NationStates Jolt Archive

How can Liberals be:

Anti-War and Pro-Abortion? Both Kill people. One is killing others shooting at you. The other is killing a unborn child. Hmmm guess the unborn child is better.

Pro-Assisted suicide, euthanasia.

Then Anti-Social security/Medicare/Medicade reform. Guess we dont need to worry about the invalid and old people. Liberals idea is just to put them to death by "humane" ways.


Suppose to help the little guy.

Yet every chance they get the raise taxes when they are in the majority. Thanks for the help!


Pro-American.

Yet the anti-American rhetoric comes from the left. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy for examples. Oops almost forgot "Hanoi Jane"


Anyone care to explain this? I know there are varying degrees of liberals. Not all would be in favor of everything listed. But I think the majority does.

Abortion doesn't kill anyone, privitizing social security will destroy it, they raise taxes on the upper classes, and anti-american is a loaded word (eg, the right has just as many 'anti-american' hacks as the left does) with no meaning. Cheero.

[QUOTE=CSW]Abortion doesn't kill anyone, QUOTE]


Thats an amazing thought right there.

[QUOTE=CSW]Abortion doesn't kill anyone, QUOTE]


Thats an amazing thought right there.
It is, isn't it.


And it doesn't. Or it would be murder, not abortion. The entire thought behind abortion (and always has been) that abortion is not killing a human being, not killing something that is human. Just cells.

Most people agree.

Story out of Cali.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~uogpc/news/04122004.html

How can Liberals be:

Anti-War and Pro-Abortion? Both Kill people. One is killing others shooting at you. The other is killing a unborn child. Hmmm guess the unborn child is better.
Because one is a choice made by old men who never have to see anyone die in their family or within their close friends. I'm a big fan of If you want to declare war, you get to fight in it, then you get to eat the dead. I think that would end a lot of war very quickly. Abortion is a choice made by a woman (since men can't have abortions) when she feels she cannot give the child-to-be the best possible life.

Pro-Assisted suicide, euthanasia.
Your point?

Then Anti-Social security/Medicare/Medicade reform. Guess we dont need to worry about the invalid and old people. Liberals idea is just to put them to death by "humane" ways.

Wrong. Anto Private Accounts. Because those place too much risk on the money you know you are going to need.


Yet every chance they get the raise taxes when they are in the majority. Thanks for the help! They're called progressive taxes for a reason. The rich get taxed more. Until Bush, there was no 10% bracket. Now, there is, and guess what? The poor people are paying taxes when they didn't before. Helping the little guy. . .feed the big guy.


Pro-American.

Yet the anti-American rhetoric comes from the left. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy for examples. Oops almost forgot "Hanoi Jane"
Since when does suggesting ways to make the country a better place mean 'anti-American'? In actuality, protesting is more American than accepting whatever the government has to say. If it wasn't, we'd still be a british colony.

Story out of Cali.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~uogpc/news/04122004.html
Funny, here in Delaware we have quite a few young republican's clubs, and none of this happens. "Blowing things out of preportion".

Edit: read the WoTi story, quite of bit of the comments placed towards him were...understandable, especially since he wrote "Liberals welcome every Muhammad, Jamul and Jose who wishes to leave his Third World state and come to America.", and his teachers 'traitors.'

If you don't regard an unborn baby as a human being, then aborting it isn't murder.

[QUOTE=Marrakech II]
It is, isn't it.


And it doesn't. Or it would be murder, not abortion. The entire thought behind abortion (and always has been) that abortion is not killing a human being, not killing something that is human. Just cells.

Most people agree.

Those are not just any cells. No, most people dont agree with this thought. Usually the people that agree with your way of thinking is. A)People without children. b)A person that is young and doesnt have enough life experience. c) People that just dont care. Guess my question is which one are you?

If you don't regard an unborn baby as a human being, then aborting it isn't murder.


Yes, that is true. Also same is true if you agree that quality of life is the only reason a person should live. If it isnt good. Pull the plug.

[QUOTE=CSW]

Those are not just any cells. No, most people dont agree with this thought. Usually the people that agree with your way of thinking is. A)People without children. b)A person that is young and doesnt have enough life experience. c) People that just dont care. Guess my question is which one are you?
Source for that one.

Yes, that is true. Also same is true if you agree that quality of life is the only reason a person should live. If it isnt good. Pull the plug.
Only when they consent (which, if you'd stop trying to ignore the issue at hand, you'd understand. The issue is a matter of a person's right to demand to end their life against the government's ability to block it. The right-to-die is actually a very conservative (modern day) issue, except when the evangelicals get into the fight).

[QUOTE=CSW]

Those are not just any cells. No, most people dont agree with this thought. Usually the people that agree with your way of thinking is. A)People without children. b)A person that is young and doesnt have enough life experience. c) People that just dont care. Guess my question is which one are you?

Yeah, pretty much. I'm all three, if you only look at surface facts. t I care very much that a woman retain the freedom to choose what to do with her body.

A. I don't have kids.
B. I'm 18
C. I don't care about a fetus because I don't consider it human until brain waves start working, then I'm against aborting it, unless in the case of severe physical deformity, mental retardation, or in cases of incest and rape.

So, aside from those, nothing you know about me would tell you how much I do or don't know about the case for abortion. But here's a starting fact.

America - abortion is hotly contested. 24 abortions per 1,000
Netherlands - abortion is accepted, there is good sex ed, people are prepared. Abortions: 6 per 1,0000

[QUOTE=Marrakech II]
Source for that one.

Could say the same for you.

[QUOTE=CSW]

Could say the same for you.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Roughly 70% favor some form of abortion. ~50% favor abortions in most cases.

Only when they consent (which, if you'd stop trying to ignore the issue at hand, you'd understand. The issue is a matter of a person's right to demand to end their life against the government's ability to block it. The right-to-die is actually a very conservative (modern day) issue, except when the evangelicals get into the fight).


Look, Im all for if "you" decide it is time for you to go. No one else can better determine if you want to live then yourself. If someone else makes that deciscion for you. Examples being Spouse, Family, Government. Then this is a problem.

Look, Im all for if "you" decide it is time for you to go. No one else can better determine if you want to live then yourself. If someone else makes that deciscion for you. Examples being Spouse, Family, Government. Then this is a problem.
Then what is at issue then. Most 'liberals' agree with you. The case most in the news today was a dispute over if she did infact give that consent, which courts ruled that she did.

Look, Im all for if "you" decide it is time for you to go. No one else can better determine if you want to live then yourself. If someone else makes that deciscion for you. Examples being Spouse, Family, Government. Then this is a problem.
Most people have living wills. And the power of attorney is there for a reason.

How can Liberals be:

Anti-War and Pro-Abortion? Both Kill people. One is killing others shooting at you. The other is killing a unborn child. Hmmm guess the unborn child is better.

When you can adequately explain how aborting a fetus equates to killing a person, then you may have a point.

Otherwise, in both situations the government should act to protect the rights of the people. Both unjustified war and banning abortion would be an affront to the rights of the people.

Pro-Assisted suicide, euthanasia.

People have the right to live how they want and die how they want. It is the person's body, it does not belong to government, it does not belong to society.

Then Anti-Social security/Medicare/Medicade reform. Guess we dont need to worry about the invalid and old people. Liberals idea is just to put them to death by "humane" ways.

I don't think there is a liberal out there who wants to do away with social security and welfare, the just oppose the privatization method that the conservatives are espousing. They feel that if social security is privatized, those without the means of saving for a future will be cut out.


Suppose to help the little guy.

Yet every chance they get the raise taxes when they are in the majority. Thanks for the help!

Not true, they do not wish to tax the poor, they wish to increase taxes on the rich to provide more for the poor. So not only are they for the little guy, they are against the big guy.

Pro-American.

Yet the anti-American rhetoric comes from the left. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy for examples. Oops almost forgot "Hanoi Jane"

I'm not even going to respond to this one because it is tired partisan crap.

[QUOTE=Marrakech II]
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Roughly 70% favor some form of abortion. ~50% favor abortions in most cases.


Your misunderstanding what this poll shows. 20% or so say it should always be legal. No matter what. Those other 50% are included in the group of having an abortion if: rape, incest, and or possible health risk to mother. I would say the majority of that 50% is because of those above cases.

[QUOTE=CSW]


Your misunderstanding what this poll shows. 20% or so say it should always be legal. No matter what. Those other 50% are included in the group of having an abortion if: rape, incest, and or possible health risk to mother. I would say the majority of that 50% is because of those above cases.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Dec. 16-19, 2004. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS. RV = registered voters

Read that one. The second to last catagory is what you are talking about, the first two are what I was talking about. The first two added together=50%, the last two=50%.

A majority/close minority favor/oppose abortion in most cases, a clear majority favor some form of aborition. Also, a rather clear majority (50 to 30) favor upholding Roe.

why are you against abortion, which you consider "killing," but for the death penalty, which is definitely killing?

why are you against abortion, which you consider "killing," but for the death penalty, which is definitely killing?

I wanna know this, too.

why are you against abortion, which you consider "killing," but for the death penalty, which is definitely killing?

I don't even need to be a conservative to explain this one. Because the person being executed has done something to deserve it and the foetus hasn't.

Too easy that one. And I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty

But killing them all the same makes us no better than they are! That's why I'm against the death penalty.

Why, oh why do forums have to be constantly ravaged by partisan squabbles over the same handful of issues over and over again? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

The strongest form of censorship is yourself. You don't have to read these things if you don't want to.

I don't even need to be a conservative to explain this one. Because the person being executed has done something to deserve it and the foetus hasn't.

Too easy that one. And I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty

To use that argument, you would have to assume that the person being executed has broken the social contract and has shown that he is unwilling to abide by society's laws.

The fetus has never entered into the social contract so they are neither granted protection by society, nor have they proven their willingness to exist in this society.

At least that is why I don't believe the social contract is a valid answer for this question. It seems to use faulty reasoning.

But killing them all the same makes us no better than they are! That's why I'm against the death penalty.

I didn't say that I agreed with them. I just explained the logic from their viewpoint *shudders at being able to see things from that viewpoint*

I didn't say that I agreed with them. I just explained the logic from their viewpoint *shudders at being able to see things from that viewpoint*

It really does feel gross to see things from "their" side...

It really does feel gross to see things from "their" side...

Oh Jesus, now you've done it.

*hears stampeding conservatives*

*runs for cover*

Why, oh why do forums have to be constantly ravaged by partisan squabbles over the same handful of issues over and over again? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
What the hell would we do otherwise?

*Cue Family Guy style segue into a bunch of people drinking tea and saying "I say. Jolly good fellow.", and other hackneyed cliched British phrases.*

Abortion doesn't kill anyone, privitizing social security will destroy it, they raise taxes on the upper classes, and anti-american is a loaded word (eg, the right has just as many 'anti-american' hacks as the left does) with no meaning. Cheero.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born. "

Raising taxes on the rich is like lazy jealousy. You don't feel like working, so you'll just go ahead and try to take as much as you can from the people that have it. This is known as legal theft.

I think the left has more anti-americans at this point with the whole 18 and under crowd. There are too many terrorist sympathizers and aging anti-war hippies who don't stand for anything, but wish they did, (they never grew out of teenage years, look up Ericsson's 8.)

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born. "


:confused:

What in the hell does that mean?

That may have been the most pointless quote in history.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born. "

Well DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHH!

If you haven't been born, you can't really fucking advocate anything, can you?

ABortion is also only villified by people who have be born.

<snip> Insert standard anti-liberal flame here


Your argument has been disregarded for the following reason: it did nothing to further debate.


Thank you, have a nice day.

Well DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHH!

If you haven't been born, you can't really fucking advocate anything, can you?

ABortion is also only villified by people who have be born.

Indeed. I've never heard a foetus argue against abortion.

Indeed. I've never heard a foetus argue against abortion.

But when they start, I will be the first to argue against abortion.

Oh man you are making this too easy...

"How can Liberals be:

Anti-War and Pro-Abortion? Both Kill people. One is killing others shooting at you. The other is killing a unborn child. Hmmm guess the unborn child is better."
As stated above, Abortion is the idea of killing a unborn human, technically not human yet. I bet you don't understand why people are protesting the war, I am. Let me tell you this, I agree Saddam had to go BUT I protest the war because Bush lied to us, the views of the people didn't matter to Congress, and people are dying in a senseless war. There hasn't been a democracy in the Middle East ever, so how could there be one now? It won't last at all and it is a waste of our resources. I could go on about how I dislike the war, but shall we go back to abortion. I am not Pro-Abortion but more Pro-Option. Let us take Nepal for example where their highest cause of death is abortion, not from the "kid" but from the woman having it. If you didn't know it is illegal to have an abortion in Nepal. Shall we move more locally to Maryland? About a month and half ago a girlfriend had her boyfriend beat her in the stomach with a baseball bat to kill the child because of Bush (administration) abortion centers have to have parent approval. Pretty much abortions will happen illegal or legal; the question is if you want them to be safe and government regulated or done in a backyard with a baseball bat. It is not about what is right, but what is best.

"Pro-Assisted suicide, euthanasia.

Then Anti-Social security/Medicare/Medicade reform. Guess we don't need to worry about the invalid and old people. Liberals idea is just to put them to death by "humane" ways."

Pro-Euthanasia, when you have a failing heart and will die no matter what, would you rather go ASAP or suffer in pain for months?

