Afterall, according to the rules, Quantum Physics could be considered bogus.
Al, Sam and Ziggy at project Quantum Leap would disagree; they have already proved that quantum physics is not bogus. And they did it by time traveling, projected holograms, and are linked via their mesons and neurons (giving some amount of credence to telepathic science). How can you argue with that?;)
That's just one interpretation of nirvana - Buddhist I think, but I'm not sure. I was going for the whole 'this is what heaven is' spectrum... didn't think everyone would take me in such absolutes. Should have known better.
...FLAME ON You... FUCKING... Jackass. With a capital J. I mean seriously.
I'm going to beat you with a clue stick for a minute based on your ASSumptions. 1) You don't know what freedom is or what it means until you don't have it. The first thing the military does is take that freedom away, long enough to show you just how precious it is - which is why the most ardent defenders of freedom are typically in the military. Dumb ass. 2) School... oh Christ, get a clue. If you think school was a waste of time, you probably didn't get anything out of it... because your an idiot. Now... let's hit your quotes: Life is about the struggle, constant improvement, striving to make each day better than the last How would you know? What's the last challenge, struggle or self improvement task you've completed in the last 6 years? Seriously, your whole rant screams that you've never left your own suburb. But you managed to lose your mind... Schools were created to train people to crave the direction of leaders and to feel empty without someone telling them what to do Really? OH DAMN! Your RIGHT! I'll bet schools were created for just that purpose! I can't believe we didn't see it before! IT'S A SECRET GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY! The... the... illuminati! Who meet thrice yearly with "The Colonel" in a secret meeting place known only as... the meadows... What a jackass.
I find nothing pathetic about trying to open the eyes of someone blinded by deceit. That is a human life out there, wasting a way not much greater than an animal. Instead of kidding myself that a warrior caste is necessary to protect the people, I try to give mindless drones their lives back. Maybe I don't always succeed, but I sure as hell try. Thats life. It's pathetic when the one who's trying to open the other person's eyes doesn't have a brain. You don't know enough about religion, the beliefs people have about God, world cultures or true oppression to make any of these judgments. You've never seen shacks filled with villagers, all dead, who made the mistake of refusing to give all of their food to Columbian rebels. You've never seen an Afghani woman who's had her face cut off (literally) by her family because she was raped. The warrior caste you speak of is necessary because people like you will deny that these things happen, and when faced with the reality that it does, will claim that those people should just stick up for themselves. People like you are what make things like this possible.
Anyway, have fun slaughtering the innocent citizens of Iraq Truly a pathetic attempt at the 'baby killer' epitaph of the 70's. (And I never once said I was in favor of this war. You ASSume too much again.)
You don't know anyone in the military or anyone who believes in God, and if you do, the most you know about them is their name and that they are in the military or believe in God. You're a bigot. You've succeded. That's your life. How enlightened you must be.
I am sure he realizes quite fully that the Infidel has no right to exist, let alone in the Promised Land. The coming slaughter shall be a sacrifice! Tribute to the glory of god!...Then in my best Bruce Cambell... "Let's go."
First, to both you and Anomoly - Here in this life I'm limited by my humanness, and It is not a limitation, it is a definition. You are human... Speak for yourselves. I am a Marine, which makes me more than human, less than God.;)
Second, benzapp, sounds like Anomoly is more in tune with how to make himself happy and live his life by his own rules than you are. Everything he said is pretty much positive and looks forward to the next challenge. Sounds like your pissed about something, probably your misconceptions about a belief in God vs. religion.
Heaven will get damn boring? Ah... I think you should probably not be an idiot for your WHOLE life... the heaven promised by pretty much every religious text in the world (well... barring the cults...) promises total enlightenment and freedom. You'll know everything, be everything, probably a lot of other stuff we can't fathom. The alternative promises screaming and gnashing of teeth, true boredom, fear, an eternity of front row seats at an NSync concert.... *shudder*. You have to learn to separate the people who think they're religious with the message in the religion. It's usually the people that are fucked up.
I'm not trying to change your mind, I couldn't care less if you don't believe in God, the internet, or the availability of pop-tarts in your cupboard. I'm just pointing out that you pretty much jumped down Anomoly's throat because he's found meaning in something. That... well that's pathetic.
Then pretend your me for a minute - when that red head in college promises to make you beg if you'll just stay the night, and you say you can't because your math final is at 9 am the next morning and it's your only chance to pass the class... stay the night man! You're going to sleep through your test anyway!
By passing an election law that provides a "none of the above" box. If the "None of the above" wins, the current holder of that office steps down and the current staff holds the fort down (so to speak) until a suitable candidate can be found. No laws can be passed, presented or pushed because there's no one to push it on. We stagnate until someone is found. It'd be rough the first couple of times it happened, sure, but you can bet we'd have some pretty good people in no time.
