it is appropriate to have a Ten Commandments monument on the courthouse grounds, but in Kentucky the same display violates the Establishment Clause. The Founding Fathers developed these clauses to guarantee the right of all citizens to worship and to protect the church from the state, not to strip religion from the everyday lives of Americans.

Another example of where the Establishment Clause has been abused by activist judges is the case surrounding the Mt. Soledad Veterans’ Memorial in San Diego California. Knowing that the Memorial, which incorporates a cross, did not violate the federal Establishment Clause, the courts applied the more restrictive state Establishment Clause and ordered the cross removed. I led the successful fight to protect the long-standing veterans’ memorial from being destroyed through a series of legislative steps involving the transfer of the memorial grounds from state to federal control.

Domestic Issues

Second Amendment
It seems every election year, some liberal politician dons an NRA cap and grabs a shotgun for a hunting photo-op, as if that means they support our right as Americans to keep and bear arms. I, myself, thoroughly enjoy hunting, having just recently spent a great weekend hunting elk in Arizona. But, the Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims.

Taxes
Tax Relief and Tax Cuts
An over-taxing government is the biggest contributor to creating poverty. By continuing to inhibit the economic growth and potential of our citizens, we prevent the investment capability to create jobs, increase income and provide a stable financial environment. I believe all citizens are deserving of tax relief and tax-cutting policies benefit the American economy as a whole.

I do not support efforts to identify segments of our society that are more deserving of a tax cut over another and I believe political stereotyping in this area hinders the goal of providing efficient tax relief. It is important to create a federal tax policy that is both fair to American taxpayers while, at the same time, ensuring that our nation meets its financial obligations.

Tax reform efforts should achieve the dual goals of improving the tax code system and allow taxpayers to keep more of their money to support their families, save for their futures, and protect their businesses and assets. It is for this reason that I have supported several tax relief packages passed in Congress that have reduced taxes and helped spur the economy by allowing hard working American taxpayers to keep more of the money they earn to invest in their futures.

Finally, my basic philosophy is to teach and train and inspire rather than simply give government “hand outs.”

Marriage Penalty Tax
The current tax code unfairly imposes a penalty on married couples and I believe legislative action is needed immediately. In 2001, Congress passed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) to, among other things, provide marriage tax penalty relief to America’s working married couples. These changes are phased in over several years while, at the same time, all of the changes in EGTRRA will expire after 2010. Taking into consideration that the current tax code has a sunset on the marriage penalty solution, it is imperative that Congress pass legislation to make this provision permanent. It is not only equitable, but prevents sending a message that married couples should be treated differently than singles.

Alternative Minimum Tax
I firmly support reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and believe it is the most pressing individual income tax issue facing Americans today. This tax regulation was created in 1969 in an effort to close certain loopholes and ensure that a small number of extremely high-income taxpayers paid a fair share of the federal income tax. However, the lack of indexation of the AMT, coupled with the recent reductions in regular income taxes, has greatly expanded the potential impact of this tax. Absent congressional action, the AMT will "take back" most of the tax relief granted through income tax reform.

I support Congress passing legislation making increases in the AMT exemption amounts permanent.

Antiquated Taxes
I believe our current tax code is full of antiquated policies that were installed for a specific reason and for a specific time, but never removed. For example, the Federal Telephone Excise Tax was first enacted in 1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American War when telephones were considered a "luxury." While this tax was initially applied to long-distance service, it was later extended to general phone service in 1941 and currently applies to all telecommunication services, which include standard and wireless telephone services, as well as computer Internet connections. This tax unfairly targets Americans that rely on telephone service as a primary means of communication. For those on fixed incomes, including our nation's elderly and disabled, it is often difficult to avoid excessive telecommunication charges, especially in today's information age.

These types of taxes are indicative of a much larger problem; the current tax code is unnecessarily confusing and complicated, causing taxpayers to spend more than six billion hours every year on paperwork and other bureaucratic requirements. On average, $200 billion a year goes uncollected in federal taxes and taxpayers pay in excess of $5 billion a year to identify and prosecute tax evaders. Clearly, major tax reform is necessary. I have consistently supported efforts to reform the tax code, making it simpler, fairer, and more growth oriented. By replacing our current convoluted and fraud-ridden system with more simplified tax requirements, I believe we will be able to meet the dual goals of providing core government services and returning much needed income back to our families.

Balanced Budget
I support a balanced federal budget, with additional revenue provided by economic growth, not increased taxes. Further, I support limiting growth in non-defense areas.

A balanced federal budget is a priority for our national economic health and long-term prosperity. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have fought for federal spending to provide for our national and homeland security, as directed by the U.S. Constitution, and funding increases in both of these arenas will be necessary in the future to keep our families safe and secure

Budgetary savings must be identified through efficiency reforms throughout the federal government. Furthermore, we must aggressively attack the creation and funding of duplicative federal programs, many of which simply do not perform but cost taxpayers millions of their hard-earned dollars. According to Office of Management and Budget, 28% of federal programs are either ineffective or have results that are not demonstrated. Reforming, combining or eliminating those programs remains among my highest legislative priorities.

Property Rights/Eminent Domain
I am deeply concerned with the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision greatly broadening local government's use of eminent domain in Kelo vs. New London and believe it is important that Congress protect the property rights of private landowners and curb the government from excessive regulatory takings. It is for this reason that I voted in favor of expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion in the Kelo case.

Additionally, I cosponsored H.R. 3268 (Gingrey-GA), the Eminent Domain Tax Relief Act of 2005, which abolished the capital gains tax on private property taken by the government through eminent domain. I also voted in favor of a legislative amendment Congressman Scott Garrett (R-NJ) offered to H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, prohibiting federal funding from being used to improve or construct infrastructure support on lands acquired through the use of eminent domain of private property for private development.

Federal Obscenity Laws
I voted in favor of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, which increases the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters who transmit obscene, indecent, and profane material on public airwaves.

I also have concerns with the questionable material our children continue to have through the Internet and other entertainment products. I believe those distributing harmful material to young people should be held responsible. As a result, I drafted legislation, the Parent's Empowerment Act, which will allow parents to sue any person who knowingly sells or distributes a product that contains material that is harmful to minors, empowering parents to protect their children from the predatory practices of pornographic distributors.

Gambling
I believe gambling is a serious problem in today’s society, every much as addictive and destructive as alcohol and illegal drugs. As a result, this problem is equally deserving of as much attention in terms of federal policy. Unfortunately, those individuals who spend most of their money gambling are the ones who have the least amount to lose, often choosing to gamble instead of taking care of their families.

I also believe Internet gambling has become a problem as serious as traditional casino gambling. Law enforcement agencies have indicated that this activity serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities that can be exploited by terrorists and organized crime. It is for this reason that I cosponsored H.R. 4777 (Goodlatte-VA) which will amend federal law and bring the current prohibition against wireline interstate gambling up to date with the Internet and other new technologies. At the same time, the bill will provide additional tools to law enforcement to combat illegal gambling.

