PDA

View Full Version : Questions for Liberals



Pages : 1 2 [3]

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-06-2011, 01:12 PM
Because a racist zionist state is no better than a racist muslim one.

But your point does illustrate Israel's imperial ambitions for the Middle East. Thank you.
I guess a "racist zionist" state is better cause you have less killings and oppressions of other people and religions than a racist Arab state. One of those "lesser of two evils" scenario. You may live in your fantasy land in thinking we would be all better off without religion, but that aint going to happen, especially not in this area. So, would you rather have a country that allows for all people, Men and women, Jew, christian, muslim and atheist to have all equal rights under the law? Or a country that treats all women as second class citizens, destroys all other religious holy sites and churches, and would kill you for being a homosexual all while all being part of their law.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-06-2011, 01:50 PM
Yay for the peaceful Palestinians going around stabbing and killing an infant with no remorse. They are so peaceful, we should all be as peaceful as they are. That evil 3 month old I guess just deserved what it got and Israel is mean for locking these teens up.


“I don’t regret what I did, and would do it again,” (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/teen-accused-of-brutally-stabbing-israeli-fogel-family-im-proud-of-what-i-did/)

Measure Man
06-06-2011, 03:45 PM
Yay for the peaceful Palestinians going around stabbing and killing an infant with no remorse. They are so peaceful, we should all be as peaceful as they are. That evil 3 month old I guess just deserved what it got and Israel is mean for locking these teens up.

Yeah, we need a peaceful religion like Christianity...you know, how Andrea Yates drowned her 5 children so they would go to heaven.

Variable Wind
06-06-2011, 04:11 PM
Yeah, we need a peaceful religion like Christianity...you know, how Andrea Yates drowned her 5 children so they would go to heaven.
Palestinian is not a religion, its an ethnicity.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-06-2011, 04:12 PM
Yeah, we need a peaceful religion like Christianity...you know, how Andrea Yates drowned her 5 children so they would go to heaven.
Deranged individual act doing something what she was doing as "love" vs indoctrinated group of people taught to hate. Yeah, I see how they are the same.

VFFSSGT
06-06-2011, 04:24 PM
Yeah, we need a peaceful religion like Christianity...you know, how Andrea Yates drowned her 5 children so they would go to heaven.

You know, this has been one of many questions that I struggled with the Christian faith...if you sincerely believe you will go to a better place than this world, why are you still here? If you sincerely believe your loved ones went to a better place than this world, why are you so upset?

Variable Wind
06-06-2011, 04:32 PM
Why it was hamstrung is very important. They hamstrung themselves. Heavy handed tactics alienated the population we were supposedly fighting for, we failed to establish doctrine for force protection in convoys until relatively late in the war (causing a lot of unecessary casualties from ambushes), an over-reliance on air power (which has been shown time and time again to be a paper tiger that does little significant damage), and of course the notorious Phoenix program (which wreaked havoc on the new government and command structure we were trying to build) - among many, many other mistakes.
As it relates to the topic at hand, why is somewhat important, but much of what I was elluding to was based on the fact that we were hamstrung. It was not from our heavy handed tactics, but more from a reluctance to do so. Even Corney confirms that. We never decided to land at Hai Phong harbor and move straight into Hanoi and do what had to be done. A simple quick invasion similar to Desert Storm. We still had several combat veteran Paratroopers. We still had battleships with crews that had used them.
BTW, Project Pheonix also produced the SEALs, so it wasnt all bad.


How about the battle at Ia Drang and the disaster that followed? An entire battalion blundering into an ambush - that isn't the fault of the politicians, that's imcompetent military leadership.
I read "We Were Soldiers" after watching the movie...the Col doesnt seem to agree with you. Not only that but that battle validated the use of Helicopters in warfare and changed many of our tactics in support and attack for the better. We lost a fair amount of soldiers in that battle and I think only one helo, but we took out an entire NVA division and sent it into a route.

Its a really good read, you would probably like it. Its not like the movie at all in its presentation, none of that Army wife crap, just patton-style delivery of the accounts of Coronel Moore and the reporter.


If we had listened to our Republican war hero president (Eisenhower) and stayed out of Vietnam, we might not have that wall today.
Instead we followed our Democrat president who insisted on using the CIA and our special operators as toys.


The question is - are we going to allow ourselves to be dragged into these games, or walk away.
This isnt a playground, and there is no place to go be by yourself. Our success is based on our involvement in the world to a certain degree (IE trade, resources, ect.) these buttholes have shown that they have no problem with coming onto our soil and bringing the fight to our backyard. Its not a question of playing or walking away.


We've had loads of experience, we just choose to ignore it. As for backbone, thinking with our dicks and obsessing over "saving face" has been one of our main issues.
Sometimes saving face gets you taken more seriously. Especially in the middle east with their warped sense of machismo.


Showing them to be the hypocrites they really are and robbing them of public support is the key to defeating them - not pushing everyone to their side. Divide and conquer. Uniting them into one front is NOT the way to go.
That type of subversion is difficult. Especially given the fact that many of the people are raised to agree with their line of thinking. Hypocrisy isnt as big of a deal to them, much like the french dont have a problem with aggrivated sexual assault (see IMF chief) as we do. Its a cultural thing, much of theirs is based off of telling someone what they want to hear and doing another.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-06-2011, 04:33 PM
You know, this has been one of many questions that I struggled with the Christian faith...if you sincerely believe you will go to a better place than this world, why are you still here? If you sincerely believe your loved ones went to a better place than this world, why are you so upset?

Since I don't think you intended this for MM who is mocking me, I will answer. I don't know why others are upset, I have only been "upset" when my grandpa died who was not Christian. It is a loss that you feel that you won't see them in the after life ever. Now as for my parents and 3 other grandparents who were Christians, I don't feel upset when they die. Why am I still here? Cause I believe it is a sin for suicide. And anything less than living as long as you can for the sake of getting to heaven is like cutting a corner to finish a race earlier. And killing kids for the sake of getting them to heaven faster is extiguishing a person that can carry on the faith, there for stiffeling the spread of the gosple.

Measure Man
06-06-2011, 05:07 PM
Palestinian is not a religion, its an ethnicity.

Thanks! You are on a roll today!


Deranged individual act doing something what she was doing as "love" vs indoctrinated group of people taught to hate. Yeah, I see how they are the same.

...ah, so every Palestinian that commits a horrendous is crime, is not a deranged individual, but is rather representing the beliefs and culture of all Palestinians.

Measure Man
06-06-2011, 05:09 PM
Since I don't think you intended this for MM who is mocking me, I will answer.

It's because you can SEE differences among Christians, and note that what one individual or even group of Christians do, does not represent ALL Christians...you seem unable to apply the same thought to Muslims, blacks (for the most part), the poor, oh, and of course liberals.

Variable Wind
06-06-2011, 06:21 PM
Thanks! You are on a roll today!
Youre welcome, you seem to be on your usual one too.

As stated previously, sorry to burst your bubble. Maybe youll come back with your incredibly hypocritical "YOU CAN NEVER ADMIT WHEN YOUR WRONG!" rants and some lame one-liner that gives 100% effort in being witty and pithy but comes out as 100% pathetic.

Variable Wind
06-06-2011, 06:22 PM
It's because you can SEE differences among Christians, and note that what one individual or even group of Christians do, does not represent ALL Christians...you seem unable to apply the same thought to Muslims, blacks (for the most part), the poor, oh, and of course liberals.

Gross exaggeration.

Measure Man
06-06-2011, 06:39 PM
Youre welcome, you seem to be on your usual one too.

As stated previously, sorry to burst your bubble. Maybe youll come back with your incredibly hypocritical "YOU CAN NEVER ADMIT WHEN YOUR WRONG!" rants and some lame one-liner that gives 100% effort in being witty and pithy but comes out as 100% pathetic.

Great, the personal attack.

Shouldn't you be busy researching Paul Revere's journal to show how it states "pretty much what Palin" stated?

Measure Man
06-06-2011, 06:40 PM
Gross exaggeration.

I don't think so, Al. This is just my perception, of course, but...

He uses this story to show how the Palestinians are murderous baby killers...but when a Chsitian baby-killer is point out, that is just one deranged person.

...and when it's pointed out that US prisons are full of Christians..."those aren't real Christians" to him.

Neither is WBC...but ANY story on Muslims or others..."shows how they truly are"

...and he does the same to show "how the liberals are"..."how the, certain unnamed segment of the population, are" whether that be poor, blacks or welfare recipients is not always clear.

Variable Wind
06-06-2011, 07:05 PM
I don't think so, Al. This is just my perception, of course, but...

He uses this story to show how the Palestinians are murderous baby killers...but when a Chsitian baby-killer is point out, that is just one deranged person.

...and when it's pointed out that US prisons are full of Christians..."those aren't real Christians" to him.

Neither is WBC...but ANY story on Muslims or others..."shows how they truly are"

...and he does the same to show "how the liberals are"..."how the, certain unnamed segment of the population, are" whether that be poor, blacks or welfare recipients is not always clear.

All palestinians are muslims? Apples and oranges.

Variable Wind
06-06-2011, 07:07 PM
Great, the personal attack.
Shouldn't you be busy researching Paul Revere's journal to show how it states "pretty much what Palin" stated?

Why would I research it more? How many times do I have to research it for it to reach your approval? (this is rhetorical, I dont care).

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-06-2011, 07:19 PM
He uses this story to show how the Palestinians are murderous baby killers...but when a Chsitian baby-killer is point out, that is just one deranged person.When there becomes an epidemic of Christians killing their kids out of what they consider "love", I will say the same thing. For the most part there are a lot of stories of "crazed" Palestinians that go around bombing Israeli citizens out of HATE for Jews. Hate vs love, neither are right, but one is in a huge negative connotation than the other.


...and when it's pointed out that US prisons are full of Christians..."those aren't real Christians" to him.Ah, no, they convert to Christianity and I don't doubt their conversion, it is not my place. MOST didn't go to prison doing Christian activities.


Neither is WBC...but ANY story on Muslims or others..."shows how they truly are"And you see many other Christian churches following their lead huh? Nope. Are there stories around the world, or at least around the middle east of Muslims doing this from many different Mosques and denominations?


...and he does the same to show "how the liberals are"..."how the, certain unnamed segment of the population, are" whether that be poor, blacks or welfare recipients is not always clear.I am starting to get a "Limbaugh" hatred going. Yay. I should get a radio show and make millions off controversial truths.

Quid
06-06-2011, 08:23 PM
1) the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
Greatest weapon against AIDS is education, education requires funding.


2) You are against capital punishment but for abortion on demand.
Capital punishment is a waste of money and irreversible punishment should the person ever be found out to be not guilty. Abortion is a woman's choice on whether or not to carry a fetus to term. These are different things.


3) When it comes to abortion, a woman has the right to hoose because it is her body, but when it comes to fast food, the govt needs to step in because you can't be trusted to make such an important decision when it comes to your body.
One of these has documented, long term negative effects on a person's body that eventually lead to a continued drain on taxpayer money. The other actually achieves the opposite.


4) The same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
I'll take them over the idiots that would never tell their children anything about it or screw it up even worse. The solution would be to work for better teachers, not abolish teaching.


8) Gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.
I don't get this one. Are you saying sexual attraction and gender are the same?


9) Businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
I don't necessarily believe this, but do you believe the opposite? Are businesses always creating prosperity for everyone and governments always oppressive?


12) The free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.
I would not confuse quantity with quality. Nor would I ignore price.


19) The only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
Socialism has been working for centuries. Not sure what you mean here.

Overall though most of these questions are ridiculously loaded and insulting.

Variable Wind
06-06-2011, 08:40 PM
Greatest weapon against AIDS is education, education requires funding.
Really? How much money is needed to say "hey unprotected sex, lots of needle-use from drugs can lead to aids". Thats not what many liberals are asking for. Its not towards education.


Capital punishment is a waste of money and irreversible punishment should the person ever be found out to be not guilty. Abortion is a woman's choice on whether or not to carry a fetus to term. These are different things.
Capital punishment is exactly an irreversible punishment because it is for the highest of crimes. You dont like it because maybe some innocent people die. I will guarentee you that more viable babies die in abortions than innocent people executed. I dont particularly have an opinion on abortion, but your viewpoint is a double standard.


One of these has documented, long term negative effects on a person's body that eventually lead to a continued drain on taxpayer money. The other actually achieves the opposite.
Having babies has a documented long term negative effects on a persons body? Then why dont we ban kids? We are trying to do it with food. Again, your viewpoint is a double standard.


I'll take them over the idiots that would never tell their children anything about it or screw it up even worse. The solution would be to work for better teachers, not abolish teaching.
Who said anything about abolishing teaching? You seem a little defensive. Re-read the question.


I don't get this one. Are you saying sexual attraction and gender are the same?
No, again you are getting defensive. I actually think that both are natural. The same justifications used for explaining homosexuality can be used to justify gender roles. Can you answer now?


I don't necessarily believe this, but do you believe the opposite? Are businesses always creating prosperity for everyone and governments always oppressive?
Its not about what I believe, but large governments are almost always oppressive in nature while businesses are proven to create prosperity.


I would not confuse quantity with quality. Nor would I ignore price.
Okay.


Socialism has been working for centuries. Not sure what you mean here.
Where? What socialist state has existed for centuries and thrived?


Overall though most of these questions are ridiculously loaded and insulting.
Im sorry your skin is so thin you cant get past your own inability to identify valid questions of ideology.

Measure Man
06-06-2011, 09:01 PM
Im sorry your skin is so thin you cant get past your own inability to identify valid questions of ideology.

Really, valid questions of ideology? I mean, c'mon...you yourself said:


The reference I made in my OP was mostly tongue-in-cheek but so was most of the OP anyway, it was meant to spark this discussion.

Quid
06-06-2011, 09:14 PM
Really? How much money is needed to say "hey unprotected sex, lots of needle-use from drugs can lead to aids". Thats not what many liberals are asking for. Its not towards education.
Says who?


Capital punishment is exactly an irreversible punishment because it is for the highest of crimes. You dont like it because maybe some innocent people die. I will guarentee you that more viable babies die in abortions than innocent people executed. I dont particularly have an opinion on abortion, but your viewpoint is a double standard.
It is not. A fetus is not a person. More so, a person in jail away from society and unable to harm anyone isn't forcing a random woman to sacrifice 9 months of her life and very possibly her health, career, and future for them.


Having babies has a documented long term negative effects on a persons body? Then why dont we ban kids? We are trying to do it with food. Again, your viewpoint is a double standard.
Eating fast food does. Your lack of knowledge that fast food is bad for you is proof it's necessary to protect people from themselves. You also seem to be unaware that children are actually necessary for the continuation of the country. Vices like fast food, cigarettes, heroin, etc are not and therefore up for regulation depending on how dangerous the government believes they are.


Who said anything about abolishing teaching? You seem a little defensive. Re-read the question.
You think teachers shouldn't teach sex ed because they're not capable of doing so. Then why do you think them capable of teaching any other subject? Why are you okay with this supposes incompetent teacher teaching math but not sex ed? It's all important.


No, again you are getting defensive. I actually think that both are natural. The same justifications used for explaining homosexuality can be used to justify gender roles. Can you answer now?
And how many genders are there? Two? Four? More than that? Depending on the culture it could be any of those. And define what these roles actually are.


Its not about what I believe, but large governments are almost always oppressive in nature while businesses are proven to create prosperity.
The Gilded Age is named so for a reason.


Where? What socialist state has existed for centuries and thrived?
America? Or are the government controlled and provided public roads, schools, libraries, police, military, FDA, etc all a detriment to the betterment of Americans? Socialism does not require everything be controlled by the government, merely some of it. Which has been pretty much every government ever.