I am pro-reform to all of those, but the right reform. Making it private is the worst idea since...well...deciding to see how far they can push the reactor at Vladimir I. Lenin Nuclear Power Plant in 1986! We should care for our old, but not by letting them suffer or having them endanger the rest of society? Let me ask you this, where do you come from? Is it Sarasota, Florida? Most likely not, where over 50% of the people here are over 70, which makes driving HELL. They are more dangerous than teenagers, hell my car got hit because an old guy forgot which one was brake...and I was in a parking lot! Reforms are needed, but for the betterment of society at whole.

"Suppose to help the little guy.

Yet every chance they get the raise taxes when they are in the majority. Thanks for the help! "
Do you understand how taxes work? OK here is a simple run down, you give money to the government and it pays for things that give back to you.
Example-
Rightist: Lower taxes so you can pay more for your doctors bill and drive yourself to the hospital. (http://www.komotv.com/stories/35814.htm)
Leftist: Raise your taxes so when you are shot in the head you don't have to drive yourself to the hospital and the bill is cheaper.




"Pro-American.

Yet the anti-American rhetoric comes from the left. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy for examples. Oops almost forgot "Hanoi Jane""

You are a simple rightist, sorry, but if you think someone hates their nation because they disagree with actions done by the government then you need to go rise your eyes out. In fact it is un-American not to protest and not to question the government, that is the whole beauty of America! I disagree with the actions done by the Bush Administration and I believe he (referring to the whole administration) has ruined America and put the future in a spot we might not be able to fix. Yet I can say that and be America because we have that right. Check out these quotes Teddy Roosevelt (R) that say the opposite of blindly following our President and what the people in power do:
"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."

"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

"The government is us; we are the government, you and I."

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is morally treasonable to the American public. "



So you asked your questions, let me ask mine.
#1 Why do rightist call people who speak out against America terrorist when they exercise the very right terrorist are trying to kill, and rightist are trying to kill.
#2 Opposite of your question; why do rightist believe in Anti-Abortion but are pro-war? They claim they want to save a soul for Jesus and then support bombing kids in Iraq.
#3 Why do rightist believe less power of the people is better?
#4 Why do rightist believe that lower taxes means a better economy?
#5 Why do rightist think that the government shouldn't deal in with the economy when it is so obvious it is failing?
#5 Why do rightist claim to be Christians (note I am a Christian and Jesus was a leftist) and yet think only about themselves and not the community?

I don't understand how conservatives can be anti abortion and pro war.

Dude, we tax the rich more because they have more money, and the government needs money to run. The poor people don't have money, so taxing them would be pointless and fruitless. How else should we get money to run the government?

[QUOTE=Marrakech II]
It is, isn't it.


And it doesn't. Or it would be murder, not abortion. The entire thought behind abortion (and always has been) that abortion is not killing a human being, not killing something that is human. Just cells.

Most people agree.

wow.. thats amazing historically incorrect. for quite a while in American history abortion was outlawed and seen as murder.. you would have been arrested for it... thats why roe v way was so ground breaking.. we needent worry much longer.. and the democrats nail themselves into their coffins we will soon have the 60 person majority lead in the senate to make their party irrelevent and over turn that nonsense

Abortion doesn't kill anyone, privitizing social security will destroy it, they raise taxes on the upper classes, and anti-american is a loaded word (eg, the right has just as many 'anti-american' hacks as the left does) with no meaning. Cheero.
People don't kill people. Scalples kill people. Ban the scalple!

What'll happen is that the republicans will go too far right for the country, it'll backlash, and the democrats will end up back in power, untill they go too far left, and there's another backlash.

"Those are not just any cells. No, most people don't agree with this thought. Usually the people that agree with your way of thinking is. A)People without children. b)A person that is young and doesn't have enough life experience. c) People that just don't care. Guess my question is which one are you?"
A) Uncle and I love the kid!
B) What is life experience? People mature at different rates, there are really smart 13 year olds and then really ignorant 85 year olds.
C) I care because it is my culture and society.

To the "Those are not just any cells;" ever masturbate before? OMFG you just committed abortion! You killed millions of people! Go jump off a bridge now you horrible man!


"Look, I'm all for if "you" decide it is time for you to go. No one else can better determine if you want to live then yourself. If someone else makes that decision for you. Examples being Spouse, Family, Government. Then this is a problem. "
So wait? What about the old people on feeding tubes everyday who have it pulled by their family. How about the government drafting you into the military to fight a hopeless war? So it is only wrong when you are unborn to be forced into dying?

I don't understand how conservatives can be anti abortion and pro war.

Dude, we tax the rich more because they have more money, and the government needs money to run. The poor people don't have money, so taxing them would be pointless and fruitless. How else should we get money to run the government?
What's wrong with taxing everyone at the same percentage rate?

And where do you get the idea that conservatives are "pro-war?" It was conservatives who fought hardest to keep the US out of WWI, and Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, who wanted us in.

How can Liberals be:

Anti-War and Pro-Abortion? Both Kill people. One is killing others shooting at you. The other is killing a unborn child. Hmmm guess the unborn child is better.

Disingenuous Sophistry.

Liberals are not opposed to necessary wars as when Afghanistan was sheltering Osama Bin Ladin following 9-11. They are opposed to unnecessary wars such as invading Iraq when it had neither sufficient military power to threaten the Continental United States nor solid evidence of the Hussein regime directly supporting Al Qaeda. In fact, Bin Ladin and Hussein were anything but friendly to each other.

As for abortion, it should not be used as a convenient contraceptive but there are moments when it should be a viable option: Namey when the mother's health is threatened. Conservative/Fundamentalist agenda would allow no exceptions when it comes to banning abortion.

Pro-Assisted suicide, euthanasia.

Another disingenuous attack. Bush had no trouble signing a Texas bill that allowed hospitals to cut off life support from patients who could not afford the payments regardless of the patient's actual viability. He only embraced the crusade to keep Terri Schiavo "alive" because it would draw in sympathy votes from the Religious Right, and because if it had been successful it would have set a precedent that could have eventually lead to the overturning of Roe v Wade. Terry Schiavo was a political football for Bush who would have been discarded like the other corpses coming in from Iraq when he was done with her.

Then Anti-Social security/Medicare/Medicade reform. Guess we dont need to worry about the invalid and old people. Liberals idea is just to put them to death by "humane" ways.

Social Security has at least 40 years before it becomes seriously underfunded. But Bush wants to scare people into accepting privatization. My theory on this is that once privatization is approved, financial firms who were the biggest contributors to Bush will receive preferential treatment for accepting the new privatized accounts... and there's probably going to be deregulation following that which will lead to another Bush-induced Lincoln Savings and Loans style scandal.

Oh, and Hillary Clinton proposed health care reform but guess who shot it down? Not the Democrats.

Suppose to help the little guy.

Yet every chance they get the raise taxes when they are in the majority. Thanks for the help!

Raising taxes at least brings revenue to the government, which then goes into the government's budget for numerous purposes. Bush is spending what little is left of the budget on his back-patting tax cuts and the Iraq occupation... without coming up with a means of replacing those budget dollars.

Tax and Spend sounds a lot more balanced than Spend and Spend and Spend.

Pro-American.

Yet the anti-American rhetoric comes from the left. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy for examples. Oops almost forgot "Hanoi Jane"

If by "Anti-American" you mean "not willing to kiss the collective arses of George Bush and the NeoConservative movement and submit to a form of government that is the bastard love child of George Orwell and Margaret Atwood," then yes you can say anti-American rhetoric comes from the left.

In fact it is the duty of any genuine patriotic American to question their government and keep its toes on a straight and true path. In fact, one of the greatest Republicans in history had something to say about this:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Roosevelt would be pissed if he was alive today and saw how Bush is getting so much handouts and ass kissing.

Anyone care to explain this? I know there are varying degrees of liberals. Not all would be in favor of everything listed. But I think the majority does.

And yet when someone assumes the vast majority of Conservatives are Hypocritical Imperialist Bible Hugging Homophobic Sexist Jingoist Warmongering Racist Christian Zealots... you get pissed off.

:rolleyes:

Eh well WWI is a mixed feeling, TR wanted us in while Wilson got elected for keeping us out of the war but he was soon forced into fighting it.

What's wrong with taxing everyone at the same percentage rate?

There are financial justifications for the Graduated tax rate.

Also, even with a graduated tax rate, people get taxed at the same rate. The dollars get taxed differently.

What's wrong with taxing everyone at the same percentage rate?

And where do you get the idea that conservatives are "pro-war?" It was conservatives who fought hardest to keep the US out of WWI, and Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, who wanted us in.

Check your history books again. Wilson did everything he could to keep us out of WWI and only went in when there was no other choice--and that war was justified.

There are financial justifications for the Graduated tax rate.

Also, even with a graduated tax rate, people get taxed at the same rate. The dollars get taxed differently.
Have you ever paid taxes? It's called "a graduated income tax" for a reason, the reason being that the higher your income, the higher your tax bracket, which means a higher percentage of your income is taken for each bracket upward.

Check your history books again. Wilson did everything he could to keep us out of WWI and only went in when there was no other choice--and that war was justified.
I'm not trying to defend isolationism, just trying to show that conservatives are not necessarily "pro-war" as was alleged.

Check your history books again. Wilson did everything he could to keep us out of WWI and only went in when there was no other choice--and that war was justified.

Wilson very much wanted to enter the war, however, due to ethnic diversity of America, and a general isolationism in the public, he couldn't do it until he could find ample justification.

So you asked your questions, let me ask mine.
#1 Why do rightist call people who speak out against America terrorist when they exercise the very right terrorist are trying to kill, and rightist are trying to kill.
#2 Opposite of your question; why do rightist believe in Anti-Abortion but are pro-war? They claim they want to save a soul for Jesus and then support bombing kids in Iraq.
#3 Why do rightist believe less power of the people is better?
#4 Why do rightist believe that lower taxes means a better economy?
#5 Why do rightist think that the government shouldn't deal in with the economy when it is so obvious it is failing?
#5 Why do rightist claim to be Christians (note I am a Christian and Jesus was a leftist) and yet think only about themselves and not the community?

1# if the retoric being spoken against american only fuels the flame of the terrorists by giving them validiation.. they are simply using their rights to destroy the rights.. dosnt' seem very productive does it ? (calling american civilians in the economic center nazis perhaps ?)

2# supporting bombing kids in Iraq ? :rolleyes: there isn't the liberal rhetoric for you (and the liberals supporting NAFTA are supporting the misstreatment of poor uneducated workers by Multinationals and the spread of sweatshops i suppose). And its simple.. abortion targets innocent children with no reguard for life, while war is a defensive measure meant to preserve the lives of the greater majority...

#3 Because when I see people abusing the power or "rights" like spreading racists hate music in the middle and highschools across america in a marketing scheme targeting children AND make money off of it in the name of "freedom of speech" that shows me they dont deserve the rights ! When the KKK can march where ever they please spreading words of oppression and discrimination.. that shows they arn't mature enough for freedom.

#4 Easy... people have more money to spend on private services which higher people and expand pumping more money into the system. So you pay less in taxes pay more in insurance so the insurance company can grow hiring more people spending more on infastructure and computers which helps the tech industry grow who spends more on raw materials like steel and metals which helps the factories grow so on and so forth.. its called capitalism. Despite what you might think... stockholders hate seeing companies hord masses of cash in banks (which is why microsoft does everything in its power to move its billions yearly) they want the money in 1 of two places.. the companies pruduction line (to earn more money and expand...etc) or their pockets ! (mind you the stockholders are 80% of american households)

#5 Rightests dont'want the government to deal with the economy ? Thats what the tax cuts were for... to spur growth.. hello... According to Allen Greenspan those cuts were essential to the stability of the American economy and the reason why we came out of recession.

#6 not the community ?!?!??! the community belongs in the STATE government.. not the FEDERAL government. The Federal government only looks at the people from a national level.. States get to see you me and the old lady down the road. My state knows my needs far better then the Federal government does (who might be more interested in farmers out west). Im for Big STATE power.. not BIG FEDERAL power. and the right belives in DONATIONS.. not FORCED hand outs....Jesus never advocated robing from the rich to give to the poor.. he advocated the utilization of your god given gift of CHOICE to give to the poor. that is the christian thing to do!

"What's wrong with taxing everyone at the same percentage rate?"
Because say there are three people who we will call Upper, Middle, and Lower. Let us say they get taxed the same 50%, to make this easy.
Upper has 100,000 and loses 50,000 of that, he still has 50,000.
Middle has 50,000 and loses 25,000 of that, he still has 25,000.
Lower has 10,000 and loses 5,000 of that, he still has 5,000.

Wait? That makes no sense at all, how come the rich person can buy everything he needs from bills to computers...and A LOT of porn, while the poor person can barely afforded an apartment and food? Not very fair I think, the way gradual tax works is:
Upper has 100,000 and loses 50% of that, he still has 50,000.
Middle has 50,000 and loses 35% of that, he still has 32,500.
Lower has 10,000 and loses 20% of that, he still has 8,000.

Have you ever paid taxes? It's called "a graduated income tax" for a reason, the reason being that the higher your income, the higher your tax bracket, which means a higher percentage of your income is taken for each bracket upward.

While I have never paid any substantial income tax, I am a fifth year finance major and know a little about the subject.

A millionaire is taxed at the same rate as a poor single mother on the initial tax bracket. As a person reaches a new bracket, the income in the first bracket is still taxed at a lower rate. Therefore the dollars are taxed, not the person.

I'm not trying to defend isolationism, just trying to show that conservatives are not necessarily "pro-war" as was alleged.