National Endowment of the Arts
I have significant concerns with federal funding provided to the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA). As many Americans know, the NEA provides direct grants to art institutions, programs of national significance and a few limited individual grants for literature and music fellowships. I believe the creative arts can play an important role in the expressive and cultural development of our society. At the same time, however, I strongly oppose using these federal funds for any group that produces material that has questionable artistic, scientific or political value. For that reason, I have consistently voted against funding increases for the NEA and I have supported, and will continue to support, efforts to transfer NEA funds to school art programs.

Education
I believe we can educate students more effectively by returning school curriculum prerogatives to the states, local communities and, most importantly, to the family. State agencies charged with conducting education policies do not need expensive and inefficient mandates from a federal agency and I support streamlining the responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Education toward a goal of working in cooperation with local and state governments to meet local and state learning levels.

Health Care Reform
I believe our health care system and its challenges need to be addressed in a new way that empowers our strongest asset in controlling the spiraling cost of health care: the U.S. consumer.

As you know, health care costs in the U.S. are increasing over 30% faster than the rest of the economy and will consume 17% of our Gross Domestic Product by 2011. [The U.S. spends less than 4% of our GDP to provide for the national security of our great nation.] This level of spending and inflation makes our current system unsustainable and real reforms are going to be necessary as our population ages.

Since World War II, when employer sponsored health care became a more widely offered employee benefit, spending has increased from 5% of GNP to 16% today. Systematically, the eye of the health care consumer has been removed from the market place. Whether it is employers offering a single insurance option or the government making health care choices on behalf of the elderly and the poor, consumers have been increasingly removed from the market place. The result has been a system with costs increasing at rates that are neither sustainable nor practical.

The solution is freedom for the consumer to pursue their own health care choices. Therefore, I propose three major reforms that will bring the consumer back into the health care equation: 1. freedom to buy health insurance across state lines; 2. freedom to make informed health care choices; and 3. freedom to innovate to save money and improve medical outcomes.

Buy Health Insurance Across State Lines
Under current law, individuals and small businesses are required to purchase health care plans that are offered in their state of residency. Therefore, the health insurance customer is held hostage to state legislators and regulators which impose an increasing number of mandates on the marketplace. For example, the average individual policy in the state of New Jersey costs $6,046 per year for a family of four, while a similar policy in Iowa costs only $1,965. This disparity in health insurance premium costs can largely be attributed to the level of mandates imposed by the respective states. New Jersey insurers are required to cover 41 mandates (including chiropodist and occupational therapists) versus the 23 mandates imposed by the State of Iowa. Families and small businesses in New Jersey should be allowed to shop across state lines for the health care policy that best meets their needs; avoiding systems that encourage mandates.

Make Informed Health Care Choices Through Public Disclosure
Today, when a consumer decides to make a purchase, for example a new car, they are empowered through easy access to information to find the best deal. With just a couple of clicks of the mouse, they can find clear and concise information on the vehicle including: price, reliability, upgrades, customer reviews and maintenance costs. Sadly, this same level of information is denied those seeking to purchase health care.

This lack of available information keeps the consumer/patient hostage to the false market that has been negotiated between the hospital and the insurance company. Consumers should be permitted to find the highest quality of care for the lowest price. Therefore, hospitals and other health care providers should be required to place their fee schedules on line or otherwise make them readily accessible for potential consumers. This return of market forces, open competition and empowered consumer will result in falling health care costs and rising care quality.

Innovate In Order to Save Money and Improve Medical Outcomes
Over the past 30 years, eight of the ten most important medical breakthroughs originated in America. The United States is home to some of the best medical minds in the world, yet government driven health care fails to reward innovative thinking and new methods in hospitals.

The Government bureaucracy that is Medicare determines the means by which a patient will receive care by mandating a payment scheme based on a particular treatment protocol. Should a doctor find an equally effective and less expensive manner by which to treat a patient that further involves less time in the hospital, the reimbursement rate for the process is significantly less and, in some cases, does not cover the total cost of care. Therefore, government management actually encourages expensive and more ineffective care over better, less expensive alternatives.

Unfortunately, Medicare is slow to implement these innovations in protocols. Therefore, I propose the creation of four test hospitals (1 university hospital, 1 public hospital and 2 community hospitals) that will, under the direction of an established commission, be deregulated institutions that will safely implement new procedures and cost saving measures within a test hospital in order to determine and implement system-wide protocol improvements. By agreeing to participate, Medicare will cover all patient expenses not covered by insurance, including all revenue loss. In return, the institution will agree to strict oversight by the established commission and follow all protocols. This pilot project will bring innovation back to health care delivery and identify in a rapid, safe and appropriate manner, changes in the system that will increase health care quality and reduce costs.

Foreign Policy Issues

Foreign Policy Objectives and Philosophy
I believe in peace through strength. I believe in a policy that supports U.S. interests by spreading freedom within the limits of U.S. capability. I also believe in ending the one-way street on trade.

Israel and the Middle East
As House Armed Services Chairman, I recognized Israel as America’s most important ally in the Middle East region. As a result, I strongly support Israel’s right to exist and efforts to defend itself and I have consistently voted in favor of providing federal funding for Israel’s defense systems, including missile defense.

I also strongly support U.S. efforts to establish free societies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The greatest protection of human rights in this decade has been the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Religious freedom is part and parcel of any free society the U.S. stands up.

Security And Prosperity Partnership/North American Union
On March 2005, President Bush, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin first launched the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). This executive branch initiative has been stealthily advanced under the framework of “a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries.”

The SPP has never been approved by Congress nor even subjected to close oversight by either the House or Senate. It has, nevertheless, resulted in the creation of dozens of working groups involving officials from the United States, Canada and Mexico who generally meet behind closed doors for the purpose of “harmonizing” the laws and regulations of the three countries.

Just one of the many worrisome implications of the SPP appears to be the prospect that the newly “harmonized” border and transportation arrangements will facilitate the shipment of more Chinese goods from Mexico in to the United States–with significant implications for U.S. national security as well as the preservation of American jobs.

As a result of these concerns, I cosponsored H.Con.Res. 40, which was introduced by Virgil Goode of Virginia. This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not enter in the North American Union or engage in the construction of a super highway system (a.k.a. NAFTA Super highway) with Mexico and Canada.

In addition, during House consideration of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008, I offered an amendment to prohibit the use of any funds in the bill for the participation in SPP activities by Department of Transportation officials. The Hunter Amendment passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 362 to 63. Should the Senate take similar action, this will effectively stop their rumored participation in the creation of the NAFTA Super Highway.

Illegal Immigration
Amnesty
I have a 27 year record of fighting illegal immigration and promoting border security. As a member of Congress with a Southwest border district heavily impacted by the effects of illegal immigration, I have steadfastly opposed amnesty proposals, including voting against the 1986 amnesty law, while tirelessly working to strengthen border security. Amnesty is not the answer. In fact, it encourages a whole new wave of illegal immigrants who seek to catch the next amnesty.

America has one of the most generous immigration policies in the world. It is unacceptable that we allow millions of people to sneak in the back door of our country when the front door is available. We have tried amnesty and it does not work. We must enforce and, as necessary, tighten our immigration laws and secure our border–it is a matter of national security.