Im sorry your skin is so thin you cant get past your own inability to identify valid questions of ideology.
I'm sorry you're either too dishonest or too thick to ask questions that aren't poorly worded and loaded.

Measure Man
06-06-2011, 09:22 PM
When there becomes an epidemic of Christians killing their kids out of what they consider "love", I will say the same thing. For the most part there are a lot of stories of "crazed" Palestinians that go around bombing Israeli citizens out of HATE for Jews. Hate vs love, neither are right, but one is in a huge negative connotation than the other.

Pick any group of people...and there are a lot of stores of "crazed" among them.


Ah, no, they convert to Christianity and I don't doubt their conversion, it is not my place. MOST didn't go to prison doing Christian activities.

Yes...robbing a bank may not be a "Christian Activity"...that doesn't mean the guy isn't a Christian...MOST of them don't just convert in prison, they were brought up Christian. They may get more devoted once in prison...as a defensive mechanism maybe, or as a true change of heart, who knows.


And you see many other Christian churches following their lead huh? Nope. Are there stories around the world, or at least around the middle east of Muslims doing this from many different Mosques and denominations?

There are over a billion Muslims in the world...how many do you think are violent radicals?


I am starting to get a "Limbaugh" hatred going. Yay. I should get a radio show and make millions off controversial truths.

VFFSSGT
06-06-2011, 09:43 PM
Pick any group of people...and there are a lot of stores of "crazed" among them.

You got to admit, there are a disproportionately higher number of Muslim terrorist or radicals than Christian Baby Killers or any other 'Christian' nut job.


There are over a billion Muslims in the world...how many do you think are violent radicals?

Do they have to be violent and radicals or can they be just violent or just radical?! Many of them seem to like to stone people to death for being a Weiner while others like to kill people just because they are different.

I actually believe most Muslims are fundamentalists or have some type of "radical" viewpoint. In their mind, they are not radical though and we are the enemy because we don't believe in their religion, whether you are a Christian, atheist, Jew, Buddist, agnostic, or confused.

Measure Man
06-06-2011, 09:48 PM
You got to admit, there are a disproportionately higher number of Muslim terrorist or radicals than Christian Baby Killers or any other 'Christian' nut job.

Yes. I'm not sure if that's the religion...or just the Middle East culture...one driving the other or they just are so inseparable as to be nearly indistiguishable..


Do they have to be violent and radicals or can they be just violent or just radical?! Many of them seem to like to stone people to death for being a Weiner while others like to kill people just because they are different.

I actually believe most Muslims are fundamentalists or have some type of "radical" viewpoint. In their mind, they are not radical though and we are the enemy because we don't believe in their religion.

Yeah, you're right...there is a brutality in that culture that is hard to stomach...whether it be "honor killings" or whatever...it's just like they are hundreds or thousands of years behind the modern times, at least OUR modern times.

Variable Wind
06-07-2011, 12:52 AM
Says who?
Says all of the aids activists who gave bush crap for not giving enough hand out money to aids research. Folks like bono, or barney franks and others.


It is not. A fetus is not a person. More so, a person in jail away from society and unable to harm anyone isn't forcing a random woman to sacrifice 9 months of her life and very possibly her health, career, and future for them.
I'm sorry your mother gave you so much grief about those 9 months you punished her. If a viable fetus is able to exist with reasonable medical care: guess what? Its a live human being. Nice job deflecting my response though, just like any uber militant and incredibly idiotic person participating in the abortion discussion. Congrats to you.


Eating fast food does. Your lack of knowledge that fast food is bad for you is proof it's necessary to protect people from themselves. You also seem to be unaware that children are actually necessary for the continuation of the country. Vices like fast food, cigarettes, heroin, etc are not and therefore up for regulation depending on how dangerous the government believes they are.
At what point did I say I didn't think fast food was bad for me? you're acting intentionally dense, I am sure. However, I read that eggs are bad for you, so we need to ban them. Orange juice? Yup it has sugar, which might lead to diabetes, so that knocks all fruit off of the menu. Water? Yes too much water can cause a depletion of nutrients. Banned. And children, your child might grow up a complete whiner like quid. Banned.

We can go down the list. I'm not some babyfied sissy vegan like you so I have enough willpower not to eat at mcdonalds more than a couple of times a month. I don't need the government telling me when its okay to splurge. This isn't a nanny state like you obviously need.


You think teachers shouldn't teach sex ed because they're not capable of doing so. Then why do you think them capable of teaching any other subject? Why are you okay with this supposes incompetent teacher teaching math but not sex ed? It's all important.
Math teachers teach math. History teachers teach history. Do you want your podiatrist giving you a root canal? Would you do that at a va hospital? No and HEEEEELLLLL NO.


And how many genders are there? Two? Four? More than that? Depending on the culture it could be any of those. And define what these roles actually are.
Oh dear, I've stumble upon the shallow end of the thought pool and your wearing water wings.

The Gilded Age is named so for a reason.



America? Or are the government controlled and provided public roads, schools, libraries, police, military, FDA, etc all a detriment to the betterment of Americans? Socialism does not require everything be controlled by the government, merely some of it. Which has been pretty much every government ever.
I think the word you are looking for is DECADES and not centuries :rolleyes: I take it you were sick with mono when they taught history in history class. Not only that but the groups you describe are hardly thriving. They are bloated, overbudjet, behind schedule, replete with corruption and fraud, the list goes on and on. Best examples DOT, Amtrack, USPS. Thanks for adding proof to my argument but I didn't need it.


I'm sorry you're either too dishonest or too thick to ask questions that aren't poorly worded and loaded.
I get it, your a false flag. Your really some troll giving the dumbest liberal responses on purpose, right?

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-07-2011, 01:29 AM
Pick any group of people...and there are a lot of stores of "crazed" among them.Mormons. :shrug I am not one, just picking one group of people and seeing how many stories of deaths and killings happen.


Yes...robbing a bank may not be a "Christian Activity"...that doesn't mean the guy isn't a Christian...MOST of them don't just convert in prison, they were brought up Christian. They may get more devoted once in prison...as a defensive mechanism maybe, or as a true change of heart, who knows.So you admit that falling away from Christianity is when people start robbing the bank...And then when we see them become a stronger Christian, they fall away from crime. So what about that devout Muslim killing his daughter for having sex, or getting her ears perceived or whatever it was about that led to the "honor killing"? Does that Muslim get stronger with with his religion in jail? I hope not.


There are over a billion Muslims in the world...how many do you think are violent radicals?
And where do you think their funding comes from? Muslims MUST fork over 10% to their Masque, and a lot have been shown to be going to support what happens around the world whether knowingly or unknowingly to the average Mosque goer.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-07-2011, 01:38 AM
I forget what thread we were talking about circumcision ban in SF as being anti-Semitic, here you go, some nice, good old fashion Nazi propaganda.
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/sf1.jpg

Story here. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/proof-that-s-f-s-circumcision-ban-is-anti-semitic/) Yes, this comic was done by the guy that wrote the anti-circusision law.

Measure Man
06-07-2011, 01:50 AM
Mormons. :shrug I am not one, just picking one group of people and seeing how many stories of deaths and killings happen.

One of many:


Mountain Meadows massacreThe Mountain Meadows massacre of September 11, 1857 was widely blamed on the church's teachings of blood atonement and other anti-United States rhetoric by LDS Church leaders during the Utah War.[citation needed] The widely-publicized massacre was a mass killing of Arkansan emigrants by a Mormon militia led by prominent Mormon leader John D. Lee, who was later executed for his role in the killings. After escalating rumors that some of the emigrants had participated in early Mormon persecution, the militia conducted a siege, and when the emigrants surrendered, the militia killed men, women, and children in cold blood, adopted some of the surviving children, and attempted a cover-up.

Though widely connected with the blood atonement doctrine by the United States press and general public, there is no direct evidence that the massacre was related to "saving" the emigrants by the shedding of their blood (as they had not entered into Mormon covenants); rather, most commentators view it as an act of intended retribution. Young was accused with either directing the massacre, or with complicity after the fact. However, when Brigham Young was interviewed on the matter and asked if he believed in blood atonement, he replied, "I do, and I believe that Lee has not half atoned for his great crime." He said "we believe that execution should be done by the shedding of blood instead of by hanging," but only "according to the laws of the land" (Young 1877, p. 242).


So you admit that falling away from Christianity is when people start robbing the bank...And then when we see them become a stronger Christian, they fall away from crime. So what about that devout Muslim killing his daughter for having sex, or getting her ears perceived or whatever it was about that led to the "honor killing"? Does that Muslim get stronger with with his religion in jail? I hope not.

Agreeing with that part...not sure if it's the Muslim religion or the Middle Eastern culture that is more violent and brutal, but I may be prejudiced through ignorance as well. I grew up with a few Muslims that were great people...but overall, don't know a lot about them other than what is on the news...spent some time in Turkey with the Turkish Air Force and found them to be reasonable, good humored and fun.


And where do you think their funding comes from? Muslims MUST fork over 10% to their Masque, and a lot have been shown to be going to support what happens around the world whether knowingly or unknowingly to the average Mosque goer.

Christians are supposed to tithe, too.

FixItWithAMod
06-07-2011, 03:31 AM
A little correction regarding medical ethics, fetuses, etc:

The prevailing consensus holds that a fetus is not a person until birth. Hence, no matter what your personal feeling may be, the fetus does not have any intrinsic 'rights' as a person. So, even though a 34-week-old fetus would be a viable child if the fetus were removed from the uterus, all health-care decision making and ethics are based on the choices of the mother and her interests. If parents have a child born at 34 weeks of gestational age in need of a blood transfusion to save its life, they cannot refuse lifesaving therapy for the child even if they are Jehovah's Witnesses. The state would intervene in the interests of the child. However, if the same child at 34 weeks of gestational age is still in the uterus, the mother can refuse or accept whatever therapy she wishes without specific regard for the fetus. Hence, a pregnant woman may refuse a lifesaving transfusion. She may refuse a Caesarian section to remove the child even if this will put the life of the fetus at risk.

Source: Conrad Fischer, Medical Ethics

So according to medical ethics, a woman carrying a child can refuse a life-saving blood transfusion (because the fetus has not attained "person" status).

EDIT:



Math teachers teach math. History teachers teach history. Do you want your podiatrist giving you a root canal? Would you do that at a va hospital? No and HEEEEELLLLL NO.


[Podiatrists] do a lot more than you obviously give them credit for...

Fixed to make it relevant to this thread.

FixItWithAMod
06-07-2011, 03:49 AM
And where do you think their funding comes from? Muslims MUST fork over 10% to their Masque, and a lot have been shown to be going to support what happens around the world whether knowingly or unknowingly to the average Mosque goer.

[Citation needed]

Measure Man
06-07-2011, 06:32 AM
Mormons. :shrug I am not one, just picking one group of people and seeing how many stories of deaths and killings happen.

So you admit that falling away from Christianity is when people start robbing the bank...And then when we see them become a stronger Christian, they fall away from crime. So what about that devout Muslim killing his daughter for having sex, or getting her ears perceived or whatever it was about that led to the "honor killing"? Does that Muslim get stronger with with his religion in jail? I hope not.


And where do you think their funding comes from? Muslims MUST fork over 10% to their Masque, and a lot have been shown to be going to support what happens around the world whether knowingly or unknowingly to the average Mosque goer.

Reply stuck in mod.

Quid
06-07-2011, 06:56 AM
Says all of the aids activists who gave bush crap for not giving enough hand out money to aids research. Folks like bono, or barney franks and others.
Ah, so when you say liberal, what you actually mean are celebrity liberal activists who are very nearly caricatures of the word. I'm confident I can just stop reading the rest of the post at this point and go with you definitely being intellectually dishonest with the questions. My mistake for thinking you wanted an actual discussion.

Banned
06-07-2011, 07:01 AM
A little correction regarding medical ethics, fetuses, etc:

But late term abortions are still illegal in most (all?) of the United States. I do think that there is some point in a fetus' development where he can be deemed to be self-aware, a "person" if you will. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for an organism to be a lifeless lump of tissue on the inside of the womb, then magically become a person 30 seconds later after the caesarian.

Shrike
06-07-2011, 07:02 AM
Eating fast food does. Your lack of knowledge that fast food is bad for you is proof it's necessary to protect people from themselves. You also seem to be unaware that children are actually necessary for the continuation of the country. Vices like fast food, cigarettes, heroin, etc are not and therefore up for regulation depending on how dangerous the government believes they are.



The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. The government must protect people from themselves? Freedom doesn't really mean much to you, does it.

Banned
06-07-2011, 07:51 AM
As it relates to the topic at hand, why is somewhat important, but much of what I was elluding to was based on the fact that we were hamstrung. It was not from our heavy handed tactics, but more from a reluctance to do so. Even Corney confirms that. We never decided to land at Hai Phong harbor and move straight into Hanoi and do what had to be done. A simple quick invasion similar to Desert Storm. We still had several combat veteran Paratroopers. We still had battleships with crews that had used them.
BTW, Project Pheonix also produced the SEALs, so it wasnt all bad.

Really? You're going to compare Desert Storm (Bombing defenseless tanks and trucks in an open desert in an occupied country) with North Vietnam, a country with a huge, mechanized, and trained military, in harsh, unfamiliar terrain, with plenty of popular support (the complete opposite of Saddam, who was the INVADER, not the defender). If we could barely keep our heads above water with untrained rice farmers (In the VC you were either a fast learner, or dead), you really think a full scale amphibious invasion of Vietnam would be a good idea?

I think you forget just how bloody the amphibious operations in Europe and the Pacific were. Any amphibious operation depends a lot on just blind chance. You either take the enemy by surprise and gain a foothold, or get more resistance than expected and get wiped out. We got lucky with Inchon. Vietnam was considerably better managed (at least from a military perspective) than North Korea, and they had the advantage of historical perspective. If we tried another Inchon it would be by definition not a surprise tactic anymore. We also got extremely lucky at Normandy, where the Panzer divisions that could have decimated us were kept back in reserve because Hitler's generals were too scared to wake him up. Before D-Day, Eisenhower wrote two speech drafts. The first speech - where he congratulates the troops for their victory. And the second one, where he takes full responsibility for failure.

And I can't believe you actually say paratroopers with a straight face. Air dropping troops is mind numbingly expensive in lives. The Germans lost so many men in their invasion of Sicily they abandoned the tactic altogether. The airdrops at Normandy were successful, but extremely costly. The airdrops at Market Garden were a disaster. We dropped the rangers at Grenada, and they got pinned down by armed CONSTRUCTION WORKERS - we learned once again light infantry in a drop zone don't fair too well against an organized and alert opponent. Dropping troops to cut off the Iraqi retreat was considered in OIF, but was abandoned as too risky, and rightly so.

Light infantry behind enemy lines can only survive if the enemy is surprised, disorganized and doesn't have any armored assets (That's why Market Garden failed). The NVA was organized, mobile, and plenty of tanks. More than enough to dispose of any Americans foolish enough to try dropping into their country.


I read "We Were Soldiers" after watching the movie...the Col doesnt seem to agree with you. Not only that but that battle validated the use of Helicopters in warfare and changed many of our tactics in support and attack for the better. We lost a fair amount of soldiers in that battle and I think only one helo, but we took out an entire NVA division and sent it into a route.

Its a really good read, you would probably like it. Its not like the movie at all in its presentation, none of that Army wife crap, just patton-style delivery of the accounts of Coronel Moore and the reporter.

As a matter in fact I have that book, and it is a good read.