And liberals (which along with conservative is ACTUALLY an economic theory, but we'll pander to modern misuse of words) are not necessary anti-war. Just anti unjustified wars.

While I have never paid any substantial income tax, I am a fifth year finance major and know a little about the subject.

A millionaire is taxed at the same rate as a poor single mother on the initial tax bracket. As a person reaches a new bracket, the income in the first bracket is still taxed at a lower rate. Therefore the dollars are taxed, not the person.

For what its worth, I'm a well-educated liberal and you aren't convincing me either. You might want to try a different approach. Really. . . this is just a suggestion mind you.

In my opinion, abortion is basically just a last minute ditch on a would-be human being. But it is not a human yet. It's really no worse than a couple who decides to have a child and then changes their mind at the last minute. It's really the same thing, only a little further along the process. Think about it...

A human being is essentially a body with a brain and a unique self (aka soul) that is shaped and influenced by its surroundings and experiences. When you have an abortion really the only thing being aborted is the physical body of the would-be human not the "soul" - it has yet to come into existence. A newborn baby in other words is nothing more than a shell (with predetermined genetics) ready to be shaped by its environment. If a woman feels she is unable to properly support a child and see to its wellbeing and upbringing I would think it would be in everybody's best interest to wait until this woman is ready and willing to propertly support a child. In essence this would-be "soul" is sort of being put back in queue, waiting for the proper time to come into existence. I see nothing wrong and immoral about this. Quite the opposite.
These are just my thoughts.

A better question, what is hyprocracy? It sounds fun.

And liberals (which along with conservative is ACTUALLY an economic theory, but we'll pander to modern misuse of words) are not necessary anti-war. Just anti unjustified wars.
And who is to determine whether a particular war is "unjustified?" Actually, I am of the opinion that no war is "justified," but that's not the issue here. The issue as stated, is whether or not conservatives are "pro-war." That's a gross generalization and does a disservice to all the conservatives of US history who opposed wars for whatever reason.

And who is to determine whether a particular war is "unjustified?" Actually, I am of the opinion that no war is "justified," but that's not the issue here. The issue as stated, is whether or not conservatives are "pro-war." That's a gross generalization and does a disservice to all the conservatives of US history who opposed wars for whatever reason.

Actually, the original issue, as stated was that liberals were anti-war which grants an implicit understanding that conservatives are pro-war because they seem to think that being anti-war is a bad thing.

For what its worth, I'm a well-educated liberal and you aren't convincing me either. You might want to try a different approach. Really. . . this is just a suggestion mind you.

It isn't exactly a liberal argument.

Try reading this, though:

http://www.wordwiz72.com/flattax.html

"What's wrong with taxing everyone at the same percentage rate?"
Because say there are three people who we will call Upper, Middle, and Lower. Let us say they get taxed the same 50%, to make this easy.
Upper has 100,000 and loses 50,000 of that, he still has 50,000.
Middle has 50,000 and loses 25,000 of that, he still has 25,000.
Lower has 10,000 and loses 5,000 of that, he still has 5,000.

Wait? That makes no sense at all, how come the rich person can buy everything he needs from bills to computers...and A LOT of porn, while the poor person can barely afforded an apartment and food? Not very fair I think, the way gradual tax works is:
Upper has 100,000 and loses 50% of that, he still has 50,000.
Middle has 50,000 and loses 35% of that, he still has 32,500.
Lower has 10,000 and loses 20% of that, he still has 8,000.
Now we come to the crux of the issue. Liberals believe that the income tax is not only to pay for running the government, but to redistribute income on a more "equitable" basis. Conservatives largely believe that approach is in effect a punishment for being successful.

It isn't exactly a liberal argument.

Try reading this, though:

http://www.wordwiz72.com/flattax.html


Obviously a skewed site. I wasn't trying to get you to convince me though. . . just telling you taht you probably needed to try a different tactic in debating this with others. This "the person is not taxed, the dollars are" just leaves too much ambiguity for the other side to rebel against.

The most recent example of liberal hypocrisy that I can think of is Terri Schiavo. The freak of a lawyer that Michael Schiavo has said that she should die with dignity, and there they were, talking about her freakin' urine output.

I'm glad I went Republican. The left is full of nuts, wierdos, and hypocrites.

The most recent example of liberal hypocrisy that I can think of is Terri Schiavo. The freak of a lawyer that Michael Schiavo has said that she should die with dignity, and there they were, talking about her freakin' urine output.

I'm glad I went Republican. The left is full of nuts, wierdos, and hypocrites.


Die with dignity. . .you mean like having your parents plaster your blank physiognomy all over the news media in a desperate attempt to violate patient autonomy and the law?

And urine output is something that you want to know in cases like these. It's a medical thing.

For God's sake, this just pisses me off.
we're not PRO-ABORTION! We're PRO-CHOICE
we think it's the mothers right to chose!
of course we don't want mandatory abortion
what, do you think we're idiots?

and anti-american rhetoric? c'mon.
anti american would be condemning American ideals
We condemn the president
who is supporting un-american ideals
takin away our rights
cheating in elections using hacked voting machines
look who the hypocrites are
they can't lose
cuz they control the voting machines

And yes, we're anti war
cuz the war was all about oil
oil, oil, oil
hell, we guard the oil
more than we guard the weapons
aint that a little weird?
just shows president bush's values
he'll kill 100,000 Iraqis
(more than saddam killed)
he'll kill 1,520 american soldiers
And all in the name of oil
I'll show you who the hypocrites are

In my opinion, abortion is basically just a last minute ditch on a would-be human being. But it is not a human yet. It's really no worse than a couple who decides to have a child and then changes their mind at the last minute. It's really the same thing, only a little further along the process. Think about it...

A human being is essentially a body with a brain and a unique self (aka soul) that is shaped and influenced by its surroundings and experiences. When you have an abortion really the only thing being aborted is the physical body of the would-be human not the "soul" - it has yet to come into existence. A newborn baby in other words is nothing more than a shell (with predetermined genetics) ready to be shaped by its environment. If a woman feels she is unable to properly support a child and see to its wellbeing and upbringing I would think it would be in everybody's best interest to wait until this woman is ready and willing to propertly support a child. In essence this would-be "soul" is sort of being put back in queue, waiting for the proper time to come into existence. I see nothing wrong and immoral about this. Quite the opposite.
These are just my thoughts.

if your soul is shaped and influenced by its surroundings... you could still techniqically chop that kids head off as soon as he pops out of the mothers body and still be in the right according to you. Where do you get the idea the soul comes simply from your experiances? The soul is a religious term in essences..the immortal human spirt which exists even after death.. something your concieved with .. not something you build up as you go on. :rolleyes:

"1# if the retoric being spoken against american only fuels the flame of the terrorists by giving them validiation.. they are simply using their rights to destroy the rights.. dosnt' seem very productive does it ? (calling american civilians in the economic center nazis perhaps ?)"

Everything fuels terrorism, hell invading Iraq fueled terrorism...so wait does that mean you are a terrorist because you support a government that invaded a country that fueled terrorism on the attacking country? It is like those anti-drug commercials. If you buy pot you support terrorism. I want some big brother instead of drugs! ROFL you know what NAZI means? National Socialist, very bad example.

"2# supporting bombing kids in Iraq ? there isn't the liberal rhetoric for you. And its simple.. abortion targets innocent children with no reguard for life, while war is a defensive measure meant to preserve the lives of the greater majority..."

Anyone else feel like they were going to see Iraqi troops landing on the Florida coast? I was not threatened at all by Iraq, the war was certainly not defensive.

"#3 Because when I see people abusing the power or "rights" like spreading racists hate music in the middle and highschools across america in a marketing scheme targeting children AND make money off of it in the name of "freedom of speech" that shows me they don't deserve the rights ! When the KKK can march where ever they please spreading words of oppression and discrimination.. that shows they aren't mature enough for freedom."

...pretty much you are saying that people who don't agree with you don't deserve freedom? I don't support rap *which seems to be implied as the type of music* but is sure better than a song called "War is Peace" any day. You know people are making money off the death of Americans in Iraq, is that right? I find it is find to make money off your ideas and opinions; as you say below...that is capitalism... Well the KKK is a different matter, it has actively engaged in murder, that is terrorism.

"#4 Easy... people have more money to spend on private services which higher people and expand pumping more money into the system. So you pay less in taxes pay more in insurance so the insurance company can grow hiring more people spending more on infrastructure and computers which helps the tech industry grow who spends more on raw materials like steel and metals which helps the factories grow so on and so forth.. its called capitalism. Despite what you might think... stockholders hate seeing companies hord masses of cash in banks (which is why microsoft does everything in its power to move its billions yearly) they want the money in 1 of two places.. the companies pruduction line (to earn more money and expand...etc) or their pockets ! (mind you the stockholders are 80% of american households)"

Money on what? I get paid just enough to pay bills, buy books, and for gas. I would rather have my gas and utilities provided for me at a cheaper cost so I have more money, even if a little after taxes, to put toward a PSP. That fuels the eco! I am sorry if not everyone is as rich and stable as you, but for some of us we don't have cash to throw into the economy. You know America isn't capitalist, it is absentine socialism, thanks to the reformers of the 1890-1920 period and F.D.R. who helped make sure that companies didn't abuse workers.


"#5 Rightests dont'want the government to deal with the economy ? Thats what the tax cuts were for... to spur growth.. hello... According to Allen Greenspan those cuts were essential to the stability of the American economy and the reason why we came out of recession."

Yes, a recession done by the Bush Administration! Sorry but many economic woes are due to our poor relations with other countries and our massive spending. If I got money from a tax cut it wouldn't spur economic growth, it would pay for me to eat something other than rice for a week.


"#6 not the community ?!?!??! the community belongs in the STATE government.. not the FEDERAL government. The Federal government only looks at the people from a national level.. States get to see you me and the old lady down the road. My state knows my needs far better then the Federal government does (who might be more interested in farmers out west). I'm for Big STATE power.. not BIG FEDERAL power. and the right believes in DONATIONS.. not FORCED hand outs....Jesus never advocated robing from the rich to give to the poor.. he advocated the utilization of your god given gift of CHOICE to give to the poor. that is the christian thing to do! "

I'd be willing to give money to have it given back to me in different forms. State and Federal are both the government, just different levels. You know the collection plate at church? It puts pressure on you to give, hence they pass it around or have it at the doors with people standing around it. If they had a jar or something in where you can donate without pressure a lot more wouldn't.

And on a last note; so I am un-American...yet I am the one who has so much loyalty to my nation that I am the one capitalizing "American."

And where do you get the idea that conservatives are "pro-war?" It was conservatives who fought hardest to keep the US out of WWI, and Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, who wanted us in.
Hmm... perhaps it was loyalty to allies that put him in?

Obviously a skewed site. I wasn't trying to get you to convince me though. . . just telling you taht you probably needed to try a different tactic in debating this with others. This "the person is not taxed, the dollars are" just leaves too much ambiguity for the other side to rebel against.

If you would have read the article, you would have seen that the graduated tax system is set up to reflect the marginal utility of a dollar. Dollars in the upper tax brackets have a flexibility that contains an inherent reinvestment value. That means that dollars in the million dollar range are much more valuable than dollars at the 20k range, therefore the graduated tax rate is designed to tax the value of the dollar, not the income of the individual.

Whether it is economically beneficial to the government is a whole other debate, but there is a financial justification for a graduated tax rate.

For God's sake, this just pisses me off.
we're not PRO-ABORTION! We're PRO-CHOICE
we think it's the mothers right to chose!
of course we don't want mandatory abortion
what, do you think we're idiots?

and anti-american rhetoric? c'mon.
anti american would be condemning American ideals
We condemn the president
who is supporting un-american ideals
takin away our rights
cheating in elections using hacked voting machines
look who the hypocrites are
they can't lose
cuz they control the voting machines

And yes, we're anti war
cuz the war was all about oil
oil, oil, oil
hell, we guard the oil
more than we guard the weapons
aint that a little weird?
just shows president bush's values
he'll kill 100,000 Iraqis
(more than saddam killed)
he'll kill 1,520 american soldiers
And all in the name of oil
I'll show you who the hypocrites are

oil oil oil... yet we pay more now then when we started... god someones gotta do that math. and good thing the only hackers out there are conservative republicans... I wonder why they keep targeting those multinationals(microsoft) though ? good thing democrats dont have computers

:rolleyes: not pro abortion.. but the laws we make support abortion . coudn't we just say then.. pro-life isn't about being anti-abortion.. we just dont think women should have the right to choose :confused:

"pro-life isn't about being anti-abortion.. "
But being Pro-Choice somehow makes us Pro-Abortion? How does this work out?

"we just dont think women should have the right to choose"
So if you can't trust a woman with the choose of having a kid, how can you trust her with a kid?

If you would have read the article, you would have seen that the graduated tax system is set up to reflect the marginal utility of a dollar. Dollars in the upper tax brackets have a flexibility that contains an inherent reinvestment value. That means that dollars in the million dollar range are much more valuable than dollars at the 20k range, therefore the graduated tax rate is designed to tax the value of the dollar, not the income of the individual.

Whether it is economically beneficial to the government is a whole other debate, but there is a financial justification for a graduated tax rate.


What part of you don't have to try to convince me is the problem? And seriously, this is just debating advice. If you show that article to a conservative, they are going to dismiss everything it says after the first paragraph. The parenthetical references about people who inherit money, earned income, etc. is going to turn them off. Heck, it offended even me. I'm not saying its not true, but it hardly presents itsefl as an unbiased source.