Border Fence
As part of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform Act (P.L. 104-208), I authored the legislative language mandating a 14-mile triple fence along the San Diego-Mexico land border, which augmented the single layer fence I had built with surplus landing-matt in 1989. Since then I've worked, most notably against strong opposition of the Clinton Administration, to see that project completed. Since construction of the San Diego fence began:

· Illegal alien apprehensions along the fenced region dropped from over 202,000 in 1992 to about 9,000 in 2004. Further, it is estimated that the apprehensions vs. attempts ratio increased to over 90%;

· With the establishment of the San Diego border fence, crime rates in San Diego have fallen off dramatically. According to the FBI Crime Index, crime in San Diego County dropped 56.3% between 1989 to 2000;

· Vehicle drive-throughs in the region have fallen from between 6 to 10 per day before the construction of border infrastructure, to only 4 drive-throughs in 2004 and those occurred only where the secondary fence is incomplete;

· The fence has forced drug smugglers, who once easily crossed the San Diego border, to attempt to enter the U.S. through major ports of entry instead. This significantly increases the likelihood of discovery and seizure of illegal narcotics entering our country.

As a result of the success of the San Diego fence, I authored the provisions of the Secure Fence Act calling for the construction of 854 miles of border fence along the five most prolific smuggling corridors on the Southwest border. While construction of the Secure Fence project is not moving as rapidly as I would like, the Administration is moving forward and as of September 30, 2007, 70 miles of new border pedestrian fence has been constructed. I remain engaged in ensuring that the Administration meets the mandates put in place by the Secure Fence Act and secures our borders as rapidly as possible.

Birth Right Citizenship Reform
I oppose summarily bestowing citizenship on people who have crossed our borders illegally. Therefore, I cosponsored H.R. 1940, the Birthright Citizenship Act, which grants automatic citizenship only to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. The Constitution has been interpreted to grant U.S. citizenship to any person born on U.S. territory. The unintended consequences of this policy has been thousands of women a year illegally cross our international border, often in dangerous circumstances, to give birth to their child in the U.S. and thereby guaranteeing that child U.S. citizenship.

Employer Verification
One of the strongest draws to the United States for illegal immigrants is our economy and enticing job market. It is critical that we remove this incentive for illegal migrants. As a result, I have cosponsored H.R. 19, which would require the Department of Homeland Security to implement a nationwide employment verification system. Employers need to have an easy, reliable and efficient system to verify an employee’s status and there must be real consequences imposed on employers who willfully break the law and employ illegal immigrants.

Border Patrol Agents
Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were convicted for what amounted to procedural violations in their attempted apprehension of drug smuggler, Aldrete-Davila, along the Southwest border in Texas. For reasons that remain unclear, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton used his prosecutorial discretion to indict Agents Ramos and Compean on a weapons charge that carries a 10-year mandatory sentence. Given the evidence and circumstances of the case, this indictment against these Border Patrol Agents was completely unjustified.

In addition, information has come forward since the agents’ convictions that the drug smuggler, who was granted immunity, received free medical care and a humanitarian visa for his testimony against the agents, was involved in another drug smuggling incident just 8 months later.

Understanding the miscarriage of justice that has been perpetuated against these agents, I introduced H.R. 563, legislation granting a congressional pardon to the agents. While this has never been tried before and some argue that it is unconstitutional, legal advisors have stipulated that it has never been adjudicated and that there are some indications that such an action would be valid. Regardless, since the agents remain in jail, I believe it is appropriate to try this course of action. 102 of my House colleagues agree and have cosponsored the legislation.

In addition, I am circulating a letter amongst my colleagues to ask the President to reevaluate his previous position and immediately pardon the agents.

Finally, Rep Poe and I offered an amendment to the Commerce Justice and Science Appropriations Act, which funds the federal Bureau of Prisons, to bar any funding included in the bill to be used for the incarceration of the two agents. The amendment passed by voice vote. Now it is hoped that the Senate will follow the House’s lead.

United Nations
I would increase the burden sharing by member nations other than the U.S. In addition, I voted in favor of H.R. 2745 (Hyde-IL), the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005, implementing significant reforms that will create a more accountable and focused United Nations.

Treaties & Policies
Treaties that infringe on basic U.S. sovereignty should be rejected while international treaties that rein in tyrants may be of value.

Mexico City Policy
For many years, I have been concerned with the United Nations’ programs that promote abortion as an acceptable alternative in family planning efforts. Since 1973, U.S. law has prohibited the direct use of federal funds to pay for abortions overseas and I have supported restrictions, known as Mexico City Policy, which prohibit federal funding to international family planning groups that provide abortion or counseling services.

In 2001, President Bush directed the United States Agency for International Development Administrator to reinstate, in full, all of the requirements of the Mexico City Policy. I support President Bush's decision and firmly believe that foreign non-governmental agencies should not receive population aid from the U.S. for the purpose of advocating abortion as an option for family planning. The policy prohibits such funding unless foreign government agencies certify in writing that they will not perform or actively promote this practice.

China and Family Planning
I have also supported the Bush Administration's decision to withhold funding from the United Nations Population Fund Agency (UNFPA) as a result of their Chinese family planning program. After consistently calling on China to end its program of coercive abortions, officials from the State Department were sent to review the situation in China and determine if the UNFPA is complicit in the coercive population control program. In 2004, then Secretary of State Colin Powell sent his report to Congress, confirming China's violation of the Kemp-Kasten law, which prohibits the United States from providing taxpayer funds to any program that engages in coercive population control policies.

Trade
Further, America’s one-way-street trade relationship with China and other nations has reduced manufacturing jobs severely in the U.S. I would change the one-way-street into a two-way-street by putting the same charges on foreign goods that they put on ours.

DREWY
21-01-08, 02:12
To me abortion, although ultimately a mothers/ parents choice, should be reserved for rape victims and deformed kids or children with no real future due to other problems. Not as a form of birth control though. Unborn kids shouldn't be paying the price.

Chiki Mina
21-01-08, 02:13
I believe this is the part when I leave this thread :).

Nice talking to you all.

myrmaad, you don't have to be worried me be in charge. So "thank God," eh. I thank God too.

Every one, take care. Adios :wve:.

SamReeves
21-01-08, 02:17
Yup, I think I've had my share too. Onto new subjects. :wve:

myrmaad
21-01-08, 02:23
I just don't think that I should have the Right to make such a personal decision for everyone else in the world. I'm not just not that arrogant.

Quasimodo
21-01-08, 02:24
And the thinly veiled insult award goes to... :p

I'm gonna give this thread a rest as well. Have fun :wve:

myrmaad
21-01-08, 02:26
And the thinly veiled insult award goes to... :p

I'm gonna give this thread a rest as well. Have fun :wve:

You know what? I'm just speaking my truth.

Hack
21-01-08, 02:28
To me abortion, although ultimately a mothers/ parents choice, should be reserved for rape victims and deformed kids or children with no real future due to other problems. Not as a form of birth control though. Unborn kids shouldn't be paying the price.

Laws for that wouldn't work. They couldn't really differenciate.

I vote we rename this thread: Politics: Total War :D

DREWY
21-01-08, 02:35
Laws for that wouldn't work. They couldn't really differenciate.


Admitedly its a grey area. Much like drawing a line to say where night ends and day starts. It's there, but near impossible to find.