Anyone know how the populace can pass a law without the concessions of the houses? (I know it can be done, I just don't know how... isn't that always the case.)
Strike teams will have an easier time taking over a ship manned by 90 people than they would one with 300. Most special forces have some kind of training in this type of mission.
It's a collection of cells... VS....arbitrary to decide that it is the sole event that determines the right to live.
So you and I _can't_ agree on when life begins, so we should just go with 'life begins at conception'? And there we have it - it may seem perfectly logical to you, but to me - I don't think abortion is morally or ethically wrong and because of that don't believe we should get morally (or legally) involved. But you said However, we'll never be able to stop murder, theft, or rape either. That doesn't stop us from making them illegal. [incidentally, this is the part of your post I "construed to indicate that I would condemn someone for an abortion"]. -- A logical position If you believe that conception = life, but that's not what everyone believes.
The above and the below is what I was refering to when I said you were belittling and disregarding the beliefs of others - I don't believe it's killing a child, and you took that argument to the next level by stating So perhaps we should discard any laws enforcing anyone's right to life, because our 'belief systems' can't all agree on when it begins and ends?. Of course not - it's as silly as suggesting your wife be charged for murder because of her D&C (& my sympathies to you and your wife). I'm just trying to maintain the perspective I have - just because I don't believe abortion is murder doesn't mean I believe there's no such thing as murder or that moral belief systems should be disregarded when making a social policy. It's just dangerous, and each belief system must be weighed carefully before making a decision (and this is one of those things where making a decision is more dangerous than talking about it).
Still, I think I do have the right to have an opinion on the issue and to express it. Didn't mean to suggest otherwise...
And finally, I'm not saying someone's whole belief system is wrong, I'm saying that thier perceptions of morality are screwed up (this is touchy, but I'll try to explain). If you believe that it's morally wrong to do something, you shouldn't do it. Ever. Under any circumstance. Those who make exceptions probably don't believe what they claim to believe as strongly as they think they do. Here's why: Personally, I don't think it's morally wrong to kill someone, I think it's morally wrong to murder someone - when you murder someone, you take their life for revenge, pleasure, even for honor, etc. - the motivation for an act as opposed to circumstance. Again, so I'm clear, killing has nothing to do with morality. Which is probably why abortion to me isn't murder; in most circumstances the woman is going to do it out of some sense of survival. To me, anyone who says otherwise is probably doing so out of that screwed up sense of morality that they don't really believe in - the proof of which lies in their willingness to make exceptions. If you think it's morally wrong to KILL, to end the life of a thing, but make exceptions, you're not making the distinction between self defense and murder - your calling the act itself immoral. If it's the act that's immoral (not the circumstance), there can't be exceptions. What I mean is - if someone is willing to make an exception to what they think of as a morality issue, they probably haven't been challenged to define that morality - they're just spouting the common standard without thinking about it's implications. That's why I don't like the morality argument.
1) It's a collection of cells that are in the process of becoming a human being. A collection of cells that are not self aware (at least not until sometime in the 3rd trimester, certainly not in the first), cannot survive outside the womb, and only scientfically qualify as an embryo, not a fully developed human being.
2) Yes, I'm saying a set of moral values cannot have exceptions (if you want people to take them seriously anyway). Ghandi was a fine example - he would not resort to violence even if it meant dying for his beliefs. You can MAKE exceptions, but by making them, you are breaking the very morals you claim to hold.
3) In an ideal world, all the pro-lifers would be working on making abortion unnecessary by improving the adoption system, removing rapists from the streets, and promoting better sex education and easier availability of effective contraceptives I'm sorry... as opposed to... ? The "pro-choicers'" want that too -- let's not leave out pedofiles and incest cases. But you still aren't taking into account medical reasons for abortion. Find me one person who WANTS abortion to be a part of this world, and I'll show you someone who probably has kids buried in the back yard.
Your other arguments belittle and do not properly address the issue of respecting the beliefs and rights of others (not stopping us from making rape, murder, theft illegal, discard any laws enforcing anyone's right to life, etc.). That's not the point that is being made and you know it. I could use the same tactic on you by saying that by your standards, a woman who has an abortion for a blighted ovum should be put jail for murder. (A blighted ovum is where the embryonic sac develops but there's no baby inside. It'll kill the mother if she doesn't get an abortion, it's an abortion by all rights, but there's no baby involved.)
I'll simplify my point (and to some degree the pro-choice position) for you: There are thousands of reasons a woman would want or need an abortion. You are not in a position to judge the morality of that decision, nor are you in a position to pass judgement. There are far too many emotional, physical, moral, religious and pure economic reasons for you (or anyone other than the woman and in SOME cases the man responsible) to get involved. You don't have to live with it, and I can tell you first hand that it is not something a woman does lightly. You may think it's wrong, you may believe with all your heart that it is murder in the highest, but it's still not for you to decide. If you believe in God, believe he'll take care of it. If you don't but believe it's morally wrong, then you have a moral dilema that only you can solve for yourself - you cannot solve it for the rest of the world.