You know the answer to all of this. You just like to incite argument. Well, I might as well answer.

How can Liberals be:

Anti-War and Pro-Abortion? Both Kill people. One is killing others shooting at you. The other is killing a unborn child. Hmmm guess the unborn child is better.Liberals in America are not entirely anti-war. For example, they support the idea of the War on Terror. But the execution is something they feel is being done badly. As for Abortion, that's based on the idea that the child is part of the woman - essentially an organ - until viability. Until then, it's a human/woman's rights issue, in which the government has no business interfering.

Pro-Assisted suicide, euthanasia. Again, individual autonomy.

Then Anti-Social security/Medicare/Medicade reform. Guess we dont need to worry about the invalid and old people. Liberals idea is just to put them to death by "humane" ways.Democrats oppose Bush's Social Security reforms. Not reform in general. What you're saying is a lie, designed to paint the Democrats as bereaucrats with a stranglehold on the government; this is a fallacy, and you know it. The Democrats have yet to propose their own social security reform, but the issue isn't pressing. And it's probably a good idea to undertake such a task when we don't have massive federal debt - which brings us to your next point:

Yet every chance they get the raise taxes when they are in the majority. Thanks for the help! As opposed to cutting taxes and increasing spending? The Democrats are both moderate and preferable. The current Republicans really have no room to speak when it comes to fiscal responsibility, Marrakech.


Pro-American.

Yet the anti-American rhetoric comes from the left. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy for examples. Oops almost forgot "Hanoi Jane"Such as? And since when is dissent anti-American? Seems to me that's the most American and democratic thing to do. Just remember, ignorance is strength.

Now we come to the crux of the issue. Liberals believe that the income tax is not only to pay for running the government, but to redistribute income on a more "equitable" basis. Conservatives largely believe that approach is in effect a punishment for being successful.Actually, the way I interpreted RC's numbers was that income tax is designed to give the lower classes, who make less, some slack; but someone has to pick that up, and the people who make the most money - and so can continue to live with higher taxes - can afford that best. His numbers attempted to show that a flat tax can place too large a burden on the poor if it's too high. Which I think is true.

"Until then, it's a human/woman's rights issue, in which the government has no business interfering."
Hear! Hear!

That brings up this question to rightist:
* How come you oppose the government telling businesses what to do, yet find it is just grand when the government tells a human what to do?

tell me, if i was to believe french people weren't alive, and were inhumane does that mean i can go over there on a mad murderous rampage? people seem to think the same concept about unborn children.

* How come you oppose the government telling businesses what to do, yet find it is just grand when the government tells a human what to do?

But the government doesn't tell the individual what to do--as long as you do as the Christian conservatives would do themselves.

"tell me, if i was to believe french people weren't alive, and were inhumane does that mean i can go over there on a mad murderous rampage? people seem to think the same concept about unborn children. "

Again I ask the question, have you ever masturbated before? Add on to that, next time a early term unborn fetal laughs at a joke of yours because I know many new born babies who can do even that.

On a similar note, you could use the real life example of believing that Saddam had WMD and that we could go over there and kill a lot of Iraqi citizens and soldiers. Next time think out a better example.



"But the government doesn't tell the individual what to do--as long as you do as the Christian conservatives would do themselves."

Sarcasm yes, but you sound like a rightist there. ;)

Money on what? I get paid just enough to pay bills, buy books, and for gas. I would rather have my gas and utilities provided for me at a cheaper cost so I have more money, even if a little after taxes, to put toward a PSP. That fuels the eco! I am sorry if not everyone is as rich and stable as you, but for some of us we don't have cash to throw into the economy. You know America isn't capitalist, it is absentine socialism, thanks to the reformers of the 1890-1920 period and F.D.R. who helped make sure that companies didn't abuse workers.

oh yeah the 900 bucks a month i make really got me the luxuries rolling in... and the 30k i have in student loans (which will soon explode after i go for my masters) has zero effect on my income. but i exercise something called FISCAL MANAGEMENT in that I know how much I make and I know how much I can spend.. and dont go into debt. If you dont know how to manage your money you can be making 100k a year and still be in the poor house... dosn't make it the governments fault does it.. nor should the government be helping you out.
BTW when was the last time the government INCREASED taxes to spur economic growth.. I'd like to hear stats on that one.. funny the FED always decreases interest rates while congress CUTS taxes to spur growth... odd how that works huh.. give people back their money.. and the economy seems to grow :eek:

Yes, a recession done by the Bush Administration! Sorry but many economic woes are due to our poor relations with other countries and our massive spending. If I got money from a tax cut it wouldn't spur economic growth, it would pay for me to eat something other than rice for a week.

.... wow this opinion is old.. too bad it was discredited when the orangization which found out we were in a recession had the pleasure to tell us it started under the clinton administaration (which any half rate investor would have realized as the market took a nose dive 2 months before the election even began) (THANKS CLINTON FOR ALL THAT DEREGULATION!) not to mention 911 and afganistan.. yeah the 80 billion we spent in Iraq hasn't helped.. but then it hasn't caused the 3 - 5 trillion in debits did it ? (and china.. yeah you can thank Clinton for that one two along with NAFTA.. the trade deficit genious that he was)


I'd be willing to give money to have it given back to me in different forms. State and Federal are both the government, just different levels. You know the collection plate at church? It puts pressure on you to give, hence they pass it around or have it at the doors with people standing around it. If they had a jar or something in where you can donate without pressure a lot more wouldn't.

and yeah.. you get that money back .. as long as your poor.. but as soon as your middle class/wealthy yoll never see that money again !

and at the end of the day... i have the choice to put 10 bucks in or not... and if i dont.. i wont be throw out of the church.. but if i dont pay my taxes u better belive im going to jail. THATS the difference. CHOICE!! and yes STATE and FEDERAL are both forms of government. but those on the RIGTH belive in STATE government over FEDERAl.. another DIFFERENCE .. we dont belive in NO GOVERNMENT those are the crazy anarchists who make no sense !

A Democrat (JFK) got us into Vietnam. It took a Republican to get us out.

"pro-life isn't about being anti-abortion.. "
But being Pro-Choice somehow makes us Pro-Abortion? How does this work out?

"we just dont think women should have the right to choose"
So if you can't trust a woman with the choose of having a kid, how can you trust her with a kid?

she can make that choice before having unprotected sex can't she...

and had you UNDERSTOOD my explaination.. my point was PRO LIFE IS ANTI ABORTION !!! thats why PRO CHIOCE IS PRO ABORTION!!! its just another way of saying the same thing .. :rolleyes: obviously i wasn't blatently obviouse enough for you.

A Democrat (JFK) got us into Vietnam. It took a Republican to get us out.

lets not be purposfully missleading now.. im a republican.. but the only reason why Nixon left Vietnam was because Congress took his funding away. He was the biggest advocator of it and wanted to increase the bombing 10 fold becuase he felt we WOULD win

".... wow this opinion is old.. too bad it was discredited when the orangization which found out we were in a recession had the pleasure to tell us it started under the clinton administaration (which any half rate investor would have realized as the market took a nose dive 2 months before the election even began) (THANKS CLINTON FOR ALL THAT DEREGULATION!) not to mention 911 and afganistan.. yeah the 80 billion we spent in Iraq hasn't helped.. but then it hasn't caused the 3 - 5 trillion in debits did it ? (and china.. yeah you can thank Clinton for that one two along with NAFTA.. the trade deficit genious that he was)"

What? You made me hate Bush even more there! You pretty much just spoke bad against him. Seems to me life was fine under Bill in fact it was better than early ninties. The market didn't take a dive till 9/11, I remember because Fox News kept saying since Bush was elected the eco is so perfect and going up, and it was one of my first problems with the new rightist. Clinton in fact got us -$25 million in debt, and had a trillion + balance coming in, then when he left office it was fine until 9/11. Granted 9/11 was a problem, but that is capitalism. I remember gas in Sarasota, Florida was 79 cents the day Bush took office, it is now $2.25 for regular. As well the debt is all from Bush, not from Clinton.

"and yeah.. you get that money back .. as long as your poor.. but as soon as your middle class/wealthy yoll never see that money again ! "

No, my parents see a lot of that come back to them and they are, well, better off than most middle class couples.

lets not be purposfully missleading now.. im a republican.. but the only reason why Nixon left Vietnam was because Congress took his funding away. He was the biggest advocator of it and wanted to increase the bombing 10 fold becuase he felt we WOULD win

And we could have if we had carpet-bombed Hanoi. If LBJ hadn't spent so much time micromanaging the war, we could have won. If we had treated it less politically, we could have won.

"and had you UNDERSTOOD my explanation.. my point was PRO LIFE IS ANTI ABORTION !!! thats why PRO CHIOCE IS PRO ABORTION!!! its just another way of saying the same thing .. obviously i wasn't blatently obviouse enough for you. "

Obviously you didn't read my first post which said I don't agree with abortion but it is much better than making it illegal. It is not about what is right, but what is best.

"she can make that choice before having unprotected sex can't she... "
Again, if you read my first post you would know that people will do that regardless. Let me make this easy for you:
Everyone = different ideas = different choices.

Now for those who want to know more:
Just because you believe it is wrong doesn't mean everyone does, or even if you do doesn't mean that you will listen to your mind. We are animals, human instinct clouds judgment. The next time you have a big breasted naked girl all over you and you have the option of having sex without protection or walking away...come tell me what you did.

Simple way to prevent abortions: Goverment supplied contraceptives.

What part of you don't have to try to convince me is the problem? And seriously, this is just debating advice. If you show that article to a conservative, they are going to dismiss everything it says after the first paragraph. The parenthetical references about people who inherit money, earned income, etc. is going to turn them off. Heck, it offended even me. I'm not saying its not true, but it hardly presents itsefl as an unbiased source.

I see. I will have to find a more specific article. I usually tell people to just skip the beginning, and I generally try to avoid discussing topics with people who outright dismiss things I might post. I like to be taken seriously.

"Simple way to prevent abortions: Government supplied contraceptives."
Can't, in Bush's first term he slashed alternative method funding and promoted abstinence as the only form of birth control.

What? You made me hate Bush even more there! You pretty much just spoke bad against him. Seems to me life was fine under Bill in fact it was better than early ninties. The market didn't take a dive till 9/11, I remember because Fox News kept saying since Bush was elected the eco is so perfect and going up, and it was one of my first problems with the new rightist. Clinton in fact got us -$25 million in debt, and had a trillion + balance coming in, then when he left office it was fine until 9/11. Granted 9/11 was a problem, but that is capitalism. I remember gas in Sarasota, Florida was 79 cents the day Bush took office, it is now $2.25 for regular. As well the debt is all from Bush, not from Clinton.

market didn't take a dive till after 9/11 ? ... wrong -.- this is rich!
http://www.geog.psu.edu/courses/geog100/NYTimes/112601usrecession.html
funny elections dont happen till novemeber...
http://mt.sopris.net/mpc/finance/$2.1.trillion.html
in April you say ? thats so funny cause I coulda swore elections happend in November...
http://www.freetrade.org/new/DGTD2000.html
now if you scroll down youll see all these strange articles talking of record deficits in 2000... how odd.. all before november as well ?? so strange :confused:
oh yeah and Enron.. and Worldcom.. thats wierd cause.. all those accounting frauds .. they occured under CLINTON .. you know when he deregulated the telecom and energy industries .. who would have thought, no regulation = misrepresentation!

No, my parents see a lot of that come back to them and they are, well, better off than most middle class couples.

really... so they are benifiting from medicare ? welfare ? ... surely the billiions we pump into education.. or boarder security ? no no.. i know subidized housing... maybe the government is giving you food stamps ?? just how is a well off family getting all you rmoney back if you so care to provide some examples

A Democrat (JFK) got us into Vietnam. It took a Republican to get us out.Pfft.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
It's not a matter of whether the war is not real, or if it is, Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past, and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the grueling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact.

It wasn't Democrats. It wasn't Republicans.

It was the men who have something to gain from Vietnam. From the war on drugs. From the cold war. From the Gulf War. From the War on Terror. From the act and process of war itself.

And there we go, the whole point of debating, I was wrong on when the recession started, but I guess the effects weren't felt...at least for me until months later. As for the freetrade site, I need sources so that is fully discredited. I can make a site too and say what I want but freetrade.org is not a credible source and it has no sources in the work.

Yes, but that was WWI, this is today. The parties have switched in many ways since then. Nowdays, the republicans are the ones with the stance favoring a huge army and are usually more likely to be hawks. We're not talking about WWI, we're talking about today.

What's wrong with taxing everyone at the same percentage rate?

Well, I'd start by pointing out that the poorest thousand people need a million dollars (split evenly, even) rather more than the one richest person. I don't think there's NO lazy people... no, I think a lot of poor people are only poor because they don't bother to find work. But no one aspires or even desires to be destitute.

Do I believe in endless handouts? Not unless those people CANnot (not will not) work for themselves.

I do believe that if people help to get people back into the workforce, doing something at which they are (or become) proficient, it's a lot better for society's well being, and for the public treasuries. Investment and return, more or less. But I also believe that if that investment proves futile, that they refuse to work even though capable, then there's no reason to fund their lethargy.

I don't think I was ever an anarchocapitalist, but I was a minarchist until I realized something about the application of principles. I suppose I'm more a moderate progressive these days.