But I think you're forgetting how the book ended (I don't have the book with me, so the Ia Drang wiki page will have to suffice -)

The next day, the two remaining battalions abandoned LZ X-Ray and began a tactical march to new landing zones, 2nd/5th under Lt. Col. Bob Tully to LZ Columbus about 4 km to the northeast, and 2nd/7th under Lt. Col. Robert McDade to LZ Albany about 4 km to the north-northeast, close to the Ia Drang. Air Force B-52 Stratofortresses were on their way from Guam, and their target was the slopes of the Chu Pong massif. The U.S. ground forces had to move outside a two-mile (3 km) safety zone by midmorning to be clear of the bombardment. Tully's men moved out at 09:00; McDade's followed ten minutes later.

The first indication of enemy presence was observed by the point units of the American column, the point squad of the reconnaissance platoon under Staff Sergeant Donald J. Slovak, who saw "Ho Chi Minh sandal foot markings, bamboo arrows on the ground pointing north, matted grass and grains of rice". After marching about 2,000 meters, Alpha Company leading the 2nd/7th headed northwest, while the 2nd/5th continued on to LZ Columbus. Alpha Company came upon some grass huts which they were directed to burn. At 11:38, Bob Tully's men, the 2nd/5th, were logged into its objective, LZ Columbus.

Communist troops in the area consisted of the 8th Battalion, 66th Regiment, the 1st Battalion 33rd Regiment, and the headquarters of the 3rd Battalion, 33rd Regiment, of the NVA. While the 33rd Regiment's battalions were understrength from casualties incurred during the battle at the Special Forces Plei Me camp, the 8th was General An's reserve battalion, fresh and rested.[4]:288

Alpha Company soon noticed the sudden absence of air cover and their commander, Captain Joel Sugdinis wondered where the ARA choppers were. He soon heard the sound of distant explosions to his rear; the B-52's were making their bombing runs on the Chu Pong massif.

Lieutenant D. P. (Pat) Payne, the recon platoon leader, was walking around some termite hills when he suddenly came upon a North Vietnamese soldier resting on the ground. Payne jumped on the NVA trooper and took him prisoner. Simultaneously, about ten yards away, his platoon sergeant captured a second NVA soldier. Other members of the NVA recon team may have escaped and reported to the headquarters of the 1st Battalion, 33rd Regiment. The North Vietnamese then began to organize an assault on the American column. As word of the capture reached him, Lt. Col. McDade ordered a halt as he went forward from the rear of the column to interrogate the prisoners personally. The POW's were policed up about a hundred yards from the southwestern edge of the clearing called Albany, the report of which reached division forward at Pleiku at 11:57.

McDade then called his company commanders forward for a conference; most of whom were accompanied by their radio operators. Alpha Company moved forward to LZ Albany; McDade and his command group were with them. Following orders, the other company commanders were moving forward to join McDade. Delta Company, which was next in the column following Alpha Company, was holding in place; so was Charlie Company which was next in line. Battalion Headquarters Company followed, and Alpha Company of the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry brought up the rear of the column. The American column was halted in unprepared, open terrain, and strung out in 550-yard (500 m) line of march.[4]:292,293 Most of the units had flank security posted, but the men were worn out from almost sixty hours without sleep and four hours of marching. The elephant grass was chest-high so visibility was limited. The column's radios for air or artillery support were with the company commanders.

An hour and ten minutes after the NVA recon soldiers were captured, Alpha Company and McDade's command group had reached the Albany clearing. McDade and his group walked across the clearing and into a clump of trees. Beyond that clump of trees was another clearing. The remainder of the battalion was in a dispersed column to the east of the LZ. Battalion Sergeant Major James Scott and Sergeant Charles Bass then attempted to question the prisoners again. While they were doing this, Bass heard Vietnamese voices, and the interpreter confirmed that these were NVA talking. Alpha Company had been in the LZ about five minutes. Right about then, small arms fire erupted.

Lt. Pat Payne's reconnaissance platoon had walked to within 200 yards (180 m) of the headquarters of the 3rd Battalion, 33rd Regiment; the 550-man strong 8th Battalion, 66th Regiment had been bivouacked off to the northeast of the American column. As the Americans rested in the tall grass, North Vietnamese soldiers were swarming towards them by the hundreds. It was 13:15. The close quarters, intense battle lasted for sixteen hours.

The North Vietnamese forces first struck at the head of the 2nd Battalion column and rapidly spread down the right or east side of the column in an L-shaped ambush. NVA troops ran down the length of the column, with units peeling off to attack the outnumbered Americans, engaging in intense, brutal close-range and hand-to-hand combat.

McDade's command group made it into the clump of trees between the two clearings that constituted LZ Albany. They took cover from rifle and mortar fire within the trees and termite hills. The recon platoon and the Alpha Company 1st Platoon provided initial defense at the position. By 13:26, they had been cut off from the rest of the column; the area from whence they had come was swarming with NVA soldiers. While they waited for air support, the Americans holding Albany drove off assaults by NVA troopers and sniped at the exposed enemy wandering around the perimeter. It was later discovered that North Vietnamese were mopping up, looking for Americans wounded in the tall grass and killing them.

All the while the noise of battle could be heard in the woods as the other companies fought for their lives. Charlie and Alpha companies lost a combined 70 men in the first minutes. Charlie Company suffered 45 dead and more than 50 wounded, the heaviest casualties of any unit that fought on Albany.[4]:309 Air Force A-1E Skyraiders soon provided much-needed support, dropping napalm. However, because of the fog of war and the inter-mixing of both American and North Vietnamese troops, it is likely that the air and artillery strikes killed not just NVA, but Americans as well.

The 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry had been reduced to a small perimeter at Albany composed of survivors of Alpha Company, the recon platoon, survivors from the decimated Charlie and Delta Companies and the command group. There was also a smaller perimeter at the rear of the column about 500–700 yards due south: Captain George Forrest's Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry. Captain Forrest had run a gauntlet all the way from the conference called by McDade back to his company when the NVA mortars started coming in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_la_Drang

Ia Drang is actually considered a victory by both Vietnam and the USA. We consider it a victory for, as you said, the massive lopsided kill ratio in the first phase of the battle. The NVA considered the battle a victory, and a good sign that they could defeat even the Americans. Lessons the NVA learned from Ia Drang:

-Air Cav operations are highly effective, and dangerous. It is best to avoid direct confrontation with them.

-Attacking American troops in a strong defensive position is also a bad idea. We have the training and organic weapons to hold our own, and plenty of indirect fire support and air assets to back us up.

-The indirect fire and air support mentioned above are great, but are rendered ineffective if they can close with and fight the Americans in close quarters combat. American fire support in this engagement killed both NVA and American troops indiscriminately, so was pretty much useless.

-Most importantly, they learned that even with the huge American technological advantage, they could still stand up to us and put up a good fight. We kicked the crap out of the NVA at Ia Drang, but got a bloody nose in the process.

BTW - the army wives in the story were important. It is true that the army had a piss-poor casualty communication service, and actually did use taxi cabs. Moore's wife followed behind and grieved with the widows and families best she could, and filed a complaint after the battle about the process, which led to the adaption of the two man teams of an officer and a chaplain.

Banned
06-07-2011, 08:00 AM
Instead we followed our Democrat president who insisted on using the CIA and our special operators as toys.

Conservatives are especially guilty of the attitude that the military is some kind of magic wand that can solve any problem, against any enemy.


This isnt a playground, and there is no place to go be by yourself. Our success is based on our involvement in the world to a certain degree (IE trade, resources, ect.) these buttholes have shown that they have no problem with coming onto our soil and bringing the fight to our backyard. Its not a question of playing or walking away.

Yes, we DO have the option to just walk away. Nobody in the Middle East would give a damn about America if we weren't involved in their governments.


Sometimes saving face gets you taken more seriously.

Usually it just makes you look like a pompous ass.


Especially in the middle east with their warped sense of machismo.

I don't know what you saw in Iraq, but I'll tell you its the complete opposite here in Helmand. They have the Eastern attitude of politeness - to disagree with your guest or say something negative is bad manners. Go to a key leader engagement with one of these elders and try to get the guy to straight up disagree with you. It won't happen, he'll nod and smile and tell you how pleased he is that the Americans are in his country... even if he reports to his Taliban buddies 5 minutes later - he's not going to be hostile to your face, just after your back is turned.

FixItWithAMod
06-07-2011, 08:18 AM
The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. The government must protect people from themselves? Freedom doesn't really mean much to you, does it. Even worse, I'm thinking he got his anti-fast food rhetoric from "Supersize Me". FACT: Eating fast food, in reasonable quantities (not stuffing 5,000 calories into your body each day) is not unhealthy, in fact, can be healthy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onv62b88_mQ

http://chazzweaver.com/site/projects/down-size-me/

FixItWithAMod
06-07-2011, 08:31 AM
But late term abortions are still illegal in most (all?) of the United States. I do think that there is some point in a fetus' development where he can be deemed to be self-aware, a "person" if you will. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for an organism to be a lifeless lump of tissue on the inside of the womb, then magically become a person 30 seconds later after the caesarian.
It doesn't make any sense to arbitrarily decide at which week the fetus becomes a person. 32 weeks? 33 weeks? Why not 34 weeks? Why not throw a day or two in there for good measure? Wouldn't want to make it a person too soon, so a good buffer zone of about 72 hours should do the trick. Or maybe 75 hours, the extra cushion for extra reassurance.

Drawing the line where the fetus is actually born makes plenty of sense, at least, if looking for an objective "is a person, is not a person" discernment.

The fact is that the fetus is treated as part of the mother when weighing ethical considerations and doesn't become its own "person" until after being born.

Banned
06-07-2011, 09:33 AM
Yes, but like you said, even a premature fetus still becomes a "person" if born, while an older fetus is still NOT a person, even though it has had a few weeks longer to develop.

I'm all about abortion rights and all that stuff, but I think it is reasonable to set a line in the sand and say no abortions (accept in rare medical emergencies) after... say... the first trimester. You can say with reasonable certainty that only lumps of tissue are being affected, and there's a safe "buffer zone" for those self-aware person-fetus's. If a fetus has a reasonable chance of surviving (with some help) if it were to be suddenly pulled out in a ceasarian, it should be considered a person.

Abortions are cheap and easy enough today that there's really no reason a woman can't get the abortion done in those first couple of months.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-07-2011, 11:23 AM
Yes, but like you said, even a premature fetus still becomes a "person" if born, while an older fetus is still NOT a person, even though it has had a few weeks longer to develop.

I think you a Fix are on the same page? I find it sad that a fetus isn't a "person" when it is aborted even if it has its own heart beat, but if you shoot a pregnant woman, it can be considered double murder. I agree with both of your statements.

My wife was born at 26 weeks I think (maybe 28), good thing they decided to determine she was a "viable person" to keep alive.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-07-2011, 11:24 AM
Abortions are cheap and easy enough today that there's really no reason a woman can't get the abortion done in those first couple of months.Some places offer free papsmears with your abort now.

Banned
06-07-2011, 12:15 PM
I was asked earlier if I wanted to go out to lunch for baby brains.

I said "No thanks, I had baby brains for lunch".

Variable Wind
06-07-2011, 12:43 PM
Ah, so when you say liberal, what you actually mean are celebrity liberal activists who are very nearly caricatures of the word. I'm confident I can just stop reading the rest of the post at this point and go with you definitely being intellectually dishonest with the questions. My mistake for thinking you wanted an actual discussion.

Funny, we have almost 60 pages of real discussion. Again, I have to point out your hurt feelings. Thanks for not being able to be an adult. You can move along ;).

Variable Wind
06-07-2011, 12:54 PM
I dont think anyone is arguing what is accepted as such, but what SHOULD BE.

[QUOTE]Fixed to make it relevant to this thread.
You mean another thread. Try to keep up. You can study the causes of climate change and be a mathematician because some of that field directly involves your study. Same with geology and a plethora of other sciences. Feet and Teeth dont have they commonality. Sorry your attempt to cover up your own mistake makes you look more pathetic.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-07-2011, 01:21 PM
Yes, but like you said, even a premature fetus still becomes a "person" if born, while an older fetus is still NOT a person, even though it has had a few weeks longer to develop.

I'm all about abortion rights and all that stuff, but I think it is reasonable to set a line in the sand and say no abortions (accept in rare medical emergencies) after... say... the first trimester. You can say with reasonable certainty that only lumps of tissue are being affected, and there's a safe "buffer zone" for those self-aware person-fetus's. If a fetus has a reasonable chance of surviving (with some help) if it were to be suddenly pulled out in a ceasarian, it should be considered a person.

Abortions are cheap and easy enough today that there's really no reason a woman can't get the abortion done in those first couple of months.What happens when we get to the point in medical science that could possibly extract a "lumps of tissue" and grow it in a tube till it is able to live on its own? Will all conceptions be "viable" (with some help)because they will have a reasonable chance of survival? Then we have gone and proven the Christian view point that life starts at conseption...Thanks science.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-07-2011, 01:22 PM
Joe, real quick about your sig line.


Only a Sith deals in absolutesIsn't this an abosolute?

Shrike
06-07-2011, 01:35 PM
What happens when we get to the point in medical science that could possibly extract a "lumps of tissue" and grow it in a tube till it is able to live on its own? Will all conceptions be "viable" (with some help)because they will have a reasonable chance of survival? Then we have gone and proven the Christian view point that life starts at conseption...Thanks science.

1) That's SOLELY a Christian view point? Really?
2) Your chosen god LOVES killing babies, both in and out of the womb. She just eats that sick $hit up. So why do you care?
3) Sir Thomas Aquinas, possibly the greatest Christian philosopher and theologian, believed that abortion is not permissible after individual human identity is formed. What exactly did he mean by that? I don't know. But it doesn't mean conception.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-07-2011, 01:51 PM
1) That's SOLELY a Christian view point? Really?
2)
3) Sir Thomas Aquinas, possibly the greatest Christian philosopher and theologian, believed that abortion is not permissible after individual human identity is formed. What exactly did he mean by that? I don't know. But it doesn't mean conception.
#2 is just to try to throw a bomb, I am not going to respond to.

#1, true, this is one Christian view point. Not all Christians share the same timing of when a fetus becomes a human being.

#3, I don't know either, I was just going through the tracking of Joes statement of "A fetus is a human when it can survive outside of the womb with 'reasonable help'". Which would lead to, when the advancements in medicine that is progressivly taking us to the point of extraction of the concieved embryo and grow it in a tube till "maturaty". Does that mean when we are able to help the embryo outside the whomb, it will beconsidered a human? When is it considered a human again? Other than just survival outside the womb, what makes a human a "viable life form"? Why is late term abortions illegal if the fetus is still not "alive"?

Just for this case, why can't there be an absolute answer?

DarkHeart
06-07-2011, 04:15 PM
What happens when we get to the point in medical science that could possibly extract a "lumps of tissue" and grow it in a tube till it is able to live on its own? Will all conceptions be "viable" (with some help)because they will have a reasonable chance of survival? Then we have gone and proven the Christian view point that life starts at conseption...Thanks science.

First, as plainly shown on another board, you have no grasp of science and how it works, so, no using science for you.

Second, define life. Sure we could have test tube babies but whose going to take care of them? What kind of life would they have in an over populated country with no economic ability to care for every unwanted baby born because some morons decided birthcontrol and early trimester abortions were evil and illegal. Why not save the poor kid the suffering and send him to Jesus before its even congnizant of the shity situation its in?

DarkHeart
06-07-2011, 04:23 PM
Just for this case, why can't there be an absolute answer?

Because life isn't always black and white.