AmericanAssassin
21-01-08, 03:37
Here's part of a blog I just wrote for my MySpace:

A couple of months ago, I picked up a fictional storybook called If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans, by some bimbo called Ann Coulter. Little did I know, Ann Coulter wasn't just an ordinary bimbo, but a Nazi Bimbo! In her book, she clames that it's impossible to be both a Democrat and a Christian... Ha! I, personally, am both. She says that she's a full-fledged Christian. If that's so, then why does she feel it's alright for her to judge others? Doesn't the bible say not to do that? Now, you could say I'm being hypocritical, but I'm not because I never said I was a full-fledged Democrat. In fact, I prefer to live life to my own beat. Anyway, that's not the half of it. Ann Coulter once went on a Jewish-run talk show and said that all Jews needed to "perfect" themselves and become Chrisitans. As you would guess, the host wasn't exactly the happiest person alive after such a comment. Still not digusted? This one takes the cake: She said that she feels that all women who have lost a husband due to 9/11 need to shut up and quite playing victim. She said that they're happy their husbands are dead because then they can talk on tv, where it would be innapropriate for anybody to judge their situation because of how sensitive the topic is... She said that she feels as if those women use their husbands deaths as a convenient excuse while in a debate. Hell naw! How anybody could speak to another like that is proposterous to me! Ann Coulter is not a human being, but a Nazi monster! (Here is a link to the video of Ann Coulter on the Jewish-ran talk show: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2wnPHFSdrME).

Hack
21-01-08, 03:43
Here's part of a blog I just wrote for my MySpace:

Best thing to do with Ms Coulter is to ignore her. Don't give her little minded hatred and ignorance and kinda serious notice. She says half of that horrible stuff is just attention grabing for the media. It kinda like a distraction.

Don't FEED the Trolls, Its just not worth it!

The real people who are running the political show (and the world into the ground as a consequence) don't run there mouth off like that publically.
They're who I'm really scared off.

ThomasCroft
21-01-08, 15:20
Gay Marriage: If you know me you know I don't agree with it. I believe it's Immoral. I also think that even two people of the opposite sex (with or without kids) that "shack-up" or "Live-In Lovers" is also Immoral. But people are going to do it anyway. It can't be stopped.

I had the thought of: "It's not so much the (wo)man on (wo)man lovin' as it is the sodomy. Which is disgusting." But would a married man and woman (that are married to each other -you dirty minded...:p ) commit "sodomy" too? Is this what it means (as when a Man is) to Lie with another man as he would a woman? Hmmm... That's a good question that I don't know the answer to. Like when (and please accept my apologies for being a bit crude here) a husband using the back door to his wife. That isn't ******l intercourse. Then there's the other way. If I believe that 2 peeps of the same sex doing this is immoral - is 2 married people of the opposite sex doing these things immoral also? Eh, *thinks* ....yeah. :o *but isn't sure*

No offence, but here you really don't seem to know what you are talking about. So you're saying that anal sex is immoral because it's not something you like doing personally? That's arrogance, I'm afraid, pure and simple.

What do you expect homosexuals to do? Stay single and miserable all their lives? Apparently yes. That's selfishness. A relationship between two homosexuals is exactly that: a private, personal relationship between those two people. Why should anyone else determine whether what they are doing is 'moral' or not? Why not just butt-out and let them be happy? - It's not affecting you!

I completely understand that you do not like men, and I can even understand why the thought of homosexual sex may disgust you, but you were not born homosexual and therefore it in no way affects you or your life; as a result you have no reason to prevent others from doing it. It would be just as unfair if a gay person said, "I hate straight sex, it's disgusting - therefore it's immoral."

Additionally, the whole point about gay relationships going against the law of nature is silly considering people are born gay and they have no way of helping it - in other words, nature made them gay!

It would be just as fair to blame a disabled person for being in a wheelchair as it would to persecute gay people for their sexual orientation.

Mona Sax
21-01-08, 15:47
Additionally, the whole point about gay relationships going against the law of nature is silly considering people are born gay and they have no way of helping it - in other words, nature made them gay!
Lots of other species have homosexual tendencies, too. So... 'it's unnatural' is just wrong. True, it's rather unlikely for a homosexual couple to have kids the common way, but that doesn't mean their relationship is pointless. That would do both love and sex injustice. (To be completely honest, and I don't mean to offend anybody, sometimes I think the people who scream the loudest against gay rights have no idea what love means.)

ThomasCroft
21-01-08, 15:56
Lots of other species have homosexual tendencies, too. So... 'it's unnatural' is just wrong. True, it's rather unlikely for a homosexual couple to have kids the common way, but that doesn't mean their relationship is pointless. That would do both love and sex injustice. (To be completely honest, and I don't mean to offend anybody, sometimes I think the people who scream the loudest against gay rights have no idea what love means.)

:hug: Exactly.

Forwen
21-01-08, 16:14
Hehe. Gotta agree with PARANOIA here.

The hot juicy topic of gay rights has become the firework spectacle of serious discussions. It concerns no more than 5% people worldwide for crying out loud! So leave gays alone and get back to taxes please.

george_croft
21-01-08, 16:27
The hot juicy topic of gay rights has become the firework spectacle of serious discussions. It concerns no more than 5% people worldwide for crying out loud! So leave gays alone and get back to taxes please.

I can't believe people actually believe that bull****. There's loads more gay people in the world, most of them holding back their sexuality because of the way society treats them.

AmericanAssassin
21-01-08, 16:32
Lots of other species have homosexual tendencies, too. So... 'it's unnatural' is just wrong. True, it's rather unlikely for a homosexual couple to have kids the common way, but that doesn't mean their relationship is pointless. That would do both love and sex injustice. (To be completely honest, and I don't mean to offend anybody, sometimes I think the people who scream the loudest against gay rights have no idea what love means.)

Exactly... :tmb: You are now, officially, my political hero! :D

Forwen
21-01-08, 16:37
I can't believe people actually believe that bull****. There's loads more gay people in the world, most of them holding back their sexuality because of the way society treats them.

Any sources? Preferably not from gay rights organisations of course.

I personally have come to accept the safe margin of 3% to 5%. And frankly, greater numbers would be against interests of homosexuals themselves, as it would give those concerned about birth rate a much more powerful argument against gay marriage.

ThomasCroft
21-01-08, 16:47
Hehe. Gotta agree with PARANOIA here.

The hot juicy topic of gay rights has become the firework spectacle of serious discussions. It concerns no more than 5% people worldwide for crying out loud! So leave gays alone and get back to taxes please.

Are you so ignorant to believe that 5% of the global population - that's 300 million people - can afford to be dismissed? Additionally, on a moral basis what you said is particularly outrageous: 'Yes, allow those people to be discriminated against in society, who cares about them? I'm more concerned with my finances thank you!'

That's terrible!

Draco
21-01-08, 16:50
The Abortion debate is moot under my system...which is widely depicted as barbaric and against human rights. Some of you know something about it.

Forwen
21-01-08, 17:04
Are you so ignorant to believe that 5% of the global population - that's 300 million people - can afford to be dismissed? Additionally, on a moral basis what you said is particularly outrageous: 'Yes, allow those people to be discriminated against in society, who cares about them? I'm more concerned with my finances thank you!'

That's terrible!

I don't discuss with people who twist my words.

The Abortion debate is moot under my system...which is widely depicted as barbaric and against human rights. Some of you know something about it.