Yes, you could make it illegal. Throw another stick of plutonium on the legal system, because it's not like we've already criminalized the living shit out of everything else anyway. This is NOT an issue that the law, the church, morality, your personal convictions or GOD himself can sort out (short of killing everyone on the planet). We'd all be better served by solving the reasons women get abortions, making it illegal will only make things worse.... Which I think is kind of what you ended with, but it's hard to tell with some of the hardline tactics you started with...
Back peddling not allowed. The AC said indicted, I said indicted.
And if you're still consumed with "who's worse, Clinton or Bush's", you've missed the point. They both lack integrity, period, and neither of them should have been allowed in public office (at the neighborhood level, much less the national level).
I mean, c'mon, are those two _the best_ our country has to offer? We couldn't find ONE honest ass hole to take charge? I don't buy it...
Zeinfeld, I swear to the internet gods if you print the Republican echo chamber one more time, I'm going to electronically bitch slap you... It's annoying, unclever, and tired. SHEESH!/rant.
Second, anyone who listens to, quotes, or uses in any way shape or form Rush Limbaugh as a source of political insight is not worth arguing with. Even Rush admits that he doesn't tell the whole story because the whole story wouldn't be interesting.
Don't get me wrong, man, I've been reading your posts, and some of them are interesting, but that whole 'echo chamber' thing is distracting, irritating, and childish. It has about as much impact as "repugs", "shrub", ad. nausium.
And it sounds like you need to get your news elsewhere... Alternet isn't bad, bbc is ok sometimes. Point is, they're out there, you just have to go look for them (and cross check the integrity of the source if it's something you care about).
Nonsense indeed, there are no 'levels' of integrity. You either have it or you don't. Defending or attacking the _magnitude_ of someone's lack of integrity as justification doesn't (in my opinion) make them more or less trust worthy or respectable than another... it makes them devoid of integrity and unworthy of the respect you think they deserve.
I'm not defending anyone, I'm attacking your ambigious sense of honor.
Before responding, understand that I'm not pro-bush or republican or anti-democrat, I just can't stand those who think thier "side" is better than the other. When will you understand that there aren't sides, there are only those who get caught in the middle? Step back for a minute from the fray and look at the collateral damage your 'sides' are causing. Then tell me again who it is your defending.
PS - Clinton was also indicted - did we forget whitewater? By my count that makes us 5 for 5 of the Presidents you named.
so youre saying in this case killing a human is ok That is a moral argument based on a subjective set of ethics. Before you defend yourself, consider this - according to many (even Christian) belief systems, a person doesn't have a soul until they "draw the breath of life". It's not hard to realize that for many, the breath of life is oxygen outside the mothers womb (not as you may believe, the training of the lungs in the last trimester). In short - it's not a person, it's an organism. In that belief system, morality is not an issue. If you think that's a justification, please recall that its ok to kill in self defense is also a justification of a set of moral values. It's actually NOT OK to kill in self defense if you believe in such a thing as taking a life being immoral.
This argument will never be solved for one reason above all else - you CANNOT decide the actions another person WILL take, they must decide for themselves. You will never be able to stop abortion (nor will you be able to convince the rest of the world that your concept of morality is right) - it's the oldest procedure after the oldest proffession. Ancient cultures would stack rocks and logs on an unmarried womans stomach until 'it went away' if she became pregnant before marrage. It almost always ended in death. Being the advanced culture we are we've moved on to the more humane coat hanger.
In short Tom, before you become engrossed in the 'facts' of your morality, consider the morality of killing two people when you can prevent the death of one. Temper your judgement with compassion, and learn how to forgive.
Slashdot Mirror
Would that be a peta-bite? ...oh... oh... I'm so sorry, I couldn't stop myself...
And start calling it 'that display that makes you go all cross-eyed for an hour after you look at it'.
Or possibly 'the Dolly Parton' since that's what it'll be used for most...
...nice.
Afterall, according to the rules, Quantum Physics could be considered bogus.
;)
Al, Sam and Ziggy at project Quantum Leap would disagree; they have already proved that quantum physics is not bogus. And they did it by time traveling, projected holograms, and are linked via their mesons and neurons (giving some amount of credence to telepathic science). How can you argue with that?
That's just one interpretation of nirvana - Buddhist I think, but I'm not sure. I was going for the whole 'this is what heaven is' spectrum... didn't think everyone would take me in such absolutes.
Should have known better.
...FLAME ON
You... FUCKING... Jackass. With a capital J. I mean seriously.