Abortion is illegal. Mary-Jan RapeVictim gets assulted by her father and is pregnant with her brother. Sorry hunny, abortion is absolutly illegal, you have to carry your brain-dead brother/son (for the purposes of this argument we'll call him Sloth) to term. What's that, little Sloth used his imbred tard streagth to tear a hole in your uterus and one or both of you has to die? Well shit, abortion is absolutly illegal and we can't let the doctor let you die, even if its what you want because its your body and your life. I guess your both dead.

Lets here it for Absolutes!

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-07-2011, 04:52 PM
Because life isn't always black and white.

Abortion is illegal. Mary-Jan RapeVictim gets assulted by her father and is pregnant with her brother. Sorry hunny, abortion is absolutly illegal, you have to carry your brain-dead brother/son (for the purposes of this argument we'll call him Sloth) to term. What's that, little Sloth used his imbred tard streagth to tear a hole in your uterus and one or both of you has to die? Well shit, abortion is absolutly illegal and we can't let the doctor let you die, even if its what you want because its your body and your life. I guess your both dead.

Lets here it for Absolutes!Ok, I understand for this abosolute. What about an absolute for the consentual, non-instest, non-medically challenged pregnancies? When does life "start"? There has to be an answer or there will always be variables that will make it a double standard when it comes to making laws. I am just wondering is all, and would like something set in stone of what constitutes "life".

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-07-2011, 04:59 PM
First, as plainly shown on another board, you have no grasp of science and how it works, so, no using science for you.BOOOO!!! I am not "using" science here, I am working with it.


Second, define life. Sure we could have test tube babies but whose going to take care of them? What kind of life would they have in an over populated country with no economic ability to care for every unwanted baby born because some morons decided birthcontrol and early trimester abortions were evil and illegal. Why not save the poor kid the suffering and send him to Jesus before its even congnizant of the shity situation its in?I define life as something that will ultimately be able to reproduce baring any genetic deformity that that species would not normally encounter in nature.

Second, why would the test tube baby have any less of a "fullfiling" life than that baby "born" at 26 weeks and kept on a ventalator for 10 more weeks. Are embryos that are in deep freeze for implantation considered life, then not life when they get implanted in the mother, then life again when they are born?

As far as Christianity is concerned, that I know of, all life is sacred. To take a viable creature just "because they can live in heaven with Jesus" is not anywhere in the teachings I have ever encountered.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-07-2011, 05:25 PM
I think this is a good place for this video to go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VILa0SE7CVo&feature=player_embedded

DarkHeart
06-07-2011, 05:43 PM
BOOOO!!! I am not "using" science here, I am working with it.

I define life as something that will ultimately be able to reproduce baring any genetic deformity that that species would not normally encounter in nature.

Second, why would the test tube baby have any less of a "fullfiling" life than that baby "born" at 26 weeks and kept on a ventalator for 10 more weeks. Are embryos that are in deep freeze for implantation considered life, then not life when they get implanted in the mother, then life again when they are born?

As far as Christianity is concerned, that I know of, all life is sacred. To take a viable creature just "because they can live in heaven with Jesus" is not anywhere in the teachings I have ever encountered.

I'm not saying test tube babies have a shity life by way of being a test tube baby, I'm saying they have a shity life because they may not have homes to go to, a horrifying foster care system and a government that can't/won't (depends on all those taxes tea partiers don't want to pay :P) support them. When we have a generation of unwanted kids who are screwed before they even get started who are a "drain on our economy" I wonder how sacred their lives will be to the Christian Right, who insist on a Big Government intervening in their behalf but want a small government to make sure no government funds are used to take care of them.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-07-2011, 05:52 PM
I'm not saying test tube babies have a shity life by way of being a test tube baby, I'm saying they have a shity life because they may not have homes to go to, a horrifying foster care system and a government that can't/won't (depends on all those taxes tea partiers don't want to pay :P) support them. When we have a generation of unwanted kids who are screwed before they even get started who are a "drain on our economy" I wonder how sacred their lives will be to the Christian Right, who insist on a Big Government intervening in their behalf but want a small government to make sure no government funds are used to take care of them.Not sure if kids have ever been a target of the conservative view of cutting taxes. I don't know of many conservatives that are for cutting everything under the sun, but at least being reasonable with the funds the government gives out. The kids aren't the ones that cause the parents to neglect birth control, so I doubt many are asking for these kids to get a job to support their own way as there is a call for the adults to get a job. How about we stop giving welfare and food-stamps to adults and give that money to the orphanages?

Measure Man
06-07-2011, 06:32 PM
http://island-adv.com/2011/05/while-hard-working-tax-paying-americans-were-eating-ramen-noodles%e2%80%a6/]http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/foodstampreceipt-136x300.jpg[/url]

http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/foodstampreceipt-136x300.jpg (http://island-adv.com/2011/05/while-hard-working-tax-paying-americans-were-eating-ramen-noodles%e2%80%a6/)
:frusty

Thought you all would enjoy this.

AJBIGJ
06-07-2011, 06:37 PM
Ouch! Can't even attribute that to just being health conscious and eating expensively

Quid
06-08-2011, 04:04 AM
Funny, we have almost 60 pages of real discussion. Again, I have to point out your hurt feelings. Thanks for not being able to be an adult. You can move along ;).

It's hardly a point of thin skin. When you run out of actual reasons and resort to simply calling the other person an idiot when they give their point, you're failing to put for any real effort for discussion. And if that is your honest effort at discussion, it's not one I'm interested. Start a flame war with someone else.


The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. The government must protect people from themselves? Freedom doesn't really mean much to you, does it.

So you're for the legalization of heroin I presume.

Also people deciding, for themselves, whether or not to sell themselves in to slavery.

And abolishing the FDA and leaving it to the people to decide for themselves what drugs are safe to treat disease.

VFFSSGT
06-08-2011, 05:24 AM
It's hardly a point of thin skin. When you run out of actual reasons and resort to simply calling the other person an idiot when they give their point, you're failing to put for any real effort for discussion. And if that is your honest effort at discussion, it's not one I'm interested. Start a flame war with someone else.



So you're for the legalization of heroin I presume.

Also people deciding, for themselves, whether or not to sell themselves in to slavery.

And abolishing the FDA and leaving it to the people to decide for themselves what drugs are safe to treat disease.

Your diluted in the propaganda if you believe the FDA is not a corrupt political machine.



And yes, we've seen full blown socialism and it has been an horrific failure everywhere it has been applied.

And it is currently failing in America. $14,000 Billion or rather $14 Trillion to prove it.


http://island-adv.com/2011/05/while-hard-working-tax-paying-americans-were-eating-ramen-noodles%e2%80%a6/]http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/foodstampreceipt-136x300.jpg[/url]

http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/foodstampreceipt-136x300.jpg (http://island-adv.com/2011/05/while-hard-working-tax-paying-americans-were-eating-ramen-noodles%e2%80%a6/)
:frusty

Thought you all would enjoy this.

I should just leave the military and join welfare. Don't work, won't pay taxes, get free lobster. :) I can get a free home through assistance, free heat, free cell phone, free food, free health care...why am I working again?!

When I worked in grocery stores when I was a teenager...I had many of customers get mad they could not buy smokes and beer with food stamps.


I'm not a liberal but since I've got a couple in my office I can answer each via this simply observation...

Liberalism (in it's post-1960s incarnation) is simply narcissism applied politically. Look at any position they grasp on to and realize that they are simply focused on methods in which they think their own self-percieved greatness can be best supported by the rest of us. This is also why we're starting to see collisions of interest amongst liberals...ie, they want high-speed rail but can't build it because of the environment and etc. They insist on reproductive rights but at the same time support governments like China and "zero percent population growth policies. Finally, to be a liberal is to be amoral and woefully uninformed on any given issue. Because again, it's all about their individuality and ways through policy that it can be propped up and furthered above and beyond all else.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." Norman Thomas



I think education should be federally standardized. If you leave it up to the states, then you aren't getting standarized education from one state to the next. And at some point 2+2=5 may actually be correct in a state. Sex education should be taught by the parents. Let them deal with it if their lil'Suzy gets knocked up at 15.

So we can all be government drones?! No thanks - the education system is already too political and corrupt. Freedom is the point of this country - that includes the freedom to learn what you want not what some government hack arbitrarily decides you should learn. We see how well standardization is working now... :frusty

What would help education is a free market approach like you have with college - you or rather your parents choose where to send you to school.


Capitalism only obviously hasn't work.

When has this been tried?


And Socialism only won't work. You need some sort of socialism along with some form of capitalism. Funny, that's what we are doing. Medicare, Social Security, DOMA, the Health Care reform, Veterans Benefits...all just some examples.

And have been doing so for well over 100 years and it hasn't worked yet. I can prove it with $14 Trillion. :doh

What works is...to each his own aka liberty- individual sovereignty. The right for one to choose how he lives, how he spends his money, etc.

And I just want to point out here...the war on poverty is a scam, dependency is the goal.

Banned
06-08-2011, 06:01 AM
What happens when we get to the point in medical science that could possibly extract a "lumps of tissue" and grow it in a tube till it is able to live on its own? Will all conceptions be "viable" (with some help)because they will have a reasonable chance of survival? Then we have gone and proven the Christian view point that life starts at conseption...Thanks science.

I phrased that poorly. What I mean is the fetus isn't totally dependent on the mother for life. We can pull him out and he'll live and develop okay. He might need some help within reason (like an oxygen mask, for example), but he can pretty much function on his own outside the womb.

Which does NOT happen at conception. At conception its just an egg with a sperm in it. If this was human life, I would be committing mass murder every time I, ahem, beat the meat.


Isn't this an abosolute?

LOL good point.

Shrike
06-08-2011, 10:41 AM
#2 is just to try to throw a bomb, I am not going to respond to.

#1, true, this is one Christian view point. Not all Christians share the same timing of when a fetus becomes a human being.

#3, I don't know either, I was just going through the tracking of Joes statement of "A fetus is a human when it can survive outside of the womb with 'reasonable help'". Which would lead to, when the advancements in medicine that is progressivly taking us to the point of extraction of the concieved embryo and grow it in a tube till "maturaty". Does that mean when we are able to help the embryo outside the whomb, it will beconsidered a human? When is it considered a human again? Other than just survival outside the womb, what makes a human a "viable life form"? Why is late term abortions illegal if the fetus is still not "alive"?

Just for this case, why can't there be an absolute answer?

#2 is NOT throwing a bomb. You have flat-out admitted that if the bible says it, you believe it. The god of the bible slaughtered babies, both in and out of the womb, with gleeful abandon. How do you reconcile that with your seeming anti-abortion stance. You were made in your god's image, right?

Banned
06-08-2011, 10:46 AM
I like how saying all Muslims are terrorist sympathizers is okay. Or saying all Palestinians are baby-killers and deserve to be wiped out is okay. Saying all liberals are evil, appeasing socialists is okay. But saying anything bad about Christians is "prejudiced".

Shrike
06-08-2011, 10:57 AM
So you're for the legalization of heroin I presume.
Yes, I am. Tell me, what was the state of drug abuse and it's associated crime problems a mere 100 years ago when you could order heroin and a syringe through the Sears Roebuck catalog? Also, if heroin were legalized tomorrow, would you try it? I sure as hell wouldn't.

How is the US doing in the War on Drugs? It's been 40 years; what kind of progress have we made?


Also people deciding, for themselves, whether or not to sell themselves in to slavery.
If they're making this decision for themselves, then why the hell not? It's YOUR life. As long as you are not harming others, go after Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as you see fit.


And abolishing the FDA and leaving it to the people to decide for themselves what drugs are safe to treat disease.
Let's imagine there was no FDA (I'm not saying the FDA does no good, but they're not a bright, shining protector of the downtrodden, that's for sure): two companies come out with a pill that treats juvenile diabetes. One of the pill works quite well with only minor side effects. The other works in only some cases, has horrible side effects and results in fatality 1 out of 35000 times. How would the free market react to the two items? The legal system?

Banned
06-08-2011, 11:11 AM
Shrike, I agree absolutely with your first comment on heroin, but think you go off the deep end a bit with your next two statements...



If they're making this decision for themselves, then why the hell not? It's YOUR life. As long as you are not harming others, go after Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as you see fit.

NO. NO. NO.

Just because an act is voluntary doesn't make it right. Human trafficking? Sexual slavery? These often start with voluntary contracts and agreements. Desperate young girls in Latin America or Eastern Europe make easy targets.


Let's imagine there was no FDA (I'm not saying the FDA does no good, but they're not a bright, shining protector of the downtrodden, that's for sure): two companies come out with a pill that treats juvenile diabetes. One of the pill works quite well with only minor side effects. The other works in only some cases, has horrible side effects and results in fatality 1 out of 35000 times. How would the free market react to the two items? The legal system?

If I'm reading too much into your statement then I'm sorry - but I think it would be much better to filter out harmful drugs before they hit the open population. We don't need Darwinism in a civilized modern society.

Shrike
06-08-2011, 11:48 AM
Shrike, I agree absolutely with your first comment on heroin, but think you go off the deep end a bit with your next two statements...



NO. NO. NO.

Just because an act is voluntary doesn't make it right. Human trafficking? Sexual slavery? These often start with voluntary contracts and agreements. Desperate young girls in Latin America or Eastern Europe make easy targets.

We're not talking about Eastern Europe or Latin America, we're talking about the USA. And we're talking about a hypothetical USA that actually values freedom above everything else. In such a place, what's the problem? We already have laws protecting people from rape and assault. These laws would apply to the hypothetical "self-enslaved", too.



If I'm reading too much into your statement then I'm sorry - but I think it would be much better to filter out harmful drugs before they hit the open population. We don't need Darwinism in a civilized modern society.
In a free market economy without an FDA in which the legal system we currently have is in place, how long would companies that sell harmful drugs last? Sell harmful drugs and your consumer base drops like a rock as do your profits as you get sued repeatedly. Soooo, it would be kind of like we have now.

Banned
06-08-2011, 12:00 PM
We're not talking about Eastern Europe or Latin America, we're talking about the USA.

Most of the slaves in the USA and Western Europe are from the third world.


And we're talking about a hypothetical USA that actually values freedom above everything else. In such a place, what's the problem? We already have laws protecting people from rape and assault. These laws would apply to the hypothetical "self-enslaved", too.

In a free market economy without an FDA in which the legal system we currently have is in place, how long would companies that sell harmful drugs last? Sell harmful drugs and your consumer base drops like a rock as do your profits as you get sued repeatedly. Soooo, it would be kind of like we have now.

And this is what I think is the major problem with the libertarian belief system. They take the basic protections provided by a government for granted, and don't see the use in them. This is how a libertarian slaps a gun on his thigh and strolls down the street in a quiet middle class suburb... and claims he doesn't need police.

DarkHeart
06-08-2011, 12:59 PM
Are we talking about slave slaves or prostitution?

When did libertarians start saying we don't need police? That sounds like anarchy to me.

Variable Wind
06-08-2011, 01:06 PM
It's hardly a point of thin skin. When you run out of actual reasons and resort to simply calling the other person an idiot when they give their point, you're failing to put for any real effort for discussion. And if that is your honest effort at discussion, it's not one I'm interested. Start a flame war with someone else.
My actual reasons are written all over this thread, read up and bring yourself up to speed on the discussion before rehashing what has already been discussed. Im not putting much effort in discussion with you because you obviously havent done so either. Your reponses are tired parroting of what has already been said here. Why not present an original thought or post or respond to one of mine on a topic you want to speak with me on. If I was having a long discussion with someone about the meaning of X in A+B = X and the person I had that conversation withs initial point was X must be elephants, and then you come in saying that you think X must be elephants, do you think I am going to start that whole discussion over again, or dismiss you until you get the bright idea to involve yourself in the conversation appropriately?


Also people deciding, for themselves, whether or not to sell themselves in to slavery.
I am not sure if it can really be slavery if you willingly enter into it.