Getting back on topic, money given to those who you know need food, clothing, shelter, and some work to do, is almost guaranteed to go toward it. A lot of the money held by the fabulously wealthy is simply sat on, never spent, effectively removed from the economy. Yeah, that's bad. And that's why I don't feel bad about not taxing as heavily those that are trying to make ends meet as I would those that are trying to buy that one company in Boston that has that new idea that would really make the world better but would screw up our bottom line.

Tramm, for you: http://bushflash.com/wmf/gwb1984.mp3

"I don't think there's NO lazy people... no, I think a lot of poor people are only poor because they don't bother to find work. But no one aspires or even desires to be destitute."

There are lazy people and then there are unfortunate people. A lot of poor people are poor because of their class. A poor person who is born into a poor family is more than likely going to be poor, very few rags to riches stories happen.

Tramm, for you: http://bushflash.com/wmf/gwb1984.mp3I'm saving that. Thanks.

And there we go, the whole point of debating, I was wrong on when the recession started, but I guess the effects weren't felt...at least for me until months later. As for the freetrade site, I need sources so that is fully discredited. I can make a site too and say what I want but freetrade.org is not a credible source and it has no sources in the work.

http://www.usconsulate.org.hk/usinfo/statis/ft/2000/12.htm
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/trade293.html
http://money.cnn.com/2000/11/21/economy/trade/

im sure the site for the US consulate is credible enough for u.. but keep asking I can find tons if you need. Its common knowledge if you cared to research it. and it dosn't really matter when YOU felt the effects does it.. it matters when it happend.. BUSINESSES feel the effects of a recession FAR before you do! You see.. all our economic woes are in large part due to good old Clinton.. 9/11 didn't really help either did it.. the Tax cut saved us.. and while Iraq didn't help.. 80 billion hasn't exactly busted the bank has it ?

and id still like to know what monies your parents are getting back from the government.. aside from income tax of course... as they benifit so much from government services

How can Liberals be:

Anti-War and Pro-Abortion? Both Kill people. One is killing others shooting at you. The other is killing a unborn child. Hmmm guess the unborn child is better.

A fantastic example of over-simplification. Being "anti-war" can mean a variety of things, ranging to protesting the concept of war, to protesting the reasons for engaging in a particular war, all the way down the line. Accusing all "anti-war" supporters as denying the right of troops to shoot back at assailants is nothing short of asinine. Off to a nice start.

Furthermore, being "pro-abortion" is the logical consequence of believing that a fetus is not a person, or does not have the same rights as a person. You can disagree with that idea, but if that's someone's belief, it makes perfect sense why they would be pro-abortion.

And again, there is a large variance of opinion within abortion supporters as to what they support and what they don't. (Not surprising, considering it's a matter of personal belief.)

Pro-Assisted suicide, euthanasia.

If someone wishes to die, I believe they should have that right. I chalk it up to personal freedoms, similar to abortion. I don't see it as really being connected with "death" per se.

Then Anti-Social security/Medicare/Medicade reform. Guess we dont need to worry about the invalid and old people. Liberals idea is just to put them to death by "humane" ways.

Again, a moronic statement. Liberals care about the elderly and invalid; they simply don't trust Bush's plans regarding Social Security and don't think they will fix it. There seems to generally be an understanding that the system is in trouble; there's just a disagreement over how to fix it- with the general assumption that Bush's way is not the right way.

One could also add that many liberals see elderly and invalid rights as a classic "liberal" cause- conservative budget cuts often leave them out in the cold.

Suppose to help the little guy.

Yet every chance they get the raise taxes when they are in the majority. Thanks for the help!

Taxes are a necessity for a country to properly function. Furthermore, what statistics are you using here? How many liberals vs. conservatives have voted for higher taxes in past administrations? Have you checked? Do you care? How have tax cuts dramatically helped "the little guy", particularly if he is still unemployed, or unable to find a job paying the same as it was before the economy tanked?

Pro-American.

Yet the anti-American rhetoric comes from the left. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy for examples. Oops almost forgot "Hanoi Jane"

It depends how one wants to define the terms. The left has its extremists who advocate the attack of or destruction of the US- but so does the right. Check out Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell sometime, who actively pray for the US to be destroyed by God's vengeance (when not praying for the death of liberal Supreme Court Judges).

Not all would be in favor of everything listed. But I think the majority does.

Why? Based on what? What contact do you have with the liberal community? Fox News reports?

"I don't think there's NO lazy people... no, I think a lot of poor people are only poor because they don't bother to find work. But no one aspires or even desires to be destitute."

There are lazy people and then there are unfortunate people. A lot of poor people are poor because of their class. A poor person who is born into a poor family is more than likely going to be poor, very few rags to riches stories happen.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-188.html
last time i checked.. as the poverty level drops.. that means people in poverty are moving toward the middle class.. you see.. class movement in the United STates is a very real thing.. often dictated by economic conditions yes... but still very real (both forward and backward). Just because your born in poverty doesn't mean (in any significant percentages) that you will die in poverty

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-188.html
last time i checked.. as the poverty level drops.. that means people in poverty are moving toward the middle class.. you see.. class movement in the United STates is a very real thing.. often dictated by economic conditions yes... but still very real (both forward and backward). Just because your born in poverty doesn't mean (in any significant percentages) that you will die in poverty

Excellent point. "Rags to riches" may be comparitively rare, but "poor" to "lower-middle class", or "middle-middle-class" seems to happen with some frequency, particularly if you look at it from a multi-generational perspective. My great-grandfather's family immigrated to the US 90 years ago with a combined wealth of about 20 dollars, and no chief bread-winner (my g.g.g-f having died earlier). My g.grandfather was a menial laborer; his son started out like that but eventually worked his way up to a white-collar job as an industrial draftsman.

Everyone in my father's generation went to college; my father got several post-grad degrees, including law, and I am presently attending a private college with a substantial tuition (comparitively, my grandfather quit school in the 8th grade to work in a family-owned junkyard). Quite a development, it seems. Part of this is indeed dependant on a bunch of different factors, but it certainly shows that class mobility is possible.

Excellent point. "Rags to riches" may be comparitively rare, but "poor" to "lower-middle class", or "middle-middle-class" seems to happen with some frequency, particularly if you look at it from a multi-generational perspective. My great-grandfather's family immigrated to the US 90 years ago with a combined wealth of about 20 dollars, and no chief bread-winner (my g.g.g-f having died earlier). My g.grandfather was a menial laborer; his son started out like that but eventually worked his way up to a white-collar job as an industrial draftsman.

Everyone in my father's generation went to college; my father got several post-grad degrees, including law, and I am presently attending a private college with a substantial tuition (comparitively, my grandfather quit school in the 8th grade to work in a family-owned junkyard). Quite a development, it seems. Part of this is indeed dependant on a bunch of different factors, but it certainly shows that class mobility is possible.

your right.. but you dont go far enought.. it isn't just POSSIBLE its PROBABLe.. even for families of illegal immigrants.. we see massive changes for their children.. acheiving education where they could not, living in homes when they use to live in card board boxes.. working at jobs when they use to beg on the street. Class mobility happens everday!

Here's another liberal hypocrisy:

Being for social freedom but anti-economic freedom. Then again vice versa holds true for neoconservatives

*Yawn* That was a stormy night...anyway back to this!


"Being for social freedom but anti-economic freedom. Then again vice versa holds true for neoconservatives"

I fail to see the hypocrisy in this at all.
Hypocrisy:an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Anyway to answer it, the point is we prefer a state run economy in which the government is run by the people and not by corporations as our grand "Representative Republic" is right now. We believe that one should have the right to freedom of speech AND the right to not paying a bill for going to the hospital or paying for gas. On a side note I am a Marxist so I don't even believe in money...but that is totally different. As for a rightist, they believe that the government shouldn't deal with the economy for then you have a better chance of making the most money you can and, in theory, putting it back into the economy, while taking away freedom of speech so the businesses don't have to waste time on protesters and lose money that way.

[QUOTE=CSW]

wow.. thats amazing historically incorrect. for quite a while in American history abortion was outlawed and seen as murder.. you would have been arrested for it... thats why roe v way was so ground breaking.. we needent worry much longer.. and the democrats nail themselves into their coffins we will soon have the 60 person majority lead in the senate to make their party irrelevent and over turn that nonsense
And for now it isn't. The majority of americans (alive today, unless you're suggesting we take a gallup poll of dead people) agree with my statement. In the past, blacks were slaves and women couldn't vote. Does that mean that we should revert to those sentiments?

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born. "

Raising taxes on the rich is like lazy jealousy. You don't feel like working, so you'll just go ahead and try to take as much as you can from the people that have it. This is known as legal theft.

I think the left has more anti-americans at this point with the whole 18 and under crowd. There are too many terrorist sympathizers and aging anti-war hippies who don't stand for anything, but wish they did, (they never grew out of teenage years, look up Ericsson's 8.)
Well, no duh, you can't advocate something if you're not alive O.o

No, it's not called legal theft, it's called making them pay for the services that they recieved (infrastructure, etc).

No, it really doesn't. We've got the 'terrorist sympathizers', and you've got the militas (who tend to want to blow up anything to do with the gub'ment) and racists in the west.

Ahw, yes the cosnervative "who is more patriotic" game.

[QUOTE=Marrakech II]
It is, isn't it.


And it doesn't. Or it would be murder, not abortion. The entire thought behind abortion (and always has been) that abortion is not killing a human being, not killing something that is human. Just cells.

Most people agree.

Just Cells?

everyone's biography

-Heartbeat begins between the 18th and 25th day
-Foundation for entire nervous system is laid downby the 20th day
-At 42 days, the skeleton is complete, reflexers are present
-Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as 43 days
-The brain and all body systems are present by eight weeks
-at eight weeks, if we tickle the baby's nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus.
-At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm he will make a fist
-At eleven weeks to twelve weeks, he sucks his thumb vigorously and breathes his amniotic fluid to develop the organs of respiration.
-fingernails are present by eleven to twelve weeks; eyelashes by sixteen
-All the body systems are functioning by 12 weeks.

Just Cells? I don't think so!

[QUOTE=Marrakech II]

Yeah, pretty much. I'm all three, if you only look at surface facts. t I care very much that a woman retain the freedom to choose what to do with her body.

A. I don't have kids.
B. I'm 18
C. I don't care about a fetus because I don't consider it human until brain waves start working, then I'm against aborting it, unless in the case of severe physical deformity, mental retardation, or in cases of incest and rape.

That'll be at 43 days!

America - abortion is hotly contested. 24 abortions per 1,000
Netherlands - abortion is accepted, there is good sex ed, people are prepared. Abortions: 6 per 1,0000

4,000 unborn babies aborted per day. *sighs*

Hmm... perhaps it was loyalty to allies that put him in?

Talk about checking history!

We didn't join because of Allies. We weren't even part of any alliance in WWI! We joined because Germany decided on unrestricted sub warfare (gotta love encyclopedias) and sank FOUR American merchent ships. Not to mention the Zimmerman Note didn't help the German cause either.

If you don't regard an unborn baby as a human being, then aborting it isn't murder.

That logic is only one or two steps away from "if you dont believe a Muslim is a human being then it isnt murder to kill one". Belief does not change what it is.

That logic is only one or two steps away from "if you dont believe a Muslim is a human being then it isnt murder to kill one". Belief does not change what it is.
One is biological, your example is religious and is a choice. So thats a bad analogy.

[QUOTE=CSW]

Just Cells?

everyone's biography

-Heartbeat begins between the 18th and 25th day
-Foundation for entire nervous system is laid downby the 20th day
-At 42 days, the skeleton is complete, reflexers are present
-Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as 43 days
-The brain and all body systems are present by eight weeks
-at eight weeks, if we tickle the baby's nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus.
-At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm he will make a fist
-At eleven weeks to twelve weeks, he sucks his thumb vigorously and breathes his amniotic fluid to develop the organs of respiration.
-fingernails are present by eleven to twelve weeks; eyelashes by sixteen
-All the body systems are functioning by 12 weeks.

Just Cells? I don't think so!
Formal, you're back. How are you?


(Only 'til the first month. That's my position.)

[QUOTE=Formal Dances]
Formal, you're back. How are you?


(Only 'til the first month. That's my position.)

Been doing ok! Had to take a break from General and from NS in general. Just been logging on to maintain currency. Also have been having fun in II and Nationstates.

How can Liberals be:

Anti-War and Pro-Abortion? Both Kill people. One is killing others shooting at you. The other is killing a unborn child. Hmmm guess the unborn child is better.

Abortion doesnt kill anyone.

Pro-Assisted suicide, euthanasia.

Ending the suffering of terminally ill suffering people who desire to die is not morally wrong.

Then Anti-Social security/Medicare/Medicade reform. Guess we dont need to worry about the invalid and old people. Liberals idea is just to put them to death by "humane" ways.

You confuse "reform" and "privatisation"
Dishonestly :rolleyes:



Pro-American.

Yet the anti-American rhetoric comes from the left. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy for examples. Oops almost forgot "Hanoi Jane"
No anti american rhetoric from any of those sources.
False Witness :rolleyes:


Anyone care to explain this? I know there are varying degrees of liberals. Not all would be in favor of everything listed. But I think the majority does
Ergo, you cant be taken seriously.

Abortion doesnt kill anyone.

everyone's biography

-Heartbeat begins between the 18th and 25th day
-Foundation for entire nervous system is laid downby the 20th day
-At 42 days, the skeleton is complete, reflexers are present
-Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as 43 days
-The brain and all body systems are present by eight weeks
-at eight weeks, if we tickle the baby's nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus.
-At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm he will make a fist
-At eleven weeks to twelve weeks, he sucks his thumb vigorously and breathes his amniotic fluid to develop the organs of respiration.
-fingernails are present by eleven to twelve weeks; eyelashes by sixteen
-All the body systems are functioning by 12 weeks.