Not much. You never elaborated.

ThomasCroft
21-01-08, 17:23
I don't discuss with people who twist my words.

Terribly convenient. :)

myrmaad
21-01-08, 17:25
Terribly convenient. :)

Actually I thought it was inconvenient = "out of ammo".:ton:

Forwen
21-01-08, 17:33
Terribly convenient. :)

Sorta. I don't understand why I'm supposed to bother defending my opinion from someone who jumps to conclusions and name-calling without giving second thought to what I say. It's obvious you've got no idea what I meant.

Eh... But that's the standard thing with public discussion on sensitive matters innit.

I'll give you an example. Please be honest: do you assume I'm heterosexual?

myrmaad
21-01-08, 17:39
Sorta. I don't understand why I'm supposed to bother defending my opinion from someone who jumps to conclusions and name-calling without giving second thought to what I say. It's obvious you've got no idea what I meant.

I'll give you an example. Please be honest: do you assume I'm heterosexual?

May I answer this? Having conversed with you before, I was under the impression that you weren't. However regardless of whether or not you are, you still used a common phraseology that could be offensive, and furthermore, why do you think it's so very difficult to get good numbers on the percentage of population who is gay? because many are ashamed, and even more live in fear of repercussion. There have been plenty of senators, for example who were homosexual or had homosexual relationships who voted against protections for gays, just as there have been white senators who slept with black women, who voted to continue discrimination.

ThomasCroft
21-01-08, 17:46
Please be honest: do you assume I'm heterosexual?

To be honest, I do not think that's relevant in any way. You'd be surprised at my sexuality if I asked you the same question; it doesn't have a full bearing on our beliefs and morals on this subject.

And in all honesty, I don't want to get really personal. This is just a debate, after all.

domina
21-01-08, 18:12
I actually think it's a damn shame that issues like gay marriage and abortion are considered "major" political hot-topics. I'm not saying that they aren't issues and they shouldn't be addressed (gay marriage being something I fail to see any problems with and abortion being something I think should be available in extreme and limiting circumstances), but there are certainly other matters that deserve way more attention. The war, the economy, Bush's asinine No Child Left Behind Program... Things that are more widely spread in how they affect citizens.

Forwen
21-01-08, 18:15
However regardless of whether or not you are, you still used a common phraseology that could be offensive, and furthermore, why do you think it's so very difficult to get good numbers on the percentage of population who is gay? because many are ashamed, and even more live in fear of repercussion.

I'm relying mostly on studies conducted in Western countries as this region is both most open about homosexuality (excluding rare cases like Japan - homosexuality has always had a different status there) and best chances of high accuracy. Not to mention different take-ons on what homosexuality is.

But the thing is it works both ways. Some might be ashamed, some will call themselves gay because it's trendy. I stopped observing gay rights discussion sometime ago, because it went so badly off track by becoming a political banner used way too often on the political battlefront, with all those unions, flags, cultures (what?) that completely distort the core of the matter: originally gay people wanted to live normal lives. Instead, the media machine (European at least) created the image according to which a gay must be

- liberal
- pro animal rights
- pro-abortion
- atheist or at least anti-established religion
- any other left wing tosh.

The point is, regardless what you think of homosexuality its current position is temporary, as it's associated with way too many other temporary factors like political trends, current state of the family and its appeal of a subculture to some. I've got trouble believing researches conducted on students for example, as they tend to be both into latest "trends" and naturally politically involved. I know, for example, a guy that believes gays are so oppressed he honours every gay he meets as some sort of a freedom combatant. Me? I'll just wait several years/decades til gay rights disappear from political agendas to resume actually believing research.

And since it's a roughly 5% minority we're talking about here, it's no wonder that some heterosexuals get more and more defensive about how overblown the "gay rights issue" is. And I don't only mean religious activists. Just take a look at this thread: homosexuality drowned out the war in Iraq, immigrants and taxes. Is it worth it? No. Not in the sense you understood it in though.


And in all honesty, I don't want to get really personal. This is just a debate, after all.

I wasn't the first one to make it personal. Unless you count calling names a part of discussion, then pardon my semantic... ignorance.

ThomasCroft
21-01-08, 18:18
I wasn't the first one to make it personal. Unless you count calling names a part of discussion, then pardon my semantic... ignorance.

"Are you so ignorant" was a question. Only needed a simple "no"; no issue! But I mean, ignorance is ever so much more personal than sexuality, so my sincere condolences for tarnishing your perfected ego. :hug:

Forwen
21-01-08, 18:26
"Are you so ignorant" was a question. Only needed a simple "no"; no issue! But I mean, ignorance is ever so much more personal than sexuality, so my sincere condolences for tarnishing your perfected ego. :hug:

You sure you want me to start truly nitpicking at your own posts? I'm pretty well-versed in sarcasm you know.

myrmaad
21-01-08, 18:36
Thank you for your contemplative reply!

I totally get where you're coming from. I don't know why it's such a hot-button issue, and that's why I really don't understand what the big deal is about legal gay partnership or marriage. One of the biggest complaints I've read from the prochristian side is that gays are promiscuous, so why not support them in choosing committed unions? I just don't get it. And I seriously don't go for discrimination of any sort. I will ***** and complain and fight against it wherever I see it. That's just who I am.

Draco
21-01-08, 23:34
Not much. You never elaborated.

Well it starts with Mandatory Sterilization, Reproductive Asset Banks, and Offspring Licensing.

Twilight
21-01-08, 23:41
So a baby deserves to die because the mother doesn't feel like raising a child? The baby should be killed because the woman couldn't keep her legs closed and had to have sex without a condom.

A woman may have the right to do what she wants to do with her body. But the right to kill?

so u would bring in a baby so it could have a miserable life? and the baby isnt even born yet, how can it be killed?

why should the government have a choice in that anyway?

DREWY
21-01-08, 23:45
There's probably a few people here that could use their overnight break to settle down just a tad and take a few deep breaths. Not taking sides -I just want the debate or discussion to remain civil.
Thanx :wve:

Chiki Mina
22-01-08, 01:41
so u would bring in a baby so it could have a miserable life? and the baby isnt even born yet, how can it be killed?

why should the government have a choice in that anyway?

Then what is it while it's in the mother's womb? A toy? It's alive. I'm not talking about the goverment, BTW. Abortion can't be illegal because it can be necessary when the mother is at risk or complications going on during pregnancy. Then it's necessary for an abortion. My opinion is not to make the goverment abortion illegal, my opinion is that I am against abortion. Period. Unless when it's necessary - like I explained.

Hack
22-01-08, 01:46
Soooooooo, what do u guys think 'bout NAFTA?

rowanlim
22-01-08, 04:13
Soooooooo, what do u guys think 'bout NAFTA?

North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement = proof of US control on world economy

Ward Dragon
22-01-08, 23:20
Ward Dragon's points regarding the Flat Tax were RIGHT ON. She's soooo SMART!!

Thanks :hug: Your posts are always well thought out and intelligent :D

remyma
22-01-08, 23:23
I don't really have a political opinion. But I don't support the war in Iraq. I do support every form of gay rights. I don't think you shout be allowed to have or buy any guns, people can't handle them. I think you should be allowed to get an abortion if you want, but you should pay for it your self. Here in Denmark, it's completely free to get abortions, you can just walk right in to a doctor and get one. It's so expensive, they should use the money on homeless, cancer or the kids in africa instead.