And abolishing the FDA and leaving it to the people to decide for themselves what drugs are safe to treat disease.
Funny thing is, the human race has been studying medicine for millenia now, and the FDA hasnt even been around a century yet. Oh wait, how many centuries is a couple of decades?

Variable Wind
06-08-2011, 01:10 PM
Are we talking about slave slaves or prostitution?

When did libertarians start saying we don't need police? That sounds like anarchy to me.

Ah, my guy-loving liberal counterpart who pretty much has the same view of Government as me.

Libertarian-minded folks unite...in a completely non-sexual platonic manner.

Shrike
06-08-2011, 01:31 PM
Most of the slaves in the USA and Western Europe are from the third world.
We're talking about American citizens here, and the choices they should or should not be allowed to make without government nannyism.



And this is what I think is the major problem with the libertarian belief system. They take the basic protections provided by a government for granted, and don't see the use in them. This is how a libertarian slaps a gun on his thigh and strolls down the street in a quiet middle class suburb... and claims he doesn't need police.
Did you get a Presidential Physical Fitness Award for jumping to conclusions?

A few random things I believe:
- I don't mind paying taxes and government registration for my vehicle, as I use roads.
- Unlike a lot of other hardcore libertarians, I don't mind that a portion of my property taxes goes towards public schools. I benefitted from a great quality public education that was paid for by my parent's and their neighbor's taxes. So I don't mind doing my part for those coming behind me.
- I don't mind that some of my property taxes goes towards the fire department.

As far as being armed when we have police goes, well, in the vast, VAST majority of cases where a violent crime is occurring, if the victim of that crime gets a chance to call police the police don't arrive until after the assault, battery, rape, or murder has taken place. So if your house is being broken into and all you do is dial 911, statistically speaking the cops will get there in time to pick up the pieces. If you're lucky, those pieces won't belong to your skull.

VFFSSGT
06-08-2011, 03:05 PM
Ah, my guy-loving liberal counterpart who pretty much has the same view of Government as me.

Libertarian-minded folks unite...in a completely non-sexual platonic manner.

But they lifted DADT!

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-08-2011, 03:54 PM
So you're for the legalization of heroin I presume.Considering it was a racist law to begin with (keeping the minorities from harming themselves cause they were too stupid) and that people won't be running out to shoot up tomorrow if they had never done it before, yes, I am.


Also people deciding, for themselves, whether or not to sell themselves in to slavery.Like when people decide, for themselves, to be a slave to the government by not getting any job provided to them?


And abolishing the FDA and leaving it to the people to decide for themselves what drugs are safe to treat disease.There are SOME things that are needed, at the bottom and basic premiss they were set up on, FDA has grown into something that could be tyrannical control of farmers and food production with a simple regulation put into play from the administration.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-08-2011, 04:15 PM
I phrased that poorly. What I mean is the fetus isn't totally dependent on the mother for life. We can pull him out and he'll live and develop okay. He might need some help within reason (like an oxygen mask, for example), but he can pretty much function on his own outside the womb.There are some college grads that can't function on their own. Infants still need major help from their mothers. From the time the sprem engages the egg, or I mean a week later, that lump of tissue will be dependant on the mother/someone for quite some time. Why isn't a test tube where they provide nutrients any less of a human than the 0-15 y/o who waits for the parents to buy, cook, and serve the food?


Which does NOT happen at conception. At conception its just an egg with a sperm in it. If this was human life, I would be committing mass murder every time I, ahem, beat the meat.
Your sperm will never turn into anything different if you gave them all the nutrients in the world unless you pair it up with the egg.

Variable Wind
06-08-2011, 04:38 PM
Jeeze...theres an incredible opportunity right now for a your momma joke, if anyone here has the tackiness to pull it off.

Variable Wind
06-08-2011, 04:40 PM
But they lifted DADT!

Trying not to put any expectations out there for anyone.

Pullinteeth
06-08-2011, 05:51 PM
It's because you can SEE differences among Christians, and note that what one individual or even group of Christians do, does not represent ALL Christians...you seem unable to apply the same thought to Muslims, blacks (for the most part), the poor, oh, and of course liberals.

To be fair, Liberals are ALL evil...


Ok, I understand for this abosolute. What about an absolute for the consentual, non-instest, non-medically challenged pregnancies? When does life "start"? There has to be an answer or there will always be variables that will make it a double standard when it comes to making laws. I am just wondering is all, and would like something set in stone of what constitutes "life".

So..you are in favor of an "absolute" with exceptions?


Shrike, I agree absolutely with your first comment on heroin, but think you go off the deep end a bit with your next two statements...
NO. NO. NO.
Just because an act is voluntary doesn't make it right. Human trafficking? Sexual slavery? These often start with voluntary contracts and agreements. Desperate young girls in Latin America or Eastern Europe make easy targets.
If I'm reading too much into your statement then I'm sorry - but I think it would be much better to filter out harmful drugs before they hit the open population. We don't need Darwinism in a civilized modern society.

Isn't slavery by it's very definition involuntary? How it starts doesn't make slavery itself voluntary....

Quid
06-08-2011, 05:52 PM
Your diluted in the propaganda if you believe the FDA is not a corrupt political machine.
I don't believe it to be a perfect organization, no. But I'm not so foolish to think America a better place without it. I'd rather have an organization with the power to ensure private institutions aren't screwing around with my food and drugs.


When has this been tried?
The Gilded Age is a notable point.


Yes, I am. Tell me, what was the state of drug abuse and it's associated crime problems a mere 100 years ago when you could order heroin and a syringe through the Sears Roebuck catalog? Also, if heroin were legalized tomorrow, would you try it? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Drug addiction was a horrible problem a century ago. Turns out when people can get laudanum over the counter many abuse it horribly and then become burdens on society.


How is the US doing in the War on Drugs? It's been 40 years; what kind of progress have we made?
Being against the legalization of heroin doesn't make me for the idiotic war on drugs.


If they're making this decision for themselves, then why the hell not? It's YOUR life. As long as you are not harming others, go after Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as you see fit.
Allowing for slavery to exist is directly oppositional to that pursuit. The moment you allow for human life to be bartered is the moment you immediately devalue liberty itself and incentivise the removal of it.


Let's imagine there was no FDA (I'm not saying the FDA does no good, but they're not a bright, shining protector of the downtrodden, that's for sure): two companies come out with a pill that treats juvenile diabetes. One of the pill works quite well with only minor side effects. The other works in only some cases, has horrible side effects and results in fatality 1 out of 35000 times. How would the free market react to the two items? The legal system?

Given most people are idiots, probably not at all. And regardless, I'd rather people didn't have to figure out which drug is safe by risking their lives.


Considering it was a racist law to begin with (keeping the minorities from harming themselves cause they were too stupid) and that people won't be running out to shoot up tomorrow if they had never done it before, yes, I am.
Indeed it was. But stupid reasoning then doesn't rule out sound reasoning now. I'm for the legalization of certain drugs, but heroin has horrible, dangerous side effects and doesn't need to be made easier to get to.


Like when people decide, for themselves, to be a slave to the government by not getting any job provided to them?
No, like when people decide to sell their body in to service to be used however a private entity see fit. You'll notice a slight difference I'm sure.


There are SOME things that are needed, at the bottom and basic premiss they were set up on, FDA has grown into something that could be tyrannical control of farmers and food production with a simple regulation put into play from the administration.
Could be and is are not the same. But that's not the point. The simple admission that there are SOME things that need to be regulated so that people can be protected from making bad decisions is all it takes to prove my point.

VFFSSGT
06-08-2011, 05:58 PM
I don't believe it to be a perfect organization, no. But I'm not so foolish to think America a better place without it. I'd rather have an organization with the power to ensure private institutions aren't screwing around with my food and drugs.But they are...even with the almight protectionist at the FDA.

Quid
06-08-2011, 06:01 PM
But they are...even with the almight protectionist at the FDA.

Correct, they aren't perfect. They are still far and away better than nothing.

VFFSSGT
06-08-2011, 06:06 PM
Correct, they aren't perfect. They are still far and away better than nothing.

According to Obama, so his is healthcare law... Another problem, people accept mediocracy. Why are we going to pay endless amounts of millions of dollars to an organization that performs maybe 50% of the time?

Quid
06-08-2011, 06:09 PM
Wow look at those goal posts fly.

Variable Wind
06-08-2011, 06:38 PM
Correct, they aren't perfect. They are still far and away better than nothing.

Thats a stretch.

Quid
06-08-2011, 06:43 PM
Really? It's a stretch to say we're better off with a slow moving bureaucracy than getting poisoned by our own food and medicine?

Variable Wind
06-08-2011, 07:20 PM
Really? It's a stretch to say we're better off with a slow moving bureaucracy than getting poisoned by our own food and medicine?

Again, somehow the human race survived by feeding itself before the FDA. But no, I said that "far and away" is a stretch. Is it good for us to have some oversight as to what is going into our food? Yes. Does the FDA do this in a efficient manner free of corruption? Hardly.

Shrike
06-08-2011, 07:47 PM
Drug addiction was a horrible problem a century ago. Turns out when people can get laudanum over the counter many abuse it horribly and then become burdens on society.
So if what you are claiming is true then it's not much different after prohibition. So what's the point?


Allowing for slavery to exist is directly oppositional to that pursuit. The moment you allow for human life to be bartered is the moment you immediately devalue liberty itself and incentivise the removal of it.
Talk about moving the goal posts. You said "Also people deciding, for themselves, whether or not to sell themselves in to slavery."






Given most people are idiots, probably not at all. And regardless, I'd rather people didn't have to figure out which drug is safe by risking their lives. If they're idiots, why do you care? And how did those idiots survive for so long without the FDA?

Variable Wind
06-08-2011, 08:28 PM
Talk about moving the goal posts. You said "Also people deciding, for themselves, whether or not to sell themselves in to slavery."


BTW isnt this considered indentured servitude?

Quid
06-08-2011, 08:47 PM
Again, somehow the human race survived by feeding itself before the FDA.

They survived without modern medicine too. That's not much of an accomplishment.


So if what you are claiming is true then it's not much different after prohibition. So what's the point?
The point is to realize that there is a difference between different substances and accepting that they can not be treated the same.



Talk about moving the goal posts. You said "Also people deciding, for themselves, whether or not to sell themselves in to slavery."
That's not moving a goal post. That one makes the initial decision to enter slavery doesn't mean the decision is at all in their best interest for them or society and that corporations wouldn't immediately begin doing what would be best for them: Getting people to sell themselves in to slavery.



If they're idiots, why do you care? And how did those idiots survive for so long without the FDA?

I care because I'm not some sociopath who thinks people don't deserve to live because they're not the brightest bulb. And before the FDA they didn't survive without luck.


BTW isnt this considered indentured servitude?

Nope.

MitchellJD1969
06-08-2011, 09:24 PM
Screw the FDA.............why does the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Education have shotguns and are able to serve warrants?

Quid
06-08-2011, 09:26 PM
I have no idea what you're even talking about or how it relates to the FDA.

MitchellJD1969
06-08-2011, 09:38 PM
I have no idea what you're even talking about or how it relates to the FDA.

The argument is about the size, scope, and purpose of government right? So check out drudge about the DOE knocking a guys door down to serve a warrant.

The DOE kinda seems to be overreaching in its scope dont you think?

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-08-2011, 10:13 PM
So..you are in favor of an "absolute" with exceptions?That falls in under normal circumstances that are within the law, sure.


Isn't slavery by it's very definition involuntary? How it starts doesn't make slavery itself voluntary....
Before slavery in America, it was quite often the practice of many people of many races to put themselves into indenture servitude.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-08-2011, 10:23 PM
Indeed it was. But stupid reasoning then doesn't rule out sound reasoning now. I'm for the legalization of certain drugs, but heroin has horrible, dangerous side effects and doesn't need to be made easier to get to.Morphine is WORSE with worse side effects if you become addicted. The crap on the streets is not the product that was in use 100 years ago.


No, like when people decide to sell their body in to service to be used however a private entity see fit. You'll notice a slight difference I'm sure.That is indenture servitude and was working well until a certain person decided to sue his servant who ran away and got FULL legal authority over him


Could be and is are not the same. But that's not the point. The simple admission that there are SOME things that need to be regulated so that people can be protected from making bad decisions is all it takes to prove my point.
[/quote] THAT IS THE POINT!!! The FDA and other government bureaucracies that fall under administration power gives the president way too much power, eliminating the need for a congress. FCC, FDA, ATF, etc can regulate many aspects of American life and the congress has no say.

Quid
06-08-2011, 11:09 PM
The argument is about the size, scope, and purpose of government right? So check out drudge about the DOE knocking a guys door down to serve a warrant.

The DOE kinda seems to be overreaching in its scope dont you think?

I'm not going to bother sifting through that dreck for whatever over the top claim you're making. Link please.


Before slavery in America, it was quite often the practice of many people of many races to put themselves into indenture servitude.
They did lots of stuff back then. Most of it stupid. What's your point?


Morphine is WORSE with worse side effects if you become addicted. The crap on the streets is not the product that was in use 100 years ago.
If a study can show that legalization of heroin won't have greater negative effects than prohibition, I'm all for it. I've yet to see anything demonstrating otherwise.


That is indenture servitude and was working well until a certain person decided to sue his servant who ran away and got FULL legal authority over him
It also failed around the time people realized forced labor is a bad idea.


THAT IS THE POINT!!! The FDA and other government bureaucracies that fall under administration power gives the president way too much power, eliminating the need for a congress. FCC, FDA, ATF, etc can regulate many aspects of American life and the congress has no say.
Nope. The point was that people do need protection from themselves when Shrike made this post:


The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. The government must protect people from themselves? Freedom doesn't really mean much to you, does it.

And as you yourself has admitted, there is, somewhere, a bare minimum protection required.

Shrike
06-09-2011, 04:40 AM
Indeed it was. But stupid reasoning then doesn't rule out sound reasoning now. I'm for the legalization of certain drugs, but heroin has horrible, dangerous side effects and doesn't need to be made easier to get to.


Wrong. When you take away the crap that drug dealers cut heroin with, it has very few side effects other than addiction. Morphine and heroin are almost the exact same thing; the only difference is heroin has an acetyl molecule that morphine doesn't. When it comes to their affect on the body, they are interchangeable. As a matter of fact, both heroin and morphine are chemically converted by the body into the same "form" of morphine. So, if there are - as you claim - horrible, dangerous side effect from heroin, the same could be said for morphine. Why, then, is morphine used in hospitals? I mean, with all the other pain-killing options out there, you'd think such a "horrible, dangerous" one would only be used in the most dire circumstances.

Banned
06-09-2011, 04:54 AM
There are some college grads that can't function on their own. Infants still need major help from their mothers. From the time the sprem engages the egg, or I mean a week later, that lump of tissue will be dependant on the mother/someone for quite some time. Why isn't a test tube where they provide nutrients any less of a human than the 0-15 y/o who waits for the parents to buy, cook, and serve the food?

All the more reason to have abortions. If we didn't, that would just mean more "burdens on society" eating up your precious profits, right? ;)


Your sperm will never turn into anything different if you gave them all the nutrients in the world unless you pair it up with the egg.

Nice about-face you did there. So we're not arguing about whether or not it is a human NOW, you're saying everything with a "potential" for life should be kept alive. It is fortunate this is a fringe minority viewpoint.