Ending the suffering of terminally ill suffering people who desire to die is not morally wrong.

I can buy it.

You confuse "reform" and "privatisation"
Dishonestly :rolleyes:

Then put something on the table. Debate is healthier when all sides have something on the table. The liberals don't have anything on the table.

No anti american rhetoric from any of those sources.
False Witness :rolleyes:

Actually, yes there was, From Jane.

Ergo, you cant be taken seriously.

I guess you can't be taken seriuosly either because your viewpoints defer from mine?

I got one, Most of the liberals around here are anti-meat (Meat is Murder!!!11), anti death penalty, but look how bloodthirsty they were to kill Terri Schiavo... Normally, I don't care about pulling the plug on retarded people, but the way the liberals went about killing her, it made me feel remorse for her and her family, and I never feel emotion.

[QUOTE=CSW]

Those are not just any cells. No, most people dont agree with this thought. Usually the people that agree with your way of thinking is. A)People without children. b)A person that is young and doesnt have enough life experience. c) People that just dont care. Guess my question is which one are you?

Odd.

More than half of American women will have an abortion during their lifetime.

They must all hate children. :rolleyes:

Why, oh why do forums have to be constantly ravaged by partisan squabbles over the same handful of issues over and over again? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Apparently it's MUCH MUCH easier to espouse opinions (factual and otherwise) for hours on end and give ourselves ego boosts at the expense of others then to come to some kind of working agreement and conclusions. Really, the play is the thing!
*hands you a washcloth and some aspirin*

Apparently it's MUCH MUCH easier to espouse opinions (factual and otherwise) for hours on end and give ourselves ego boosts at the expense of others then to come to some kind of working agreement and conclusions. Really, the play is the thing!
*hands you a washcloth and some aspirin*

I couldn't have said it better myself.

*I'm highlighting a permanent grump of mine, here and on the conservative hypocrisy thread. I'm going to put forth basically the same statement, only with some words moved.*

Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with the Patriot act, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of gun control?

*I'm highlighting a permanent grump of mine, here and on the conservative hypocrisy thread. I'm going to put forth basically the same statement, only with some words moved.*

Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with the Patriot act, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of gun control?

Excellent question. That should be a thread starter.

These are so silly. It is amusing to answer them

How can Liberals be:

Anti-War and Pro-Abortion? Both Kill people. One is killing others shooting at you. The other is killing a unborn child. Hmmm guess the unborn child is better.

Guess you forgot about civilians killed in war. But they are just "collateral damage," so they don't matter.

And our soldiers that get killed fighting unnecessarily. But, hey, their just cannon-fodder, right?

And, so what if those people shooting back are defending their homes, their country. They should have lived someplace we didn't like.

As to abortion -- funny thing -- unlike land, a womb is part of a woman's body. Basic principles of liberty -- self-autonomy, self-ownership, right to control one's own body. But, meh, so long as men don't get pregnant, who care?

And, fertilized eggs, zygotes, and fetuses may have less aspects of personhood than the pig that was slaughtered for my breakfast bacon -- but every human cell is sacred. Oops, sneezed. Better put those suckers in the freezer.

Pro-Assisted suicide, euthanasia.

Definitely do not want to respect anyone's autonomy.

They should suffer indefinitely so we can feel righteous!

Then Anti-Social security/Medicare/Medicade reform. Guess we dont need to worry about the invalid and old people. Liberals idea is just to put them to death by "humane" ways.

My history books are all filled with liberal lies. None of these programs were created by liberals or Democrats.

And just because so many conservatives and libertarians want to get rid of these programs altogether doesn't mean they aren't sincere about wanting to fix them.

And so what if we had to fudge the numbers to create imaginary crises.

We have to restrict the eligibility for these programs, reduce benefits, and otherwise destroy the programs in order to save them! Lt. Calley should be Social Security csar.


Suppose to help the little guy.

Yet every chance they get the raise taxes when they are in the majority. Thanks for the help!

Those poor little guys in the top tax brackets need more tax relief. Do you know how much a yacht costs these days?

We don't need minimum wage or unions or workplace safety or anti-discrimination laws or pensions or health care benefits. We need to make sure the wealthy pay less taxes.


Pro-American.

Yet the anti-American rhetoric comes from the left. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy for examples. Oops almost forgot "Hanoi Jane"

Stinkin' pinkos. How dare anyone ever question anything any American leader ever does!

Here's what one of them liberal commie America-haters named Theodore Roosevelt dared to say:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Another lefty bastard called Edward R. Murrow spewed this:
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

Listen to these anti-American ideas spread by H. L. Mencken:
The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.

And we should just string up this traitor called George Washington:
I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of patriotism. I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting war can never be supported on this principle alone. It must be aided by a prospect of interest, or some reward.

That John Kerry really takes the cake. Three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star? Pfft. Just because a man volunteers for military service, volunteers for combat, and gets some of the highest honors for valor doesn't mean he doesn't really hate Americas guts. Its just camoflage. Spending time in a special cushy unit of the Texas National Guard while working on political campaigns and not meeting duty requirements is way more patriotic.

*I'm highlighting a permanent grump of mine, here and on the conservative hypocrisy thread. I'm going to put forth basically the same statement, only with some words moved.*

Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with the Patriot act, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of gun control?

Um, easy.

Regulating guns impose no more on our liberties than regulating automobiles.

Unregulated guns pose a threat to both liberty and security.

The Patriot Act impinges on fundamental freedoms of speech, privacy, presumption of innocence, due process, etc. Gun control doesn't.

I can go on, but any questions?

Um, easy.

Regulating guns impose no more on our liberties than regulating automobiles.

Unregulated guns pose a threat to both liberty and security.

The Patriot Act impinges on fundamental freedoms of speech, privacy, presumption of innocence, due process, etc. Gun control doesn't.

I can go on, but any questions?
So you don't classify ownership and self-defense, self-reliance and individual responsibility in the same realm of fundamental freedoms as the things you listed?

So you don't classify ownership and self-defense, self-reliance and individual responsibility in the same realm of fundamental freedoms as the things you listed?

Ownership of a firearm, no.

How are self-reliance or individual responsibility fundamental freedoms?

Values, yes. Fundamental freedoms, no.

Self-defense? Against who?

A fundamental freedom, no.

All the "things" I listed are enshrined in the Constitution. The ones you named are pulled out of thin air.

Ownership of a firearm, no.

How are self-reliance or individual responsibility fundamental freedoms?

Values, yes. Fundamental freedoms, no.

Self-defense? Against who?

A fundamental freedom, no.

All the "things" I listed are enshrined in the Constitution. The ones you named are pulled out of thin air.
So only things in the constitution are fundamental freedoms?

Ownership of a firearm, no.
Who decides what we are allowed to own and what we are not?

How are self-reliance or individual responsibility fundamental freedoms?

Values, yes. Fundamental freedoms, no.
Without such, a person cannot be truly free, truly independent. One cannot form their own positions unless they are responsible for themselves.


Self-defense? Against who?
Against those who would wish me harm. There is not one specific group out there.

Who decides what we are allowed to own and what we are not?


Without such, a person cannot be truly free, truly independent. One cannot form their own positions unless they are responsible for themselves.



Against those who would wish me harm. There is not one specific group out there.

I've answered in the other thread, so perhaps we should move this discussion there.

Nonetheless, there is a little thing called the social contract. You are not a free-floating being, you are a member of society.

There are many things that you cannot own or your ownership of which is regulated. How does this deprive you of a fundamental freedom? How is regulating your gun different than regulating your car?

You cannot have individual responsibility unless you own a gun? You cannot form your own opinions unless you have a gun?

You are simply pulling values out of thin air. For their relationship to this discussion to be meaningful, you must explain (a) how or why the value is a fundamental freedom and (b) why gun ownership is necessary to that freedom. Then we can discuss whether an incremental infringement (i.e., regulation) of gun ownership is justified by societal needs.

The Patriot Act infringes recognized basic liberties. And it does so without justification. You are comparing apples and oranges.

[QUOTE=Marrakech II]
It is, isn't it.


And it doesn't. Or it would be murder, not abortion. The entire thought behind abortion (and always has been) that abortion is not killing a human being, not killing something that is human. Just cells.

Most people agree.

are not cells just as allive as another organism? i know, that cells part of a larger organism aren't as alive as the whole organism, but bacteria and achaea are just as alive as anything else. why do we kill them for the sake of humanity when they are just as equal.

I've answered in the other thread, so perhaps we should move this discussion there.

Nonetheless, there is a little thing called the social contract. You are not a free-floating being, you are a member of society.
Society does not exist without the consent of all the free floating beings out there.


There are many things that you cannot own or your ownership of which is regulated. How does this deprive you of a fundamental freedom? How is regulating your gun different than regulating your car?
It isn't, that's why I'm not a big fan of doing either. Doing both deprives you of your ability to choose some factor about your own life. If you harm someone else's life, then you should suffer, but until you do so, then I don't see why.

You cannot have individual responsibility unless you own a gun? You cannot form your own opinions unless you have a gun?
It's a piece of the puzzle. It isn't the only piece, but it's an important piece. If you are not free to own things as per however you choose, then you give up a piece. You then have less liberty, less ability to make decisions on what to do with yourself, less ability to control another factor of your life.

You are simply pulling values out of thin air. For their relationship to this discussion to be meaningful, you must explain (a) how or why the value is a fundamental freedom and (b) why gun ownership is necessary to that freedom. Then we can discuss whether an incremental infringement (i.e., regulation) of gun ownership is justified by societal needs.
So, if something is seen as being important to society, then it can be implemented? No, what I'm saying is that when the social contract sacrifices liberty for security, then it is unjust. I am not pulling values out of thin air. These are things people have believe in for years.

The Patriot Act infringes recognized basic liberties. And it does so without justification. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Gun restrictions also infringe on recognized basic liberties, even by your definitions. Read the second amendment to the US Constitution.

And it seems more like comparing apples to apples to me.

Society does not exist without the consent of all the free floating beings out there.



It isn't, that's why I'm not a big fan of doing either. Doing both deprives you of your ability to choose some factor about your own life. If you harm someone else's life, then you should suffer, but until you do so, then I don't see why.


It's a piece of the puzzle. It isn't the only piece, but it's an important piece. If you are not free to own things as per however you choose, then you give up a piece. You then have less liberty, less ability to make decisions on what to do with yourself, less ability to control another factor of your life.


So, if something is seen as being important to society, then it can be implemented? No, what I'm saying is that when the social contract sacrifices liberty for security, then it is unjust. I am not pulling values out of thin air. These are things people have believe in for years.



Gun restrictions also infringe on recognized basic liberties, even by your definitions. Read the second amendment to the US Constitution.

And it seems more like comparing apples to apples to me.

If you want to raise this stuff in your own thread, I will respond there.

Here you are just hijacking.

[QUOTE=CSW]

are not cells just as allive as another organism? i know, that cells part of a larger organism aren't as alive as the whole organism, but bacteria and achaea are just as alive as anything else. why do we kill them for the sake of humanity when they are just as equal.


I am very confused.

Are you arguing that every living cell is equal and its life should be respected? Plants? Animals? Bacteria?

Or are you trying to illustrate why the above is absurd?

[QUOTE=Yupaenu]


I am very confused.

Are you arguing that every living cell is equal and its life should be respected? Plants? Animals? Bacteria?

Or are you trying to illustrate why the above is absurd?

i'm argueing that it's absurd to believe humans are better than anything else. this is the same arguement i have for why farms are wronge but hunting is good and discriminating against living systems is bad.

Don't call all liberals anti-gun. Most of the ones I know are pro-gun ownership, while my states(california) governor is a republican and anti-gun.

Don't call all liberals anti-gun. Most of the ones I know are pro-gun ownership, while my states(california) governor is a republican and anti-gun.Like Howard Dean. That flaming liberal! I have observed that whenever that is brought up, the conservatives quiet down about him. :)

I couldn't have said it better myself.
Thanks. *bows*
I'm finding more and more that my rationale for frequenting/monitoring/engaging on this forum comes down to a varying degree of this principle ... occasionally someone tosses out some good links, or some funny posts *points at your Libertarian post*

It was conservatives who fought hardest to keep the US out of WWI, and Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, who wanted us in.

And the funniest thing is we didn't even need US help to win ww1.

[QUOTE=CSW]

are not cells just as allive as another organism? i know, that cells part of a larger organism aren't as alive as the whole organism, but bacteria and achaea are just as alive as anything else. why do we kill them for the sake of humanity when they are just as equal.
No.

One is biological, your example is religious and is a choice. So thats a bad analogy.

Well then lets change it very slightly

The idea that abortion is only murder if you consider a fetus alive is about the same as saying that killing an African/Arab/Palistianin/Frenchman/Chinamen (insert race/nationality here) is not murder if you dont consider aforementioned group to be humans

Believing it to be something diffrent does not change it.

Well then lets change it very slightly

The idea that abortion is only murder if you consider a fetus alive is about the same as saying that killing an African/Arab/Palistianin/Frenchman/Chinamen (insert race/nationality here) is not murder if you dont consider aforementioned group to be humans

Believing it to be something diffrent does not change it.

That answer is poorly worded. Knocking down a poor argument does little to change the truth.

But fetuses are not persons. Once they are born, humans are persons regardless of race.