Geck-o-Lizard
22-01-08, 23:37
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8720/hillaryblackkidax9.jpg

Hack
22-01-08, 23:38
some one save that poor child from that monster :eek: :(

Quasimodo
23-01-08, 00:47
The girl's expression speaks volumes :D

Did that photo come from a news article?...

Hack
23-01-08, 00:52
The girl's expression speaks volumes :D

Did that photo come from a news article?...

Say, If the space enclosed by a 2D surface is called Area, and the space enclosed by a 3D space is called Volume, what do you call a 4D enclosed space?

USP
23-01-08, 01:03
Ron Paul 2008

Ward Dragon
23-01-08, 01:09
The girl's expression speaks volumes :D

That was my exact reaction! :D

AmericanAssassin
30-01-08, 14:28
Forum member interstellardave said this...

I thought I'd create a general thread where GW bashing, or generalized American Governmental policy bashing can take place--and actually be on topic!

If you hate GW or the USA have at it, then...

Then, his thread was closed...

If he wants to say that, I think he has every right... Just in a more civil way. So, why not do it here, however, make it more civil. :) I mean, I bashed him in my first post...

Also, make note that this is NOT deying any rules. I'm just showing the members of this great forum that there is a place where people can give thier opinions on the idiot that is Bush in a civil way... :)

Gregori
30-01-08, 14:28
Thread necromancy ftw!

interstellardave
30-01-08, 14:30
InterstellarDave said:



Then, his thread was closed...

If he wants to say that, I think he has every right... So, why not do it here, however, make it more civil. :) I mean, I bashed him in my first post...

LOL... well that thread was created with more than a little sarcasm behind it! I was reacting to something else when I created that... :o

Eddie Haskell
30-01-08, 14:55
I actually think it's a damn shame that issues like gay marriage and abortion are considered "major" political hot-topics. I'm not saying that they aren't issues and they shouldn't be addressed (gay marriage being something I fail to see any problems with and abortion being something I think should be available in extreme and limiting circumstances), but there are certainly other matters that deserve way more attention. The war, the economy, Bush's asinine No Child Left Behind Program... Things that are more widely spread in how they affect citizens.

Well said.

Melonie Tomb Raider
30-01-08, 15:10
Then what is it while it's in the mother's womb? A toy? It's alive. I'm not talking about the goverment, BTW. Abortion can't be illegal because it can be necessary when the mother is at risk or complications going on during pregnancy. Then it's necessary for an abortion. My opinion is not to make the goverment abortion illegal, my opinion is that I am against abortion. Period. Unless when it's necessary - like I explained.

I'm against abortion as well; however, I disagree with it even in the "necessary" scenario you described.

The bottom line is that abortion is killing an innocent life. If the pregnant woman's life is in danger, does it make it right to kill another life to make her live? I don't think so at all. If the baby were out of her womb, how would you feel about the mother if she threw her baby in front of a bullet to save her own life? Would be pretty pathetic, wouldn't it?

I see abortion as no different.

Gregori
30-01-08, 15:12
having a baby grow up without a mother, awesome

myrmaad
30-01-08, 15:21
I'm against abortion as well; however, I disagree with it even in the "necessary" scenario you described.

The bottom line is that abortion is killing an innocent life. If the pregnant woman's life is in danger, does it make it right to kill another life to make her live? I don't think so at all. If the baby were out of her womb, how would you feel about the mother if she threw her baby in front of a bullet to save her own life? Would be pretty pathetic, wouldn't it?

I see abortion as no different.

You should start hating me now then because I had an ectopic pregnancy that began hemorrhaging and they took it to save my life, via C-section. It was much too early to be viable in any fashion so it necessarily died.

By the way, had I simply hemorrhaged to death, both of us would have died rather quickly.

Lovely.

petujaymz
30-01-08, 15:28
http://img36.picoodle.com/img/img36/4/1/30/f_supersmashbm_49d2983.jpg

Maybe these guys should enter the fray...

http://img03.picoodle.com/img/img03/4/1/30/f_obamam_3f704cd.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/1/30/f_obamam_3f704cd.jpg&srv=img03)http://img31.picoodle.com/img/img31/4/1/30/f_clintonm_af10e0d.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/1/30/f_clintonm_af10e0d.jpg&srv=img31)

Have you seen their campaign websites?

Oh... my... God...

Hillary Clinton (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/)

Barack Obama (http://barackobama.com)

:wve:

rowanlim
30-01-08, 15:37
I support abortion. WHEN IT'S NECESSARY. Like to save the life of the mother. My concept is, if the child is endangering the mother's life, for example a child that would be born with terrible disabilities, then if we keep the child, chances are we're gonna lose BOTH. If she undergoes abortion, there's a chance for her to have another child.

Then again that's my opinion. No one has the authority to deny gay people their rights. Their right to be happy & to live a life free from discrimination is MORE IMPORTANT than the "relative comfort" of other people who'd prefer to NOT have gays in the community.

AmericanAssassin
30-01-08, 15:48
Hola, everybody. :wve: I started a political blog at http://mateoforpresident.blogspot.com/ (I'm Mateo / Matt in Spanish) a little less than a week ago and I'd love it if you guys would comment... Here are the two posts I've done so far. :)

Republicans Actually Believe That Invading An Innocent Country Is An Okay Thing To Do... Freakin' Idiots!

You see, when in comes to the war in Iraq, there is not a more ignorant group than the Republican Party. What Republicans honestly believe is that you should support every decision the president of the United States makes, unconditionally. If that were the case with President Bush, the country would be in ruins and everybody would have an unimaginable amount of debt to pay (most of which would probably end up in our presidents pocket). Thank God for us liberals. We can see past the deception of the Bush Administration. We realize that Bush tricked all of the conservatives into believing the War in Iraq had some mysterious tie to 9/11. Guess what Republicans… It does not. Iraq did not pose any sort of threat to the United States of America. They did not have weapons of mass destruction. They never even pretended they did. They were innocent when we savagely invaded their country. They are innocent today. I’m not saying that there weren’t problems over in Iraq, however, nothing that posed a threat to our government. Saddam Hussein was known to have killed several innocent people during his presidency in Iraq. Republicans are only joking themselves if they honestly think that we, the United States, have helped the Iraqi people in any sort of way, shape, or form. All we’ve manage to do is murder, whether through battle or invasion, over 80,000* innocent Iraqi civilians. Not militia; nobody who was trying to kill us; Civilians. Then, our government (primarily Republicans) has the nerve to question why the people there have set up roadside bombs and take our soldiers as hostages? We deserve it. We wrongly invaded them. It was not the other way around. Don’t forget the facts. Why are we still there, you ask? The simple answer: Nobody actually knows, but I personally believe it’s so that we can rob them of all their oil supply. I mean, come on, do you really believe it’s a coincidence that the Bush family used to work in the oil business. Bush, Jr. himself even ran his own out in Texas back in the day. Are you surprised? If so, you deserve a nice big slap across your idiotic face. Ignorance is no better than conservatism, which is among the worst evils in existence. John McCain, of the Republican Party was quoted saying: “A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq.” If only he would explain to us what that success is… Republicans think they can go and make statements like that and not need to explain any of it. If Republicans want my vote (which is about 99.9% unlikely to ever happen), they need to allow us American citizens our right of knowledge. For me, until we get some proper information explaining Bush’s idiotism, I will just assume that he is wasting funding on robbery. That is what any sane person would assume, after all.