Quid
06-09-2011, 05:03 AM
Wrong. When you take away the crap that drug dealers cut heroin with, it has very few side effects other than addiction. Morphine and heroin are almost the exact same thing; the only difference is heroin has an acetyl molecule that morphine doesn't. When it comes to their affect on the body, they are interchangeable. As a matter of fact, both heroin and morphine are chemically converted by the body into the same "form" of morphine. So, if there are - as you claim - horrible, dangerous side effect from heroin, the same could be said for morphine. Why, then, is morphine used in hospitals? I mean, with all the other pain-killing options out there, you'd think such a "horrible, dangerous" one would only be used in the most dire circumstances.

You mean dire circumstances like horrific bodily pain that needs to be stopped ASAP wherein it's then give to patients under close supervision by their doctors to ensure they don't kill themselves or go through horrific, possibly deadly withdrawal symptoms?


Nice about-face you did there. So we're not arguing about whether or not it is a human NOW, you're saying everything with a "potential" for life should be kept alive. It is fortunate this is a fringe minority viewpoint.

It's why masturbation should be illegal. Those millions of sperm have the potential to create millions of lives if combined with egg. Every time a guy jerks off it's like a tiny little holocaust.

Shrike
06-09-2011, 06:50 AM
You mean dire circumstances like horrific bodily pain that needs to be stopped ASAP wherein it's then give to patients under close supervision by their doctors to ensure they don't kill themselves or go through horrific, possibly deadly withdrawal symptoms?
1) Way to ignore the fact that morphine and heroin are basically the same thing. Have you given up on your specious claim that heroin has "horrible, dangerous" side effects?
2) Six years ago my wife had surgery on her back. She was given morphine for three days in the hospital, then given some morphine pills to take home with her for one final day. Why was she given morphine? Because her doctor looked at her medical history and decided it was the best medication for her. Were there dire circumstances? No. Horrific bodily pain? No. Close supervision? No. "Horrific, possibly deadly withdrawal symptoms" that almost drove her to kill herself? No. The withdrawal symptoms she experienced were not quite as bad as the withdrawal symptoms she experienced when she quit smoking. You know how we helped alleviate them? Exercise. The HORROR!

Where are you getting your misinformation from, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America propaganda site?

Quid
06-09-2011, 07:02 AM
I don't particularly care that morphine and heroin are the same. Both are highly controlled substances not allowed for recreational use due to their highly addictive nature.

Again, if you can demonstrate that, like other illegal recreational drugs, these two would benefit society more, or at the very least hurt it less, by being available over the counter I'd readily agree with you. However the effects of the drugs lead to life time addictions or deadly withdrawal symptoms unless the person is carefully monitored.

And I presumed you meant intravenous injection. The high a drug gives is highly dependent on how it's administered. Also, please do not presume to compare four days of use to months, if not years of regular use and pretend they're the same either.

Shrike
06-09-2011, 07:18 AM
I don't particularly care that morphine and heroin are the same. Both are highly controlled substances not allowed for recreational use due to their highly addictive nature.

Again, if you can demonstrate that, like other illegal recreational drugs, these two would benefit society more, or at the very least hurt it less, by being available over the counter I'd readily agree with you. However the effects of the drugs lead to life time addictions or deadly withdrawal symptoms unless the person is carefully monitored.

And I presumed you meant intravenous injection. The high a drug gives is highly dependent on how it's administered. Also, please do not presume to compare four days of use to months, if not years of regular use and pretend they're the same either.
If you can't see the benefits of removing the criminal element from the growth, production, distribution, and sale of recreational substances - in this case, a substance where the money ends up in the hands of the friggin' Taliban - then really, what else can I tell you? Having licensed sellers will ensure a safer product? It'll generate tax revenue, a portion of which can be used to treat those who do become addicted thus treating a medical problem as a medical problem and not a criminal one?

And again I ask you: if heroin were legalized tomorrow, would you rush right out and pick some up? If so, why? If not, why not?

Now, how about you back up your claims about the "horrible, dangerous" side effects of heroin? Heroin is addictive, yes. How hard it is to break that addiction is up for discussion. Some addicts have described kicking smoking as harder than kicking heroin. So, then, aside from addiction - which can be mental as well as physical - what are these "horrible, dangerous" side effects? Liver and brain damage, like alcohol? Lung damage like pot and smoked meth? Damage to the nasal passages as with cocaine? I would think it would be easy for you to list the pluralities of "horrible, dangeous" side effects, as vociferously as you are arguing against heroin.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-09-2011, 10:16 AM
It's why masturbation should be illegal. Those millions of sperm have the potential to create millions of lives if combined with egg. Every time a guy jerks off it's like a tiny little holocaust.
If there was ever that many egg at one time to inceminate, sure. But a viable life wouldn't start till a sperm and an egg came together.

I know it is a fringe mind set, just playing devils advocate right here.

Measure Man
06-09-2011, 02:42 PM
You mean dire circumstances like horrific bodily pain that needs to be stopped ASAP wherein it's then give to patients under close supervision by their doctors to ensure they don't kill themselves or go through horrific, possibly deadly withdrawal symptoms?

I remember being briefed that the only drug that kill you by STOPPING it, is alcohol.

Can't swear that's true...but I was taught that.

EDIT: A quick google search shows several other fatal withdrawals, including heroin for a heavy user in poor health.

Pullinteeth
06-09-2011, 03:39 PM
Drug addiction was a horrible problem a century ago. Turns out when people can get laudanum over the counter many abuse it horribly and then become burdens on society.

So it isnt' a problem now right? They make meth using what used to be common OTC meds.. People abuse all kinds of OTC meds. Some OD on Tylenol and Ibuprophen...should we make those illegal? People actually get hooked on cough syrup..Illegal? You can get high and actually have a fatal overdose on water...illegal?


That falls in under normal circumstances that are within the law, sure.
Before slavery in America, it was quite often the practice of many people of many races to put themselves into indenture servitude.

So if you are cool with absolutes with exceptions within the law, what is your problem with the current abortion laws?
I am assuming you mean before whites has slaves in America....what does indentured servitude have to do with the price of tea in China? That is voluntarily agreeing to work for someone for a set amount of time to pay off a debt owed... Might be usery by today's standards but slavery? Hardly.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-09-2011, 05:18 PM
So if you are cool with absolutes with exceptions within the law, what is your problem with the current abortion laws?The law is based on philosophy and not science. Is there a scientific definition of when life begins? And if science can be altered or change the rules of what constitutes being "alive", will the law change as well to fit the science and not just the philisophical mind set?


I am assuming you mean before whites has slaves in America....what does indentured servitude have to do with the price of tea in China? That is voluntarily agreeing to work for someone for a set amount of time to pay off a debt owed... Might be usery by today's standards but slavery? Hardly.A debt or promise of land after certain amount of time. I don't consider this slavery. It was the way people aquired land back then when they started with nothing. They "sold" themselves to a farmer who promised them land and taught them how to work the land.

Quid
06-10-2011, 12:09 AM
If you can't see the benefits of removing the criminal element from the growth, production, distribution, and sale of recreational substances - in this case, a substance where the money ends up in the hands of the friggin' Taliban - then really, what else can I tell you?[quote]
If you can't see the drawback of allowing a highly addictive drug be allowed to used by the masses whenever they like I don't kow what to tell you.

[QUOTE]And again I ask you: if heroin were legalized tomorrow, would you rush right out and pick some up? If so, why? If not, why not?
I wouldn't because I'd not want to end up addicted to what for many is a horrific, life ruining drug. I don't trust most people to be that intelligent.


Now, how about you back up your claims about the "horrible, dangerous" side effects of heroin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Withdrawal

Well that was easy.


So it isnt' a problem now right? They make meth using what used to be common OTC meds.. People abuse all kinds of OTC meds. Some OD on Tylenol and Ibuprophen...should we make those illegal? People actually get hooked on cough syrup..Illegal? You can get high and actually have a fatal overdose on water...illegal?
I prefer not to throw gasoline on to a fire.

OJAICIR
06-10-2011, 12:41 AM
The problem with Definitions: is people who use them; decide what they mean. Whereas those, so defined, hardly if ever,
fit within the definitions of parties from the "other side". When you use the terms: "Liberal; & Conservative"; you really need to qualify the term: (about What?) Some people may very well be "Politically Liberal"; but "Socially Conservative". Then there is
Economic", Religious, Sexual. and on and on. So; a great deal more refinement is needed before one tossed around those definitions haphazardly.

OJAICIR
06-10-2011, 01:07 AM
RE: Freedom of Religion:
As an American; I am a believer in following the Constitution; along with the "Bill of Rights";established by our forefathers.
Most came to us from Britain. They had personally experienced the perils of having a State Religion; because of that experience, this freedom, was very important to them. We can see these same perils for ourselves by looking at the "Religious government of Iran". Since we see ourselves as living in a Democracy I know we are vehemently against that sort of oppression. Yet; although they have the "right" to "Worship how the wish"; and "pray" anywhere the like, many of the Christian brotherhood; would like to make their secular beliefs a part of our government. "Freedom of Religion", means ANY Religion: Jewish, Sikh, Wicca, Tao, Buddhist, Muslin and many others. It is even freedom, FROM Religion. If a citizen, or members of the "Government" is a "Good Christian" He or She could be expected to conduct themselves, according to the humanist principles of Christianity. Without having to make their belief system, a public one.

OJAICIR
06-10-2011, 01:21 AM
Unfortunately; the "Conservative Right" has chosen, successfully I might add, to identify themselves with Patriotism;
and the "Right to bear Arms". In the Constitutional, Freedom to "bare arms" is irrevocably tied to "raising of a militia".
If I were on the Supreme court; and charged with "Interpreting that part of the Bill of Rights", that is what I would have to find.
However; as an individual; I would argue; that this right is not conferred on us by this amendment. But that it
it is tied to the more basic guarantee: "to Life and Liberty". A right; which includes the right to DEFEND that Life and Liberty.

Banned
06-10-2011, 07:44 AM
I'll be interested in your response when you get around to answering my question, WJ...

If you are absolutely and totally against social aid programs, I would think you would want abortion. Abort unwanted children before they become burdens on society, right? Alive or not, abortion is more humane than letting them starve to death later on in life.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-10-2011, 10:19 AM
I'll be interested in your response when you get around to answering my question, WJ...

If you are absolutely and totally against social aid programs, I would think you would want abortion. Abort unwanted children before they become burdens on society, right? Alive or not, abortion is more humane than letting them starve to death later on in life.

I am totally against able body grown-up receiving handouts. Just because someone wants to abort a child, that doesn't mean they will grow up to become a burden on society.

And if you don't think a baby with a developing mind wouldn't care it is being killed, or won't feel the pain, doesn't that also mean you shouldn't care if a 2 day old baby boy has a little forskin cut off? He won't remember it.

DarkHeart
06-10-2011, 10:22 AM
I'll be interested in your response when you get around to answering my question, WJ...

If you are absolutely and totally against social aid programs, I would think you would want abortion. Abort unwanted children before they become burdens on society, right? Alive or not, abortion is more humane than letting them starve to death later on in life.

That was my argument. What kind of life are you protecting if the child is unwanted?

Pullinteeth
06-10-2011, 11:26 AM
#3, I don't know either, I was just going through the tracking of Joes statement of "A fetus is a human when it can survive outside of the womb with 'reasonable help'". Which would lead to, when the advancements in medicine that is progressivly taking us to the point of extraction of the concieved embryo and grow it in a tube till "maturaty". Does that mean when we are able to help the embryo outside the whomb, it will beconsidered a human? When is it considered a human again? Other than just survival outside the womb, what makes a human a "viable life form"? Why is late term abortions illegal if the fetus is still not "alive"?

Just for this case, why can't there be an absolute answer?


Ok, I understand for this abosolute. What about an absolute for the consentual, non-instest, non-medically challenged pregnancies? When does life "start"? There has to be an answer or there will always be variables that will make it a double standard when it comes to making laws. I am just wondering is all, and would like something set in stone of what constitutes "life".


That falls in under normal circumstances that are within the law, sure.


The law is based on philosophy and not science. Is there a scientific definition of when life begins? And if science can be altered or change the rules of what constitutes being "alive", will the law change as well to fit the science and not just the philisophical mind set?


So what you are ACTUALLY saying is you are comfortable with "absolutes with excpetions" as long as they "fall in under normal circumstances that are within the law" AND you agree with them? Because you said you wanted an ABSOLUTE law on abortion, then some exceptions that you agreed with were pointed out so you wanted an ABSOLUTE law with a few exceptions. You then said as long as those exceptions were within the law, you were good with them-EXCEPT for the ones that are currently allowed by law... Make up your mind...

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-10-2011, 11:36 AM
So what you are ACTUALLY saying is you are comfortable with "absolutes with excpetions" as long as they "fall in under normal circumstances that are within the law" AND you agree with them? Because you said you wanted an ABSOLUTE law on abortion, then some exceptions that you agreed with were pointed out so you wanted an ABSOLUTE law with a few exceptions. You then said as long as those exceptions were within the law, you were good with them-EXCEPT for the ones that are currently allowed by law... Make up your mind...
Ok, you confused me, but I think I confused you first.

I was just wondering if there was a certain criteria that we can use as society to determine what constitutes life, or lifeform. If you shoot a pregnant woman, you are charged with double murder. If the mother goes and has an abortion, she is just removing a "growth of tissue". Why can't there be an absolute definate answer of when a life/life form actually begins based on science?

Pullinteeth
06-10-2011, 11:50 AM
Ok, you confused me, but I think I confused you first.

I was just wondering if there was a certain criteria that we can use as society to determine what constitutes life, or lifeform. If you shoot a pregnant woman, you are charged with double murder. If the mother goes and has an abortion, she is just removing a "growth of tissue". Why can't there be an absolute definate answer of when a life/life form actually begins based on science?

There are criteria...you just disagree with what the criteria currently is. I agree though about the double homocide thing...if it isn't a life...how do you murder it?

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-10-2011, 12:04 PM
There are criteria...you just disagree with what the criteria currently is. I agree though about the double homocide thing...if it isn't a life...how do you murder it?

What is the criteria? When it comes out of the woman and it take a breath on its own? Is that the part I am missing? Do all premies breath on their own? I am not trying to be obtuse, I am actually trying to learn this criteria.

Banned
06-10-2011, 01:23 PM
I am totally against able body grown-up receiving handouts. Just because someone wants to abort a child, that doesn't mean they will grow up to become a burden on society.

It is statistically proven that a child not raised with its biological parents is more likely to be a criminal, psychologically damaged, an academic failure, or all of the above. It is also proven that children that are raised with a biological parent - but in a broken or dysfunctional household, are also more likely to be dysfunctional.

Can't have it both ways mate. You either want to "get rid of" burdens on society before they hatch, or support them after they've grown up.


And if you don't think a baby with a developing mind wouldn't care it is being killed, or won't feel the pain, doesn't that also mean you shouldn't care if a 2 day old baby boy has a little forskin cut off? He won't remember it.

I've already discussed this. Bans on abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy when the fetus is deemed to be "self aware" are perfectly sufficient. No need to throw your religious dogma into the mix.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-10-2011, 01:43 PM
It is statistically proven that a child not raised with its biological parents is more likely to be a criminal, psychologically damaged, an academic failure, or all of the above. It is also proven that children that are raised with a biological parent - but in a broken or dysfunctional household, are also more likely to be dysfunctional.And is there a common thread in those kids that goes against the trend?


I've already discussed this. Bans on abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy when the fetus is deemed to be "self aware" are perfectly sufficient. No need to throw your religious dogma into the mix.
What determines the fetus as "self aware"? Forget the previous part of foreskin, how can you determine when something is "self aware"?

Banned
06-10-2011, 02:15 PM
And is there a common thread in those kids that goes against the trend?

I would love to hear your theories on this.