That answer is poorly worded. Knocking down a poor argument does little to change the truth.

What exactly is wrong with the wording?


But fetuses are not persons. Once they are born, humans are persons regardless of race.

Thats debateable. My point is not that abortion is murder, but that the notion of murder cannot be said to be reletive. In other words, people shouldn't go around saying "as long as you dont believe abortion is murder, it isnt". There is no question that it is one or the other. It does not change because of particular individual beliefs.

What exactly is wrong with the wording?



Thats debateable. My point is not that abortion is murder, but that the notion of murder cannot be said to be reletive. In other words, people shouldn't go around saying "as long as you dont believe abortion is murder, it isnt". There is no question that it is one or the other. It does not change because of particular individual beliefs.

I was referring to the wording of the answer to which you were responding, not to your answer.

I agree with you that the belief as to whether it is or is not murder does not change whether it is murder.

"I got one, Most of the liberals around here are anti-meat (Meat is Murder!!!11), anti death penalty, but look how bloodthirsty they were to kill Terri Schiavo... Normally, I don't care about pulling the plug on retarded people, but the way the liberals went about killing her, it made me feel remorse for her and her family, and I never feel emotion."

I got no problem with meat...nor do most people I know. You are thinking the anti-social Gothic kids who want to be rebellious. Most liberals are fine with it. I am personally fine with the death penalty, but most leftist aren't. Leftist don't advocate no punishment, but just a different form. You know many liberals were anti-killing Terri Schiavo, I was pro-pulling the tube, as a Christian, because in my mind she would be with Jesus sooner. If you had the choice of paradise or being in an bed-ridden, non-intelligent body...I think you'd go with the later.


"That logic is only one or two steps away from "if you don't believe a Muslim is a human being then it isn't murder to kill one". Belief does not change what it is."

ME: I again quote myself,""tell me, if i was to believe French people weren't alive, and were inhumane does that mean i can go over there on a mad murderous rampage? people seem to think the same concept about unborn children. "

Again I ask the question, have you ever masturbated before? Add on to that, next time a early term unborn fetal laughs at a joke of yours because I know many new born babies who can do even that.


"More than half of American women will have an abortion during their lifetime.

They must all hate children."

Hmm? If you ever hold a baby you will have more women on you in a second than anything else. On a side note, over 55% of American women are conservation...so that means rightist get abortions. Way to go to keep up your side! I know a lot of women and girls and only know one to have had an abortion...and I would never trust her with a kid anyway.


"Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with the Patriot act, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifice liberty for security in the form of gun control?"

Easy, because a gun is a choice while liberty is not. You can own a gun or not, while with liberty it is there or not. Liberals are not for gun abolition, so it is not hurting liberty at all. The next time you find an example of a guy getting Liberty and killing citizens with his liberty...I want you to call me....


"And the funniest thing is we didn't even need US help to win ww1. "

Right...really? Sure? I could have sworn it was unmoving trench warfare that had no end in sight until the US troops showed up. I could have sworn French soldiers deserted in droves and had no spirit left. I could have sworn the English were raising the draft limits to over 50 at the end of the war...so I guess they didn't really need the U.S. at all.


On a last note, yes they are more than normal cells...but when you type your reply remember this. Every time your fingers hit the keys they kill cells that can grow into a delicious mold some day.

"And the funniest thing is we didn't even need US help to win ww1. "

Right...really? Sure? I could have sworn it was unmoving trench warfare that had no end in sight until the US troops showed up. I could have sworn French soldiers deserted in droves and had no spirit left. I could have sworn the English were raising the draft limits to over 50 at the end of the war...so I guess they didn't really need the U.S. at all.


Yes, i am sure. US troops were ill-equiped and ill-trained. They had no experience with trench-warfare. The French, British, Canadian, Belgian and several others i might forget had been fighting for almost 4 years. They carried the hardest burden. Even without the US we succeeded.

That answer is poorly worded. Knocking down a poor argument does little to change the truth.

But fetuses are not persons. Once they are born, humans are persons regardless of race.

Want to place bets that person is a person inside the womb?

Want to place bets that person is a person inside the womb?

Sure.

It is not -- at least not until the very latest stages of pregnancy where the line gets more tricky. Of course, abortion is practically nonexistent and rarely legal in the US at that point.

"I got one, Most of the liberals around here are anti-meat (Meat is Murder!!!11), anti death penalty, but look how bloodthirsty they were to kill Terri Schiavo... Normally, I don't care about pulling the plug on retarded people, but the way the liberals went about killing her, it made me feel remorse for her and her family, and I never feel emotion."

I got no problem with meat...nor do most people I know. You are thinking the anti-social Gothic kids who want to be rebellious. Most liberals are fine with it. I am personally fine with the death penalty, but most leftist aren't. Leftist don't advocate no punishment, but just a different form. You know many liberals were anti-killing Terri Schiavo, I was pro-pulling the tube, as a Christian, because in my mind she would be with Jesus sooner. If you had the choice of paradise or being in an bed-ridden, non-intelligent body...I think you'd go with the later.


"That logic is only one or two steps away from "if you don't believe a Muslim is a human being then it isn't murder to kill one". Belief does not change what it is."

ME: I again quote myself,""tell me, if i was to believe French people weren't alive, and were inhumane does that mean i can go over there on a mad murderous rampage? people seem to think the same concept about unborn children. "

Again I ask the question, have you ever masturbated before? Add on to that, next time a early term unborn fetal laughs at a joke of yours because I know many new born babies who can do even that.


"More than half of American women will have an abortion during their lifetime.

They must all hate children."

Hmm? If you ever hold a baby you will have more women on you in a second than anything else. On a side note, over 55% of American women are conservation...so that means rightist get abortions. Way to go to keep up your side! I know a lot of women and girls and only know one to have had an abortion...and I would never trust her with a kid anyway.


"Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with the Patriot act, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifice liberty for security in the form of gun control?"

Easy, because a gun is a choice while liberty is not. You can own a gun or not, while with liberty it is there or not. Liberals are not for gun abolition, so it is not hurting liberty at all. The next time you find an example of a guy getting Liberty and killing citizens with his liberty...I want you to call me....


"And the funniest thing is we didn't even need US help to win ww1. "

Right...really? Sure? I could have sworn it was unmoving trench warfare that had no end in sight until the US troops showed up. I could have sworn French soldiers deserted in droves and had no spirit left. I could have sworn the English were raising the draft limits to over 50 at the end of the war...so I guess they didn't really need the U.S. at all.


On a last note, yes they are more than normal cells...but when you type your reply remember this. Every time your fingers hit the keys they kill cells that can grow into a delicious mold some day.

Um, some good points but you might try to control your shotgun responses a little better. You caught some allies with your friendly fire. For example, my point about over half the women in the US having an abortion was a pro-choice argument. The second sentence was sarcasm.

Sure.

It is not -- at least not until the very latest stages of pregnancy where the line gets more tricky. Of course, abortion is practically nonexistent and rarely legal in the US at that point.

Everyone's Biography:

-Heartbeat begins between the 18th and 25th day
-Foundation for entire nervous system is laid down by the 20th day
-at 42 days, The skeleton is complete, reflexes are present
-Electrical brain waves have been recorded asearly as 43 Days.
-The Brain and all the body systems are present by eight weeks.
-At eght weeks, if we tickle the baby's nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimus.
-At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm he will make a fist.
-At eleven to twelve weeks, he sucks his thumb vigorously and breathes his amniotic fluid to develop the organs of respiration.
-Fingernails are present by eleven to twelve weeks; eyelashes by sixteen.
-All the body systems are functioning by 12 weeks

Still say a fetus inside the womb isn't a person?

Yes, i am sure. US troops were ill-equiped and ill-trained. They had no experience with trench-warfare. The French, British, Canadian, Belgian and several others i might forget had been fighting for almost 4 years. They carried the hardest burden. Even without the US we succeeded.


Why are we talking about WWI in this thread? Make one if you think it is that important. BTW the war wasnt won until the Americans showed up. Just remember that one.

Everyone's Biography:

-Heartbeat begins between the 18th and 25th day
-Foundation for entire nervous system is laid down by the 20th day
-at 42 days, The skeleton is complete, reflexes are present
-Electrical brain waves have been recorded asearly as 43 Days.
-The Brain and all the body systems are present by eight weeks.
-At eght weeks, if we tickle the baby's nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimus.
-At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm he will make a fist.
-At eleven to twelve weeks, he sucks his thumb vigorously and breathes his amniotic fluid to develop the organs of respiration.
-Fingernails are present by eleven to twelve weeks; eyelashes by sixteen.
-All the body systems are functioning by 12 weeks

Still say a fetus inside the womb isn't a person?

Yep.

First of all, your "facts" are either wrong or misleadingly stated.

Second, they fail to establish personhood.

How exactly is what you describe -- even taken at face value -- morally deserving of more rights than a pig?

Yep.

First of all, your "facts" are either wrong or misleadingly stated.

Second, they fail to establish personhood.

How exactly is what you describe -- even taken at face value -- morally deserving of more rights than a pig?

Prove that they are misleading. Prove that they don't establish personhood. Prove that they war wrong.

Here's a good website:

http://www.humanlife.org/index.html

Aye we should remove the WWI topic from here, but on a final note, the Europeans were fighting for 3 years before America showed up...which the war ended with only 6 months of US fighting. Note that in WWI skill had nothing to do with it, a skilled soldier and drafted one died by the same machine gun in open land. What won the war for the allies was the pure man power the US added over the Central Powers.

Prove that they are misleading. Prove that they don't establish personhood. Prove that they war wrong.

Here's a good website:

http://www.humanlife.org/index.html

Sorry, hun, but you wanted to prove a fetus was person. The burden is on you.

Your source is not exactly neutral or authoritative.

Here is a more accurate description of embryonic and fetal development from a neutral and authoritative source (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm):

The following list describes specific changes by week.

Week 3
beginning development of the brain, spinal cord, and heart
beginning development of the gastrointestinal tract
Weeks 4 to 5
formation of tissue that develops into the vertebra and some other bones
further development of the heart which now beats at a regular rhythm
movement of rudimentary blood through the main vessels
beginning of the structures of the eye and ears
the brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible
arm and leg buds are visible
Week 6
beginning of formation of the lungs
further development of the brain
arms and legs have lengthened with foot and hand areas distinguishable
hands and feet have digits, but may still be webbed
Week 7
nipples and hair follicles form
elbows and toes visible
all essential organs have at least begun to form
Week 8
rotation of intestines
facial features continue to develop
the eyelids are more developed
the external features of the ear begin to take their final shape

The end of the eighth week marks the end of the "embryonic period" and the beginning of the "fetal period".

Weeks 9 to 12
the fetus reaches a length of 3.2 inches
the head comprises nearly half of the fetus' size
the face is well formed
eyelids close and will not reopen until about the 28th week
tooth buds appear for the baby teeth
limbs are long and thin
the fetus can make a fist with its fingers
genitals appear well differentiated
red blood cells are produced in the liver
Weeks 13 to 16
the fetus reaches a length of about 6 inches
a fine hair develops on the head called lanugo
fetal skin is almost transparent
more muscle tissue and bones have developed, and the bones become harder
the fetus makes active movements
sucking motions are made with the mouth
meconium is made in the intestinal tract
the liver and pancreas produce their appropriate fluid secretions
Week 20
the fetus reaches a length of 8 inches
lanugo hair covers entire body
eyebrows and lashes appear
nails appear on fingers and toes
the fetus is more active with increased muscle development
"quickening" usually occurs (the mother can feel the fetus moving)
fetal heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope
Week 24
the fetus reaches a length of 11.2 inches
the fetus weighs about 1 lb. 10 oz.
eyebrows and eyelashes are well formed
all the eye components are developed
the fetus has a hand and startle reflex
footprints and fingerprints forming
alveoli (air sacs) forming in lungs
Weeks 25 to 28
the fetus reaches a length of 15 inches
the fetus weighs about 2 lbs. 11 oz.
rapid brain development
nervous system developed enough to control some body functions
eyelids open and close
respiratory system, while immature, has developed to the point where gas exchange is possible
a baby born at this time may survive, but the possibilities for complications and death remain high
Weeks 29 to 32
the fetus reaches a length of about 15-17 inches
the fetus weighs about 4 lbs. 6 oz.
rapid increase in the amount of body fat
rhythmic breathing movements occur, but lungs are not fully mature
bones are fully developed, but still soft and pliable
fetus begins storing iron, calcium, and phosphorus
Week 36
the fetus reaches a length of about 16-19 inches
the fetus weighs about 5 lbs. 12 oz. to 6 lbs. 12 oz.
lanugo begins to disappear
increase in body fat
fingernails reach the end of the fingertips
a baby born at 36 weeks has a high chance of survival, but may require some medical interventions
Weeks 37 to 40
considered full-term at 37 weeks
may be 19 to 21 inches in length
lanugo is gone except for on the upper arms and shoulders
fingernails extend beyond fingertips
small breast buds are present on both sexes
head hair is now coarse and thicker

You may note that, in comparison, your "biography" is false and misleading.

Now, any other evidence that a fetus is a person?

Congratulations, you proved my case.

And if you also noted it only goes up to twelve weeks and stated functioning. They can function but still develope.

Now care to prove it wrong?

Congratulations, you proved my case.

And if you also noted it only goes up to twelve weeks and stated functioning. They can function but still develope.

Now care to prove it wrong?

Nice try. But you'll have to do better than that.

Point to what facts establish that a fetus is a person. You have yet to do so.