*Current Iraqi Civilian Body Count: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/


Conservatives Tend To Be Ignorant About Everything... Especially "Sensitive" Topics Like Abortion!

When it comes to the “sensitive” topic of abortion, conservatives tend to start babbling on about murder, children’s rights, and some other useless unexplained (usually made-up) crap. However, I personally have never looked at it with any of those views in mind, mostly because I’m a sane liberal, but also because I don’t like the idea of innocent women getting hurt. Why should a woman be forced to have a child that she knows she’ll never be able to provide for? Why should a teenager have a child that she’ll be forced to sacrifice her own life for? Why should a victim of rape be forced to birth a child, who will serve as a constant reminder of the terrible things that have happened to her? It makes no sense to me why anybody would ever find a situation like this appropriate to bring a child into this world. Those people (most often Republicans) should be ashamed of themselves. Yeah, that’s right. They should all be embarrassed that they could ever possibly consider these things. Let’s say abortion was to be stopped and women lost even more rights. Okay... Do any of you stupid Republicans honestly think these women aren’t going to abort those fetuses? Ha! The reason that abortion was made legal in the first place was so that women could have the procedure done in a safer environment. If a woman really wants to get the procedure bad enough, she can still just go down to Mexico and have one done illegally. However, and I would be sure to blame every Republican who opposes my views, those women would more than likely come back mutilated. Many of those women could never have children when they felt the timing was right. Husbands and wives would never be able to start a family. Do you really think that’s fair to anybody? Hell no. Oh, and I have a message to those of you who believe that rape victims should still have the kid and put it up for adoption: **** off! One in six women are raped or abused sexually.* Several of those women get pregnant. If all of those women were forced to have their child, there would be a hell of a lot more children in foster care than the system would be able to handle. Even if they could manage, do you honestly think any of those children are going to live a happy, fulfilled life? No. Many of them would get molested and raped themselves. Not exactly a life worth living now is it? Now, be as sane as possible and think about that.

*Rape & Sexual Abuse Statistics: http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html?gclid=CKeCuejGl5ECFSUTIgoddH_zGw

PARANOIA
30-01-08, 15:55
Am I allowed to post links to ten conservative blogs or are you easily offended?

By the way, your blogs don't really cite any facts. They're just rantings and ad hominem attacks.

For instance, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. We found chemical weapons. Weapons that Saddam used against his own people.

Gregori
30-01-08, 15:56
Am I allowed to post links to ten conservative blogs or are you easily offended?

Anybody stopping you?

AmericanAssassin
30-01-08, 16:00
Am I allowed to post links to ten conservative blogs or are you easily offended?

Go right ahead, however, I'm expecting them to be a bunch of idiotic religious ramblings...

By the way, your blogs don't really cite any facts. They're just rantings and ad hominem attacks.

I shouldn't have to site any facts. I was telling you my personal views, which is the point of a blog! :p

For instance, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. We found chemical weapons. Weapons that Saddam used against his own people.

I seriously want some proof on that... Let's say they do. Why should it matter? We do. Why should we be able to have them and nobody else. The USA is ****. On the topic of killing, do you know how many people we've killed? Innocent people? We're more terrorists to Iraq than Saddam Hussein ever was. :)

PARANOIA
30-01-08, 16:01
Here's my blog. Feel free to attack me for being a conservative loony.

http://votd-nzn.blogspot.com/

Go right ahead, however, I'm expecting them to be a bunch of idiotic religious ramblings...

Since you obviously stated an incorrect fallacy, I'm not even going to argue against you. You're simply not worthy.

Capt. Murphy
30-01-08, 16:02
I'm against abortion as well; however, I disagree with it even in the "necessary" scenario you described.

The bottom line is that abortion is killing an innocent life. If the pregnant woman's life is in danger, does it make it right to kill another life to make her live? I don't think so at all. If the baby were out of her womb, how would you feel about the mother if she threw her baby in front of a bullet to save her own life? Would be pretty pathetic, wouldn't it?

I see abortion as no different.

With all due respect, I'll have to somewhat disagree Mel. If the Mother is alive she can, in almost all cases, have another child. And what if that mother (or family) has other children? Those children can't risk losing a Mother, and the husband wouldn't want to lose a loving wife. :o

I agree that taking an innocent life is wrong, but IMO, it's a greater good to preserve the mother's life.

I know of one family where the mother had lost a baby. I don't think it was by a miscarriage -maybe a complicated birth... anyway, it was a boy. However she did have another child, another boy. And one day (when he could talk) he told his mother that he was his little brother, even though he never knew anything about his little brother before him that had died. So, I'd believe that (all of) our Children are in God's hands if a situation comes about that we have no control over. And he can give that child back.

AmericanAssassin
30-01-08, 16:07
Since you obviously stated an incorrect fallacy, I'm not even going to argue against you.

I apologize for that comment, however, a lot of Republicans want to drag religion into their politics and it's simply not right. This country was founded with freedom. Even a freedom of religion, which some candidates don't respect. Sure, some Democrats do it too, however, a lot more Republicans do. I tend to stereotype and I, once again apologize. ;)

Gregori
30-01-08, 16:09
You're simply not worthy.

Thats right. Nobody is worthy of your level of argument.

Quasimodo
30-01-08, 16:12
Go right ahead, however, I'm expecting them to be a bunch of idiotic religious ramblings...


That's about as fair as brushing off a liberal blog as "a bunch of idiotic godless ramblings".

PARANOIA
30-01-08, 16:15
Thats right. Nobody is worthy of your level of argument.

Correct. I am smarter than anyone on this message forum and I do not care to waste my intelligence. ;)

myrmaad
30-01-08, 16:19
For instance, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. We found chemical weapons. Weapons that Saddam used against his own people.

This is actually not true. I have a headache, and so I'm not going to pursue it with you. Some other time, it will be my pleasure to enlighten anyone interested.

Eddie Haskell
30-01-08, 16:23
I am a left-wing liberal, and I had a long, slow road to get there. In my 20+ years as an officer in the military, I have been all over this world. I have seen all forms of government, living conditions, customs... you name it. I have been part of my governments efforts to help around the world in military, emergency and humanitarian efforts.

I will use Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of a point I am going to make. Since I was directly involved in the US efforts in both nations I can speak with authority on them. When the US government assists these nations in their rebuilding of infrastructure, health care, and other things, it doesn't use a free-market, capitalistic approach. It goes 180° from this to a socialist one. Free health care, food and monetary handouts, subsidized prices, Why? Because invariably greed and avarice will prevail and the people will get the shaft. Not only from the local officials/merchants/contractors but more especially from the US greed merchants who seek to make a fortune off of the US treasury. So although our military is becoming a cash cow for private enterprise (Halliburton, etc) we know that trying to use a free-market approach to assist these nations will ultimately fail, unless you're a greedy fatcat.