What determines the fetus as "self aware"? Forget the previous part of foreskin, how can you determine when something is "self aware"?[/QUOTE]

I dunno. According to Christian theology, fetuses get a soul at 16-17 weeks.

DarkHeart
06-10-2011, 02:33 PM
It is statistically proven that a child not raised with its biological parents is more likely to be a criminal, psychologically damaged, an academic failure, or all of the above. It is also proven that children that are raised with a biological parent - but in a broken or dysfunctional household, are also more likely to be dysfunctional.

You wanna qualify that statement, Joe? I'm with you that parentless children are at a disadvantage, but children raised by parents that are not biologically related? Don't make me get super gay up in this bitch.

Banned
06-10-2011, 02:42 PM
You wanna qualify that statement, Joe? I'm with you that parentless children are at a disadvantage, but children raised by parents that are not biologically related?

I looked more into it... now I'm not so sure.

Children are placed in foster care when a child protective services worker and a court have determined that it is not safe for the child to remain at home, because of a risk of maltreatment, including neglect and physical or sexual abuse.

Because of their history, children in foster care are more likely than other children to exhibit high levels of behavioral and emotional problems. They are also more likely to be suspended or expelled from school and to exhibit low levels of school engagement and involvement with extracurricular activities. Children in foster care are also more likely to have received mental health services in the past year, to have a limiting physical, learning, or mental health condition, or to be in poor or fair health.1 One study found that almost 60 percent of young children (ages 2 months to two years) in foster care were at a high risk for a developmental delay or neurological impairment.2

Youth who “age out” of foster care instead of returning home may face challenges to making a successful transition to adulthood. According to the only national study of youth aging out of foster care, 38 percent had emotional problems, 50 percent had used illegal drugs, and 25 percent were involved with the legal system. Preparation for further education and career was also a problem for these young people. Only 48 percent of foster youth who had “aged out” of the system had graduated from high school at the time of discharge, and only 54 percent had graduated from high school two to four years after discharge. As adults, children who spent long periods of time in multiple foster care homes were more likely than other children to encounter problems such as unemployment, homelessness, and incarceration, as well as to experience early pregnancy.3,4
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/199

So while it is true children in foster care are more likely to have issues, these statistics are slanted by the kids who grew up in f'ed up families - I have not been able to find evidence that children raised by foster parents from birth are significantly more likely to be screwed up. I swear I read it somewhere, but I'm not having any luck finding it again. So I don't know.



Don't make me get super gay up in this bitch.

Please don't. I don't want to EVER see a discussion of my mouth and your penis in the same sentence ever again. 8C

Shrike
06-10-2011, 03:09 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Withdrawal

Well that was easy.

Wrong yet again. You're batting about 0.000 now. You unequivocally stated that there are "Horrible, dangerous side effects" from using heroin. Not from stopping using heroin. So yet again I ask you, what are these "Horrible, dangerous side effects"?

There's no shame in admitting that you don't know what the heck you're talking about. When it comes to illicit substances in this country, MOST people have no idea what they're talking about. They have nary a clue why drugs are even illegal in the first place (and it has nothing to do with the addictiveness).

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-10-2011, 03:37 PM
I would love to hear your theories on this.

Well, it was covered in you next post really. It is the care they are ingrained with from the beginning is what my train of thought was. It is tough to change behavior of kids, my son from 8 months to almost 2 years was with his mother only while I was in Korea. The way he acts around me vs her is 2 totally different kids.


I dunno. According to Christian theology, fetuses get a soul at 16-17 weeks.
I am not going off of what the dogma of the religious aspect is, I was trying to get the scientific answer from you.

Banned
06-10-2011, 04:08 PM
Well, it was covered in you next post really. It is the care they are ingrained with from the beginning is what my train of thought was. It is tough to change behavior of kids, my son from 8 months to almost 2 years was with his mother only while I was in Korea. The way he acts around me vs her is 2 totally different kids.

I agree. We can gather statistics and numbers all we like, but in the end - its completely dependent on the family and community the child is raised in.


I am not going off of what the dogma of the religious aspect is, I was trying to get the scientific answer from you.

I frankly don't have a clear answer myself, as I'm not particularly up to speed on the subject.

However, I found an excellent piece on the subject by BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

It spells out the various schools of thought on when a fetus should be considered to have rights.

DarkHeart
06-10-2011, 04:32 PM
I read somewhere that pigs are about as intelligent as a three year old human. Thoughts?

Joe, your findings are correct and vetted by the medical and psychological communities that deal with these issues. When it comes to children raised since infancy in adoptive homes, there are studies out there and they do tend to excel, the theory being that adoptive parents are more likely to be prepared for taking care of a child since they plan for having a child, where biological families do not always plan to get pregnant.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-16-2011, 04:34 PM
Why can't liberals leave people alone in their private lives? Why is it that San Fransico is trying to bad Gold Fish sales?

Seriously? Inhumane? THEY ARE FISH!!! (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/san-francisco-switches-targets-from-foreskins-to-fish/)

FixItWithAMod
06-16-2011, 11:10 PM
Why can't liberals leave people alone in their private lives? Why is it that San Fransico is trying to bad Gold Fish sales?

If only there weren't so many conservatives getting involved in the private lives of gay people (especially in California)...

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-17-2011, 12:21 AM
If only there weren't so many conservatives getting involved in the private lives of gay people (especially in California)...Any more examples? Or should we name off more of liberal interference? You got one, and I disagree with the stance of keeping gay from marring, but as the old saying goes, Republicans want to control what you doing in the bedroom, democrats want to control what you do everywhere else.

Banned
06-17-2011, 01:05 PM
Yes, its funny isn't it? Republicans don't mind if infants and children are in cribs lined with lead paint, or living in absestos infested buildings, or getting mercury poisoning from tap water - but GOD FORBID they have gay adoptive parents.

DarkHeart
06-17-2011, 01:48 PM
Yes, its funny isn't it? Republicans don't mind if infants and children are in cribs lined with lead paint, or living in absestos infested buildings, or getting mercury poisoning from tap water - but GOD FORBID they have gay adoptive parents.

Easy Gay fixes too.

If it's painted with lead paint, it probably looks too tacky, a gay man would never buy such a thing.
Gay couples that can afford to adopt probably don't live in some run down dump, only the finest loft in silicon vally will do.
Gays don't drink tap water, only Evian.

:P

Banned
06-17-2011, 01:58 PM
And the children will be dressed in the latest fashion, so they won't get made fun of at school.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-20-2011, 02:02 PM
Yes, its funny isn't it? Republicans don't mind if infants and children are in cribs lined with lead paint, or living in absestos infested buildings, or getting mercury poisoning from tap water - but GOD FORBID they have gay adoptive parents.And without republicans, there would have been no civil rights, no desegrigation, no affirmative action, no freedom of the slaves. And no military intereveining and stopping the KKK that the democrats loved so dearly. The last KKK member of the demcratic party only died last year. GOD forbid the Republicans had one vice and screw up on the human rights issue.

As far as you "championed talking points", what is your assertion that these were a democratic decission and not EPA regulation? If you are talking about the EPA regulations, then thank Nixon (R) for his executive order. Once again, a justifiable organization that was started with pure intentions by a republican. But mutated into a mismanaged beast that is far beyond its scope of intention it was made to be.

Banned
06-20-2011, 02:17 PM
And without republicans, there would have been no civil rights, no desegrigation, no affirmative action, no freedom of the slaves. And no military intereveining and stopping the KKK that the democrats loved so dearly. The last KKK member of the demcratic party only died last year. GOD forbid the Republicans had one vice and screw up on the human rights issue.

You mean without PROGRESSIVES none of that would have happen. You said it yourself, being a progressive is unrelated to political party. :p


As far as you "championed talking points", what is your assertion that these were a democratic decission and not EPA regulation? If you are talking about the EPA regulations, then thank Nixon (R) for his executive order. Once again, a justifiable organization that was started with pure intentions by a republican. But mutated into a mismanaged beast that is far beyond its scope of intention it was made to be.

Remember General Jack Ripper in Dr. Strangelove starting a nuclear holocaust to stop the Communists from contaminating our "precious bodily fluids"?

Sound familiar? (http://rapidreload.newsvine.com/_news/2009/08/21/3177648-1950s-republican-were-right-fluoride-in-the-drinking-water-was-a-communist-plot-to-sap-and-impurify-the-precious-bodily-fluids-of-the-american-people)

Banned
06-20-2011, 02:17 PM
Good God "will not be visible until a moderator has approved it for posting", Are you serious?!

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-20-2011, 04:04 PM
You mean without PROGRESSIVES none of that would have happen. You said it yourself, being a progressive is unrelated to political party. :p
Yes, they may have been "progressive", OR, they may have figured out that the stuff immoral and unjustified to have slaves. Quite frankly, if you are trying to find a difference between a Progressive Republican and a progressive Democrat, I would say look at the difference between Lincoln and Wilson. One actually did what he promised, the other just used his promises to get political power.



Remember General Jack Ripper in Dr. Strangelove starting a nuclear holocaust to stop the Communists from contaminating our "precious bodily fluids"?

Sound familiar? (http://rapidreload.newsvine.com/_news/2009/08/21/3177648-1950s-republican-were-right-fluoride-in-the-drinking-water-was-a-communist-plot-to-sap-and-impurify-the-precious-bodily-fluids-of-the-american-people)
So, your follow up to me shooting down your democrat talking points of why we need big government by showing you that it was a republican that actually caused these things to happen, is to show a republican denouncing floride in the 50s. OMGs, someone taking percausion, if only there was someone like that when SS or Medicare was enacted, maybe we wouldn't be staring $75 trillion in debt.

Banned
06-22-2011, 11:27 AM
Yes, they may have been "progressive", OR, they may have figured out that the stuff immoral and unjustified to have slaves. Quite frankly, if you are trying to find a difference between a Progressive Republican and a progressive Democrat, I would say look at the difference between Lincoln and Wilson. One actually did what he promised, the other just used his promises to get political power.

Once again, as you know perfectly well - the political verbage used in America has changed over the centuries. You're being silly.

I bet if Lincoln was alive today you would hate him.



So, your follow up to me shooting down your democrat talking points of why we need big government by showing you that it was a republican that actually caused these things to happen, is to show a republican denouncing floride in the 50s. OMGs, someone taking percausion, if only there was someone like that when SS or Medicare was enacted,
I'm showing you how paranoid and hysterical conservatives get whenever someone proposes something new - like putting in fluoride, and putting in mercury.

And yes, sometimes Republicans support these things - but you said it yourself, a Republican is not the same thing as a Conservative.


maybe we wouldn't be staring $75 trillion in debt.


Or we could stop giving the rich huge tax cuts every couple of years.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-22-2011, 04:40 PM
Or we could stop giving the rich huge tax cuts every couple of years.What ever the tax cut revenue you think we are missing (complete and utter speculation BTW) it wouldn't cover the spending progressives and liberals do. That magical $700 billion in revenue over the next 10 years if you were to let the tax cuts expire on the upper 1%, won't even cover the single spending expansion of Obama for 1 on these years. So, for the 10 years we are "getting" and extra $700 billion, we have spent another $9 TRILLION. Love your talking points, they are so easily disproven as class warfare.

Make it easier to see for you

$700,000,000,000 Extra
$10,000,000,000,000 Spent in debt.

$9,300,000,000,000 net LOSS

Sarge6thCav
06-22-2011, 04:56 PM
Hey VariableWind, to further befuddle your liberal friends, http://theconservativenews.com/confuse-a-liberal

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-23-2011, 12:18 AM
Hey VariableWind, to further befuddle your liberal friends, http://theconservativenews.com/confuse-a-liberal:gossip Dude, you just linked the site VW got his questions from.

Banned
06-23-2011, 09:59 AM
What ever the tax cut revenue you think we are missing (complete and utter speculation BTW) it wouldn't cover the spending progressives and liberals do. That magical $700 billion in revenue over the next 10 years if you were to let the tax cuts expire on the upper 1%, won't even cover the single spending expansion of Obama for 1 on these years. So, for the 10 years we are "getting" and extra $700 billion, we have spent another $9 TRILLION. Love your talking points, they are so easily disproven as class warfare.

Make it easier to see for you

$700,000,000,000 Extra
$10,000,000,000,000 Spent in debt.

$9,300,000,000,000 net LOSS

Now, using the REAL numbers -

$4 trillion lost from the Bush tax cuts (not even coutnting the extension), another 3 trillion from the illegal wars -

That's 7 trillion right there. Doesn't cover all of the debt, but its a big step. Instead, Bush took the surpluses from the economic boom and pissed them away, leaving his successor absolutely nothing to work with.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-23-2011, 11:02 AM
Now, using the REAL numbers -

$4 trillion lost from the Bush tax cuts (not even coutnting the extension)Total speculation with absolutly no backing that the revenue would have been at the levels they were at after 2003 tax cuts. You have ZERO proof that the economy that was taking a nose dive after the dot com bubble burst was going to kick back up without the tax cuts, or at least that fast.


another 3 trillion from the illegal wars -This is the only numbers you can consider real because when you have less spending, you can manage your budget better.


That's 7 trillion right there. Doesn't cover all of the debt, but its a big step. Instead, Bush took the surpluses from the economic boom and pissed them away, leaving his successor absolutely nothing to work with.There was no "surpluses" from Clinton, there was a decline in revenue, THE FIRST DECLINE IN 30 YEARS, was from 2001-2003. And the only "balanced" budget that came from Clinton without the aid of SS robbery was 1998, when most of the debts that were delayed on paying were in play. When you choose not to pay a debt for a year, I guess you can call that less expenses, but that money is going to be due some time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/U.S.-income-taxes-out-of-total-taxes.JPG

Here is a good article if you want to see a debunking of your tax myths. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts)

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 03:30 PM
:gossip Dude, you just linked the site VW got his questions from.

Wow, so he really did copy and paste those BS questions...ha!

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-23-2011, 03:48 PM
Wow, so he really did copy and paste those BS questions...ha!Still a lot more astute than the BS on the conservative question thread.

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 04:26 PM
Still a lot more astute than the BS on the conservative question thread.

Not really.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-23-2011, 04:28 PM
Not really.At least all of these delt specifically with the way most liberals think. The conservative thread went off on a tangent between conservatism and Christianity. These are no synonumous as you can see from the Roman Catholic Pelosi and the Mormon Harry Reed.

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 04:50 PM
At least all of these delt specifically with the way most liberals think.

Really? Okay, let's start from the beginning.

Question 1: Show me 1 mainstream liberal who has said that AIDS is spread by a lack of federal funding.


The conservative thread went off on a tangent between conservatism and Christianity. These are no synonumous as you can see from the Roman Catholic Pelosi and the Mormon Harry Reed.

Both sets of questions were gross mischaracterizations. i.e. "There was no art before federal funding." Again, I seriously doubt you can find a mainstream liberal that said that.

I explained my position on most of those long ago in the thread, no need to rehash all of that...heck, even VW admitted the questions were done "tongue in cheek"...

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-23-2011, 05:04 PM
Really? Okay, let's start from the beginning.

Question 1: Show me 1 mainstream liberal who has said that AIDS is spread by a lack of federal funding.



Both sets of questions were gross mischaracterizations. i.e. "There was no art before federal funding." Again, I seriously doubt you can find a mainstream liberal that said that.

I explained my position on most of those long ago in the thread, no need to rehash all of that...heck, even VW admitted the questions were done "tongue in cheek"...These have been issues that are brought up for spending cuts but yet faught tooth and nail by liberals by either saying they are essential or that it wouldn't make a difference in funding cause they are such a small part of the budget. I understand they are "tongue and cheek", but the funding of these issues are faught for by liberals.