Nice try. But you'll have to do better than that.

Point to what facts establish that a fetus is a person. You have yet to do so.

Actually I did. However, your a liberal so its useless.

Actually I did. However, your a liberal so its useless.

Very eloquent.

I'll try to rephrase -- which of the facts you dumped indicate that a fetus is a person?

Which distinguish a fetus from a monkey or my cat?

Very eloquent.

I'll try to rephrase -- which of the facts you dumped indicate that a fetus is a person?

Which distinguish a fetus from a monkey or my cat?

All the body systems functioning at 12 weeks!

Again, prove that what I said is wrong and misleading. You haven't provided proof yet.

BTW: Fetus-a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth

All the body systems functioning at 12 weeks!

Again, prove that what I said is wrong and misleading. You haven't provided proof yet.

BTW: Fetus-a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth

1) That statement has already been proven untrue.

2) All my cat's bodily systems are functioning. Is it a person?

1) That statement has already been proven untrue.

2) All my cat's bodily systems are functioning. Is it a person?

Nice try with a strawman's!

1) You haven't proved it untrue

2) Cat's are animals and not human.

Excuse me, but I provided a timeline that does not match yours and is authoritative. It disproves your biased and faulty timeline.

You have not identified any facts from the correct timeline that establish personhood in a fetus.

Are you claiming that the only thing that makes one a person is being a member of the human species? Is that sufficient? Is it necessary? Why?

I see. I will have to find a more specific article. I usually tell people to just skip the beginning, and I generally try to avoid discussing topics with people who outright dismiss things I might post. I like to be taken seriously.

I'm not outright dismissing anything. I'm just telling you that A. You don't have to convince me (because I already agree) and B. People like unbiased sources. If you want any chance of convincing people with an expert source, you have to provide as unbiased of one as possible.

LOL John Kerry is anti-American simply because he ran against Bush.

I guess these days anti-American now means "anti-Bush". I have to laugh at Americans who keep worshipping your King Bush and calling anyone who oppose him as "anti-American. Damn he's got you so brainwashed it's not even funny.

Last time I checked humans are animals...mammals really if you want to go up in the line...

Last time I checked humans are animals...mammals really if you want to go up in the line...

And?

Do you have a relevant point?

Nice try with a strawman's!

1) You haven't proved it untrue

2) Cat's are animals and not human.Last time I checked humans are animals...mammals really if you want to go up in the line...Indeed. If the only difference between cats and humans is that one is an animal and another is not, your definition is flawed. They are seperate species, but they are situated rather closely in the animal kingdom.

Ultimately, the only requirement one can have for an organism to be a human being is intelligence. Self-awareness. Sentience, of a sort. Cats don't exhibit this.

All the body systems functioning at 12 weeks!A beating heart doth not a human make.

Actually I did. However, your a liberal so its useless.You'll never convince anyone of anything if you dismiss like that. "Oh, he's black, it's useless!"

And?

Do you have a relevant point?Oi! Relax! RC was making the same point I made at the top of this post.

I'm not outright dismissing anything. I'm just telling you that A. You don't have to convince me (because I already agree) and B. People like unbiased sources. If you want any chance of convincing people with an expert source, you have to provide as unbiased of one as possible.

Since the article is trying to make a point for graduated taxes over flat taxes, obviously it is going to be biased towards graduated tax rates. But I understand what you are saying, it is very blatant.

Since the article is trying to make a point for graduated taxes over flat taxes, obviously it is going to be biased towards graduated tax rates. But I understand what you are saying, it is very blatant.


Cool. We're getting there :) It's not that its biased in making an arguement one way. . . .its biased against rich people. That was the problem. It makes outright snide comments towards people who have inheritances, investments, etc. If you want to win rich people over to agreeing, you can't insult them.

All the original arguments can be flipped around and applied to conservatives.

We just happen to think in the way of least harm.

By "we" i mean people with "liberal" social values, who may or may not be Liberals, or liberals. :p I'm not a liberal, if anything I'm a radical.

Ok then, Apes who show intelligence and awareness.

All the original arguments can be flipped around and applied to conservatives.

We just happen to think in the way of least harm.

By "we" i mean people with "liberal" social values, who may or may not be Liberals, or liberals. :p I'm not a liberal, if anything I'm a radical.


No, they cant be flipped around in this case. The items I stated are thank god liberal only. As far as being a radical. That isnt any good either. What is it that your so radical about?

All the original arguments can be flipped around and applied to conservatives.

We just happen to think in the way of least harm.

By "we" i mean people with "liberal" social values, who may or may not be Liberals, or liberals. :p I'm not a liberal, if anything I'm a radical.

a radical what?

Excuse me, but I provided a timeline that does not match yours and is authoritative. It disproves your biased and faulty timeline.

You have not identified any facts from the correct timeline that establish personhood in a fetus.

Are you claiming that the only thing that makes one a person is being a member of the human species? Is that sufficient? Is it necessary? Why?

The thing that seperates humans from animals is our sepince and sentience. Our abilities in this regard seperate us from animals, we know that. However there is no way to determine when a human being first aquires these so therefore the only reasonable way to judge if a human is alive is if it can function sucessfully outside the womb enviroment. However the problem with that logic is that premature babies often can not exist outside the womb enviroment without help.

The thing that seperates humans from animals is our sepince and sentience. Our abilities in this regard seperate us from animals, we know that. However there is no way to determine when a human being first aquires these so therefore the only reasonable way to judge if a human is alive is if it can function sucessfully outside the womb enviroment. However the problem with that logic is that premature babies often can not exist outside the womb enviroment without help.

if it's an animal your still killing it, humans are animals, and all organisms are equal.

The idea that abortion is only murder if you consider a fetus alive is about the same as saying that killing an African/Arab/Palistianin/Frenchman/Chinamen (insert race/nationality here) is not murder if you dont consider aforementioned group to be humans

Believing it to be something diffrent does not change it.
Except that the belief that a foetus is not alive can be backed up with more logic and science than the belief that a race/nationality people are not humans.

Except that the belief that a foetus is not alive can be backed up with more logic and science than the belief that a race/nationality people are not humans.

To bad that we have ultrasound to disprove this theory.

Except that the belief that a foetus is not alive can be backed up with more logic and science than the belief that a race/nationality people are not humans.

This kind of irrational thought got us to the stage of killing unborn in the first place.

Damn, I'm surprised this is still going on.

Ok then, Apes who show intelligence and awareness.

They haven't displayed intelligence. Not in the way we're talking about, anyway.

Damn, I'm surprised this is still going on.

Don't ever underestimate the power of the forums :cool:

I don't know, apes are a lot smarter than a new born baby so most likely going to have more intelligence than a unborn one.

bump!

hey, the conservative hippocracy thingie thread was still up there so to be fair. . .

The thing that seperates humans from animals is our sepince and sentience. Our abilities in this regard seperate us from animals, we know that. However there is no way to determine when a human being first aquires these so therefore the only reasonable way to judge if a human is alive is if it can function sucessfully outside the womb enviroment. However the problem with that logic is that premature babies often can not exist outside the womb enviroment without help.

Sepince does not appear to be a word. And I am not sure which word you meant.

Sentience I agree is at least one characteristic that seperates us from animals and is key to personhood.

Although we do not know for certain when a human being first acquiers sentience, we do know points at which sentience is impossible or highly unlikely--such as before development of a nervous system or cerberal cortex.

Thus, regardless of viability, early term embryos and fetuses are not persons.

As for viability, it is a useful indicator or alternative to personhood. It is not really true that viability is blurred by cases of premature babies. No one is saying a fetus must be able to survive outside the womb without any assistance in order to be viable.

To bad that we have ultrasound to disprove this theory.

Pray tell, how can an ultrasound prove a fetus is a person?

This should be interesting.

a radical what?
On the road to conversion to anarchism at the moment. :)
*waits to be devoured by conservatives and Marxists alike*

Pray tell, how can an ultrasound prove a fetus is a person?

This should be interesting.

Have you ever seen an ultrasound?

Have you ever seen an ultrasound?

Yes. More than one in person, in fact.

Do you have an inkling of a point?

Yes. More than one in person, in fact.

Do you have an inkling of a point?

It clearly shows a person inside a womb.

Yes. More than one in person, in fact.

Do you have an inkling of a point?

If you seen ultrasounds then you must know that the baby your looking at is a human being and not a blob of cells.

Sepince does not appear to be a word. And I am not sure which word you meant.

I think he meant sapience.

If you seen ultrasounds then you must know that the baby your looking at is a human being and not a blob of cells.

My little cousin's bettsy wettsy looks like a human being. If it was ultra-sounded, would it be a human?

It clearly shows a person inside a womb.


:headbang: :headbang:

You really don't get it.

Try. Defining. "Person."

It might help to consider:

A) Why does a person have rights?

B) Why do we value a person's life?

We do not view everything that looks vaguely like a human to have a right to life. Otherwise many primates (and some marsupials, etc) would have a greater claim to rights than a fetus.

BTW, under the Constitution, one is not a "person" until one is born.

If you seen ultrasounds then you must know that the baby your looking at is a human being and not a blob of cells.

Depends entirely on when in the pregancy you are talking.

Regardless, you miss the point.

I don't doubt that human embryos and fetuses belong to the human species.

But that is neither a necessary nor sufficient qualification for rights.

Simply having a vague resemblance to human adults is not sufficient to make one a person.

If you and your sister are going to repeat the same arguments, perhaps you could at least read my posts to both of you.

Well, liberal hypocrasy is a common misspelling of the phrase "liberal hypocrisy." Usually a term used by non-liberals to highlight the failings of a pure liberal point of view.

But in this case, "Liberal Hypocrasy" means virtually nil. Unless hypocrasy has a meaning, thus it is a liberal sort thereof.









(sorry, I had to do it )

My little cousin's bettsy wettsy looks like a human being. If it was ultra-sounded, would it be a human?

Most mothers do when they see an ultrasound picture of their child.

BTW, under the Constitution, one is not a "person" until one is born.

Oh I love this line! It is really really funny. Do we have to define things by the Constitution? BTW: Where in the constitution does it say that? Care to point it out to me because frankly, I don't see it and I have it infront of me.

Oh I love this line! It is really really funny. Do we have to define things by the Constitution? BTW: Where in the constitution does it say that? Care to point it out to me because frankly, I don't see it and I have it infront of me.

You have an odd sense of humor.

I did not say the only meaningful definition of person came from the Constitution. I offered, as an aside, the Constitutional view.

The Constitution does not have a definitions section. It requires a bit of comprehension to follow. But, you can try reading the 14th Amendment. If you need help with any big words, let me know. If you want an explanation, try reading Roe v. Wade, in which a majority of the Supreme Court explained this point. (I know, I know, Roe v. Wade. You'd better not actually read it or you might go to Hell.)

"Liberal hypocrisy"?

I generally have liberal politics, but I don't exactly feel abortion should be legal—that is, except in cases where the birth of a child would directly threaten the mother's life. True, people do have the right to choose, but no matter how much we in America try to control abortion, we might as well try doing different things: getting rid of everything on TV that encourages unsafe sex, for example. That's one moral issue conservatives don't seem to be talking about very much…

About the fetus/embryo consciousness…
Science is right. A fetus has no consciousness until the development of a central nervous system, which occurs between two and four months after conception. Before that time, therefore, an abortion is simply the discarding of a number of cells that have the potential to develop into human cells, but have not done so. Sometimes they do not even without an abortion, in which case the infant is born without a brain and therefore rarely can survive inside the womb, let alone outside.

High taxes?

I suppose that conservatives prefer low taxes to high ones. Therefore, I ask you, why exactly did an article in the New York Times let middle-class Americans know that if the current system implemented by President Bush continues, they will soon be paying 71% of their income in taxes while the wealthy pay only 8%? Why are middle-class families anyway paying more despite the President's "tax breaks"? Isn't some of this bordering on, well, conservative hypocrisy?

High taxes?

I suppose that conservatives prefer low taxes to high ones. Therefore, I ask you, why exactly did an article in the New York Times let middle-class Americans know that if the current system implemented by President Bush continues, they will soon be paying 71% of their income in taxes while the wealthy pay only 8%? Why are middle-class families anyway paying more despite the President's "tax breaks"? Isn't some of this bordering on, well, conservative hypocrisy?


Could it be that middle income families make up more of the population and therefore pay more of the total amount of tax? It doesn't mean that each individual family pays more of a percentage of their income (because I assure you, the upper class pays higher percentages of what they make). It's just that the middle class is BIGGER.

And besides that,

Its from the NYT, a liberal news paper. They sensationalize everything.

Could it be that middle income families make up more of the population and therefore pay more of the total amount of tax? It doesn't mean that each individual family pays more of a percentage of their income (because I assure you, the upper class pays higher percentages of what they make). It's just that the middle class is BIGGER.
True. But high taxes will eventually make it smaller. If what the NYT actually meant was that 71% of the taxes collected will come from the middle class, then it makes more sense.
Its from the NYT, a liberal news paper. They sensationalize everything.
Tell me if there's a newspaper that doesn't sensationalize anything. The media thrives on sensationalism.

True. But high taxes will eventually make it smaller. If what the NYT actually meant was that 71% of the taxes collected will come from the middle class, then it makes more sense.

It seemed obvious to me that that is what it meant--no offense to anyone, but you either have to be ignorant OR trying to inject your own biased hopes into it for it to mean anything else. Or maybe its just that I pay taxes and realize that it will never be 71% of my income?