If the philosophy is right, it should work everywhere and every time. Civilization requires those who are better off to help those who are not. We are not animals, and the law of the jungle should be left there. I am in a higher tax bracket in the US, with my wife being a lawyer and until my latest health setback I was doing just fine financially. Yet we both know that unless the least of us has a roof over their heads, food in their mouths, clothes on their backs and access to the best health care than our "civilization" is a sham.

PARANOIA
30-01-08, 16:28
I just think the concept of a civilization where everybody is babied and they don't have to take personal responsibility sort of defeats the purpose of living. You just become autonomous, sufficient only on government standards, rather than being able to go above and beyond.

This is why I despise national healthcare, because as the NHS has proven, government standards seem to be very low. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jan/29/gp.reforms?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=284257033287107

Eddie Haskell
30-01-08, 16:37
I just think the concept of a civilization where everybody is babied and they don't have to take personal responsibility sort of defeats the purpose of living. You just become autonomous, sufficient only on government standards, rather than being able to go above and beyond.

This is why I despise national healthcare, because as the NHS has proven, government standards seem to be very low. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jan/29/gp.reforms?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=284257033287107

You said it yourself, a standard or a baseline if you will. One can always go above and beyond, no stopping that.

And as far as health care is concerned, i will never have to worry about it for the rest of my life. I will get the best health care as a retired officer. But that doesn't stop me from advocating for the best for everyone else, regardless of their place in society.

PARANOIA
30-01-08, 16:39
You said it yourself, a standard or a baseline if you will. One can always go above and beyond, no stopping that.

Well, fine, I endorse national healthcare and privatized healthcare so long as it's not an extra chunk coming out of my paycheck. Call me greedy, but I don't want to pay for somebody else's survival, when for all I know they could just be Joe Fatso sitting on a welfare check. :o

USP
30-01-08, 19:26
The biggest problem I have with this thread, or maybe modern day politics in general, is that the word "conservative" has been misused so often that it has lost all meaning.
I consider myself to be as conservative as possible (Libertarian).
This does not mean I am against abortion. This does not mean I am for American Imperialism. It does not mean I am a christian from the south.
What it means is that I believe in personal liberty and thus the smallest amount of government possible. If they downsized the size of the government 80 percent, I would be happy. I don't believe in a federal income tax, nor do I believe in 90 percent of taxes, such as the "estate" tax.
I don't believe in being in 130 different countries. There isn't anything "conservative" about that.
Maybe thats the most hilarious thing. In the past, the republicans were against intervention while the democrats were for it. And now its been completely flipped on its head.
AmericanAssassin, can I correct you in your assessment that all Republicans are for the war in Iraq. I can think of only one current presidential candidate who has voted No to every military intervention for the last 20 years, and he's not a democrat.

AmericanAssassin
30-01-08, 19:46
AmericanAssassin, can I correct you in your assessment that all Republicans are for the war in Iraq. I can think of only one current presidential candidate who has voted No to every military intervention for the last 20 years, and he's not a democrat.

I didn't exactly say that, however, I did say that Republicans are for the war today. Key word: TODAY. In most cases that's the true. Democrats, including Obama and Clinton, are against it. Truth be told, I don't respect anybody's opinion on the war if they are for it. It was an unneeded waste of money and we're only using it as an excuse to (A) rob them of their oil supply and (B) Get a hand in on their government, neither of which we should have any sort of right to do. :)

USP
30-01-08, 19:49
I didn't exactly say that, however, I did say that Republicans are for the war today. Key word: TODAY. In most cases that's the true. Democrats, including Obama and Clinton, are against it. Truth be told, I don't respect anybody's opinion on the war if they are for it. It was an unneeded waste of money and we're only using it as an excuse to (A) rob them of their oil supply and (B) Get a hand in on their government, neither of which we should have any sort of right to do. :)

And I am telling you that, key word coming up, TODAY Ron Paul is against the war, just as he was before the war started.

AmericanAssassin
30-01-08, 19:52
And I am telling you that, key word coming up, TODAY Ron Paul is against the war, just as he was before the war started.

Ron Paul isn't goint to become the next president of the United States... That's my main concern. Obama and Clinton could be and they're both against the idiotic war. Sounds good to me.

And I know that all Republicans aren't that way. I know, however, I also support gay rights and I'm pro-choice on abortion ,which most Republicans don't. (Not all, I know) Republicans tend to lie in those fields (i.e. Mitt Romney). I'm a clear cut Democrat. :)

USP
30-01-08, 19:54
I didn't know we had fortune tellers on this forum.

myrmaad
30-01-08, 20:02
USP, are you old enough to remember Ross Perot?

USP
30-01-08, 20:07
Yes.
Although this is slightly different. In a country where 70 percent of the citizens are against the war in Iraq, I dont see how a pro-war candidate could win.

AmericanAssassin
30-01-08, 20:10
Only 70%, huh? That's very sad. If I had it my way, nobody would be pro-war.

@ USP: Can you site that fact? I'd love to use in one of my blogs. :)

USP
30-01-08, 20:26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq

Try google if thats not it

Eddie Haskell
30-01-08, 21:08
Enough political talk for me, it ruins my fun in here. I come here to get away from that (and a lot more crap as well)...:)

But by all means continue if that floats your boat! :)

Gregori
31-01-08, 07:59
Anybody here play Rome: Total War?

I really suggest it. You learn alot about how countries are run from it :D
Even though its ancient, the parrallels to modern day politics are truely amazing!

PARANOIA
31-01-08, 13:26
Ron Paul isn't goint to become the next president of the United States... That's my main concern. Obama and Clinton could be and they're both against the idiotic war. Sounds good to me.

And I know that all Republicans aren't that way. I know, however, I also support gay rights and I'm pro-choice on abortion ,which most Republicans don't. (Not all, I know) Republicans tend to lie in those fields (i.e. Mitt Romney). I'm a clear cut Democrat. :)

Perhaps. Your opinion on what the president should advocate may change when you become old enough to get a job and pay taxes. :o The focal point of this election regards the economy and taxes, what with so many economists saying that we're in a recession. I think gay rights are the last thing on some taxpayers' minds.

myrmaad
31-01-08, 13:31
^True. I changed from a Rebublican to a Democrat after supporting myself for a few years. I'll be 45 on SuperTuesday :) In my first election I voted Reagan.

Mr.Burns
31-01-08, 13:36
^True. I changed from a Rebublican to a Democrat after supporting myself for a few years. I'll be 45 on SuperTuesday :) In my first election I voted Reagan.
Amazing how political views can change so much once you're forced to live on your own, living paycheck to paycheck and seeing the uglier sides to life. I was quite liberal back in college. After working in my current job for four years, I'm just not a bleeding liberal anymore. I've become more or less down the middle. Extreme liberals and conservatives give me a headache.

myrmaad
31-01-08, 13:40
It's one reason we can't let political views define us, or our relationships with others. Too many people believe that if you don't agree with their politics you're "evil" (On Both Sides). It's just not so. We're all just trying to do the best thing from our own perspective.

Gregori
31-01-08, 16:13
What passes for political debate these days is rather depressing... :(

AmericanAssassin
01-02-08, 21:34
What passes for political debate these days is rather depressing... :(

Lol... Why is that? Is it how stubborn everybody (including me, I admit) tends to be? :p