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 05:07 PM
These have been issues that are brought up for spending cuts but yet faught tooth and nail by liberals by either saying they are essential or that it wouldn't make a difference in funding cause they are such a small part of the budget. I understand they are "tongue and cheek", but the funding of these issues are faught for by liberals.

Okay...so, in other words saying "AIDS is spread by a lack of federal funding" and "There was no art before federal funding" are gross mischaracterizations, right?

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-23-2011, 05:18 PM
Okay...so, in other words saying "AIDS is spread by a lack of federal funding" and "There was no art before federal funding" are gross mischaracterizations, right?They are "tongue and cheek" in the wording of how liberals truely view keeping them funded. But " gross mischaracterizations", not when the fight to keep them funded is so adiment, that is the way liberals come accross as defending the government research of them.

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 05:34 PM
They are "tongue and cheek" in the wording of how liberals truely view keeping them funded. But " gross mischaracterizations", not when the fight to keep them funded is so adiment, that is the way liberals come accross as defending the government research of them.

I support federal funding for AIDS research.

Saying this means I believe AIDS is spread by a lack of federal funding is a BS.

If the question had simply been, "Why do you think the govt. should support AIDS research."...then it wouldn't be BS. But, the goal of those questions wasn't to really ask questions...it was to take the liberal position to a nonsensical extreme to make it appear silly. Which it really isn't.

Do yo believe the govt. should assist and/or fund in medical research?

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-23-2011, 05:40 PM
I support federal funding for AIDS research.

Saying this means I believe AIDS is spread by a lack of federal funding is a BS.

If the question had simply been, "Why do you think the govt. should support AIDS research."...then it wouldn't be BS. But, the goal of those questions wasn't to really ask questions...it was to take the liberal position to a nonsensical extreme to make it appear silly. Which it really isn't.

Do yo believe the govt. should assist and/or fund in medical research?NOPE, just like they shouldn't fund oil exploration.

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 05:50 PM
NOPE, just like they shouldn't fund oil exploration.

You should know that major advances in prosthetics, TBI and PTSD have been made my government funded research associated with OIF/OEF wounded.

Why do conservatives think our wounded warriors should have to wait for new advances to be commercially profitable before they benefit from available technology?

Why do conservatives think we should still have people dying of polio?

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-23-2011, 05:58 PM
You should know that major advances in prosthetics, TBI and PTSD have been made my government funded research associated with OIF/OEF wounded.

Why do conservatives think our wounded warriors should have to wait for new advances to be commercially profitable before they benefit from available technology?

Why do conservatives think we should still have people dying of polio?Because along with those government studies we have higher heart problems and more kids suffering from AADD due to improper diets that our government has funded research for. Our diets are supposedly the "most healthy" the medical care is the best in the world and yet our life expectency is running about 35th. Our government funded medical research is too one sided and biased. Till we can fix this, then we can get back to the positive research that was done with the prevention of deseases.

Aitrus
06-23-2011, 06:01 PM
You should know that major advances in prosthetics, TBI and PTSD have been made my government funded research associated with OIF/OEF wounded.

Why do conservatives think our wounded warriors should have to wait for new advances to be commercially profitable before they benefit from available technology?

Why do conservatives think we should still have people dying of polio?

Why do liberals think that just because conservatives want the minds of those like Edison and Einstein to come up with ideas in the privacy of their homes and universities that must mean they want people to suffer?

They don't.

They just want advances to be pursued in a non-governmental way. Who says that prosthetics and a polio cure couldn't have been made in the private sector? Who knows, it might have been accomplished quicker if the government were out of the way.

So, the question that should be asked is: "We know that governmental involvement slows down just about every undertaking. Why do liberals want to automatically apply this slowdown to every undertaking, thereby putting more lives at risk?"

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 06:10 PM
Why do liberals think that just because conservatives want the minds of those like Edison and Einstein to come up with ideas in the privacy of their homes and universities that must mean they want people to suffer?

Einstein, of course, worked on many govt-funded research projects.


They don't.

But, seriously, I was just replying in kind to BS questions previously made, if you had been following. I don't think conservatives hates soldiers any more than liberals think there was no art before federal funding.


They just want advances to be pursued in a non-governmental way. Who says that prosthetics and a polio cure couldn't have been made in the private sector? Who knows, it might have been accomplished quicker if the government were out of the way.

Can you explain how the government prevented any private corporation or charity from performing polio research and/or prosthetics research?

If they "would have been done sooner" were it not for the government...why weren't they? If it was profitable, they would have already done it.




So, the question that should be asked is: "We know that governmental involvement slows down just about every undertaking.

No, we don't know this.


Why do liberals want to automatically apply this slowdown to every undertaking, thereby putting more lives at risk?"

False conclusion based on a false premise.

If "non-govt. is the way to go...why don't we hae a corporate or charity-funded military? Everybody wants a secure US, right? I mean, shouldn't the private sector be able to do it better, faster, cheaper? Oh, but then go look at the GIs on here complain about contractors.

Why don't we have corporate or charity-based police, courts, fire?

Do you want anarchy? Or is there anything you want the government to do...and if your premise is correct...why do you want tha function to be done slower and more inefficiently?

Commercial markets are good for some things...but there are some things they can't do...namely when they can not project a profit. Much of medical research falls into this category.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-23-2011, 06:17 PM
So, the question that should be asked is: "We know that governmental involvement slows down just about every undertaking.
No, we don't know this.So how long does it take to put solar pannel on top of the roof of the white house? 9 months and counting. Guess there wasn't that much sun light to be turned into energy then.

Or how about all those "shovel ready jobs" just waiting for stimulous dollars? Guess the permits from the government keeping them from actually being ready had nothing to do with speed, they just needed more money.

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 06:20 PM
So how long does it take to put solar pannel on top of the roof of the white house? 9 months and counting. Guess there wasn't that much sun light to be turned into energy then.

Or how about all those "shovel ready jobs" just waiting for stimulous dollars? Guess the permits from the government keeping them from actually being ready had nothing to do with speed.

I guess we can stop medical funding because Merck, Omega and Pfizer will be coming up with that cure for cancer any day...oh wait, there's much more money in boner pills and balding treatments.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-23-2011, 06:24 PM
False conclusion based on a false premise.

If "non-govt. is the way to go...why don't we hae a corporate or charity-funded military? Everybody wants a secure US, right? I mean, shouldn't the private sector be able to do it better, faster, cheaper? Oh, but then go look at the GIs on here complain about contractors.You mean government contractors?


Why don't we have corporate or charity-based police, courts, fire?We did, but the poor couldn't afford the insurance so the government stepped in. Now cities are going broke cause they are paying these people more in retirement than when they actually were working.


Do you want anarchy? Or is there anything you want the government to do...and if your premise is correct...why do you want tha function to be done slower and more inefficiently?

Commercial markets are good for some things...but there are some things they can't do...namely when they can not project a profit. Much of medical research falls into this category.Cause there will never be a profit in cancer research, HIV prevention/treatment, antibiotics, prostetics, common flu vacceens etc. Please, finding a cure or a treatment for medical conditions will always yeild a profit.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-23-2011, 06:26 PM
I guess we can stop medical funding because Merck, Omega and Pfizer will be coming up with that cure for cancer any day...oh wait, there's much more money in boner pills and balding treatments.lol, Idiocracy anyone? Guess who else gets federal funding for their medical research...^^^These guys.

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 06:33 PM
You mean government contractors?

Private companies/workers under contract with the government...


We did, but the poor couldn't afford the insurance so the government stepped in.

...and a better system in your mind is that the poor don't get any fire/police/military protection or court representation?


Now cities are going broke cause they are paying these people more in retirement than when they actually were working.

...overpaid pensions. A lot of private companies go broke over that, too.


Cause there will never be a profit in cancer research, HIV prevention/treatment, antibiotics, prostetics, common flu vacceens etc. Please, finding a cure or a treatment for medical conditions will always yeild a profit.

However, that profit is often so far in the future to be essentially not foreseeable...that is when private companies have a difficult time with it. And if we relied strictly on private funding...we would still have polio, tuberculosis, smallpox, etc.

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 06:34 PM
lol, Idiocracy anyone? Guess who else gets federal funding for their medical research...^^^These guys.

...and you want to take it away...which would further drive their need to work on only stuff that can be brought to market in the foreseeable future.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-23-2011, 08:07 PM
Private companies/workers under contract with the government..."Guaranteed" pay for work in a certain amount of time.


...and a better system in your mind is that the poor don't get any fire/police/military protection or court representation?Nope, these are actually good government institutions that is why I have stated this before.


...overpaid pensions. A lot of private companies go broke over that, too.But the difference between the governments and the private businesses is....? Only the workers of said business is effected, in the government or state bankruptcies, the entire populace suffers.

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 08:17 PM
"Guaranteed" pay for work in a certain amount of time.

And?


Nope, these are actually good government institutions that is why I have stated this before.

So, that sort of throws out the premise that the govt. makes everything slower, worse, etc.


But the difference between the governments and the private businesses is....? Only the workers of said business is effected, in the government or state bankruptcies, the entire populace suffers.

There are some things private businesses do better than the government.

There are some things government does better than private business.

The each have differing goals, expectations and nature...one of the advantages of the government is that they don't have to project, or even turn a profit.

Here's one that will blow your mind...Government SHOULD be run at a deficit, that's the only way to control govt. spending...don't give them enough money to do everything they want. That's how we force tough choices on them.

If govt. is making a profit, taxes are too high.

Quid
06-23-2011, 10:04 PM
I definitely don't understand how guaranteed pay for work makes contractors any less efficient than regular military.

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 10:07 PM
I definitely don't understand how guaranteed pay for work makes contractors any less efficient than regular military.

I can only say that as a contractor now, I do the same job I had as active duty with 1/3 the manning...oh, and for less total compensation.

Quid
06-23-2011, 10:35 PM
See Measure the problem is you're getting a set amount of money no matter the job. A salary if you will.

Salaries would obviously never fly in the private sector. Except, well, for all those places where it does.

imported_WILDJOKER5
06-24-2011, 03:12 AM
I can only say that as a contractor now, I do the same job I had as active duty with 1/3 the manning...oh, and for less total compensation.
I, the military member, have to give up my work so that a civilian contractor can report on doing work. I am going freaking insane cause I am truly told not to work. They on the other hand work only hard enough to push their unit to almost complete on Friday, just so they can come in saturday and get overtime. My military experience has conditioned me to get my work done before the weekend, and if that means staying late on the weekdays, so be it, but I don't get extra money for that time.

Quid
06-24-2011, 03:51 AM
Well maybe some day you too can be as efficient as the private sector.

Thor
06-24-2011, 04:39 AM
liberals are subhuman slack jaw tree huggers so don't pay them no mind! You have to watch out for us evil right wing wackos!

Banned
06-24-2011, 08:13 AM
At least all of these delt specifically with the way most liberals think. The conservative thread went off on a tangent between conservatism and Christianity. These are no synonumous as you can see from the Roman Catholic Pelosi and the Mormon Harry Reed.

What religion are you again?

Measure Man
06-24-2011, 09:14 PM
I, the military member, have to give up my work so that a civilian contractor can report on doing work. I am going freaking insane cause I am truly told not to work.

Sounds more like a local leadership issue...you need a good NCO or two over there.


They on the other hand work only hard enough to push their unit to almost complete on Friday, just so they can come in saturday and get overtime.

I don't have this problem where I work. I am salary, but our union guys are hourly. They get overtime pay, I don't. They do the job every week and we haven't worked overtime in a year or so.

If you are seriously paying contractors overtime, while you are pushing work away...that's a problem...but it is not caused or owned by the contractor. You are being a poor steward of public funds. If, as you say, you are essentially being ordered to be a poor steward of public funds...you should call the FW&A Hotline, which you can do here:

http://www.dodig.mil/hotline/submit_complaint.htm or by calling 1-800-424-9098


My military experience has conditioned me to get my work done before the weekend, and if that means staying late on the weekdays, so be it, but I don't get extra money for that time.

I don't get it..you mean you get paid the same no matter how much work you do?

I can't speak for your unit. Why are you there if contractors can do the work? Again, what you have are local leadership issues, there is nothing wrong with contractors. The AF could not function without them. There are many tasks performed by contractors that the AF does not have the expertise to do.

That's not to say that all contractors are wonderful...but neither can you say that about all military folks. If there is money being spent on unnecessary contractors...hard to blame that on the contractor, the DOD hired them. It's like you paying the kid down the street to cut your grass every day...and then blaming him cuz the grass doesn't need to be cut every day.

I work in a completely contracted, mission essential function...there are no GIs on base that do what we do.

I am also an "at will" employee...meaning I can be fired at any time for no reason. That's pretty good incentive, I think.

Banned
06-29-2011, 07:27 AM
Silly... complaining about problems is better than actually working to fix them.

Measure Man
11-08-2013, 09:51 PM
Bump...this thread covered a lot of ground. Although most of the principals are banned, deleted, or just plain gone.

AJBIGJ
11-08-2013, 10:04 PM
Bump...this thread covered a lot of ground. Although most of the principals are banned, deleted, or just plain gone.

Hate to say it, as most here now were not participants then most will not have the attention spans to play "catch up". I kind of avoided it on purpose then because it kind of locks people into the traditional "Left-Right" paradigm that I would like to try to convince people to run away from.

Measure Man
11-08-2013, 11:09 PM
Hate to say it, as most here now were not participants then most will not have the attention spans to play "catch up". I kind of avoided it on purpose then because it kind of locks people into the traditional "Left-Right" paradigm that I would like to try to convince people to run away from.

Well, yeah, the original OP was more or less "false stereotypes of Liberals"....but some interesting conversation ensued later.

USAF-Controller
11-09-2013, 03:09 AM
I didn't really remember this thread. I consider myself a liberal. Um...ask away?

CORNELIUSSEON
11-09-2013, 03:35 AM
Well, yeah, the original OP was more or less "false stereotypes of Liberals"....but some interesting conversation ensued later.

Speaking as a dyed-in-the-wool Progressive from a Progressive family, but one that has picked up some of the Moderations found in Army service, I can say that many of the so-called "false stereotypes of Liberals" are not stereotypes at all, but labels that have fallen into disuse. We tend to think of politics as something that remains steady over time, but with the adherents moving from one flavor of politics to another, when the reality is that each political flavor alters over time while it is the adherents who are the steady factors.

Bunch
11-09-2013, 04:18 AM
I believe that to be fair for the few democrats/liberal/ progressives that are here would be best to start a thread not from false premises but from true experiences. At least here we are small fish on a very big conservative pond. We can talk about our life experiences and what shape our views. To give an example the person that writes this just 10 years ago before even getting to the mainland US I was a total different person in regard to my political leanings. It was my experience of living here this 10 years that have shape the views I have today. It will only be logical to have a place in which we can talk about this life experiences outsides the confines of a thread that from the beginning had another purpose. If the thread is made I'm game.

Bunch
11-09-2013, 04:36 AM
If someone starts a new thread on the topic of what makes a democrat/liberal/progressive and what shapes our views I'm game. This thread as created wasn't meant for that.

CORNELIUSSEON
11-09-2013, 06:43 PM
If someone starts a new thread on the topic of what makes a democrat/liberal/progressive and what shapes our views I'm game. This thread as created wasn't meant for that.


If you read through from the start, you will see that reining in this thread NOW is a little late in the game.

CORNELIUSSEON
11-11-2013, 12:41 PM
If someone starts a new thread on the topic of what makes a democrat/liberal/progressive and what shapes our views I'm game. This thread as created wasn't meant for that.

Assuming that the Administrator hasn't had any issues with your request, I've started the thread at the following link:

http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1597368-US-Military-Liberal-Progressive-Experiences&p=660954#post660954