I'm going to beat you with a clue stick for a minute based on your ASSumptions. 1) You don't know what freedom is or what it means until you don't have it. The first thing the military does is take that freedom away, long enough to show you just how precious it is - which is why the most ardent defenders of freedom are typically in the military. Dumb ass. 2) School... oh Christ, get a clue. If you think school was a waste of time, you probably didn't get anything out of it... because your an idiot.
Now... let's hit your quotes:
Life is about the struggle, constant improvement, striving to make each day better than the last How would you know? What's the last challenge, struggle or self improvement task you've completed in the last 6 years? Seriously, your whole rant screams that you've never left your own suburb. But you managed to lose your mind...
Schools were created to train people to crave the direction of leaders and to feel empty without someone telling them what to do Really? OH DAMN! Your RIGHT! I'll bet schools were created for just that purpose! I can't believe we didn't see it before! IT'S A SECRET GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY! The... the... illuminati! Who meet thrice yearly with "The Colonel" in a secret meeting place known only as... the meadows... What a jackass.
I find nothing pathetic about trying to open the eyes of someone blinded by deceit. That is a human life out there, wasting a way not much greater than an animal. Instead of kidding myself that a warrior caste is necessary to protect the people, I try to give mindless drones their lives back. Maybe I don't always succeed, but I sure as hell try. Thats life. It's pathetic when the one who's trying to open the other person's eyes doesn't have a brain. You don't know enough about religion, the beliefs people have about God, world cultures or true oppression to make any of these judgments. You've never seen shacks filled with villagers, all dead, who made the mistake of refusing to give all of their food to Columbian rebels. You've never seen an Afghani woman who's had her face cut off (literally) by her family because she was raped. The warrior caste you speak of is necessary because people like you will deny that these things happen, and when faced with the reality that it does, will claim that those people should just stick up for themselves. People like you are what make things like this possible.
Anyway, have fun slaughtering the innocent citizens of Iraq Truly a pathetic attempt at the 'baby killer' epitaph of the 70's. (And I never once said I was in favor of this war. You ASSume too much again.)
You don't know anyone in the military or anyone who believes in God, and if you do, the most you know about them is their name and that they are in the military or believe in God. You're a bigot. You've succeded. That's your life. How enlightened you must be.
I am sure he realizes quite fully that the Infidel has no right to exist, let alone in the Promised Land. The coming slaughter shall be a sacrifice! Tribute to the glory of god! ...Then in my best Bruce Cambell... "Let's go."
>:)
Second, benzapp, sounds like Anomoly is more in tune with how to make himself happy and live his life by his own rules than you are. Everything he said is pretty much positive and looks forward to the next challenge. Sounds like your pissed about something, probably your misconceptions about a belief in God vs. religion.
Heaven will get damn boring? Ah... I think you should probably not be an idiot for your WHOLE life... the heaven promised by pretty much every religious text in the world (well... barring the cults...) promises total enlightenment and freedom. You'll know everything, be everything, probably a lot of other stuff we can't fathom. The alternative promises screaming and gnashing of teeth, true boredom, fear, an eternity of front row seats at an NSync concert.... *shudder*. You have to learn to separate the people who think they're religious with the message in the religion. It's usually the people that are fucked up.
I'm not trying to change your mind, I couldn't care less if you don't believe in God, the internet, or the availability of pop-tarts in your cupboard. I'm just pointing out that you pretty much jumped down Anomoly's throat because he's found meaning in something. That... well that's pathetic.
... so are you writting from prison? There's a whole lotta getting dragged down by dirt-bags and not getting caught stuff in there... ;)
Finals were over - she went home for the summer and to a different school the next year. See... that's what I'm saying. STAY THE NIGHT!
Then pretend your me for a minute - when that red head in college promises to make you beg if you'll just stay the night, and you say you can't because your math final is at 9 am the next morning and it's your only chance to pass the class... stay the night man! You're going to sleep through your test anyway!
*sigh* True story.
By passing an election law that provides a "none of the above" box. If the "None of the above" wins, the current holder of that office steps down and the current staff holds the fort down (so to speak) until a suitable candidate can be found. No laws can be passed, presented or pushed because there's no one to push it on. We stagnate until someone is found. It'd be rough the first couple of times it happened, sure, but you can bet we'd have some pretty good people in no time.
:)
Anyone know how the populace can pass a law without the concessions of the houses? (I know it can be done, I just don't know how... isn't that always the case.)
If not, hey, I'll be dictator for a few years.
Gleaming... the cube. Yes. With Christian Slater.
Strike teams will have an easier time taking over a ship manned by 90 people than they would one with 300. Most special forces have some kind of training in this type of mission.
Hey... wait a minute...
NNNnice! So nice to see common sense isn't dead.
Yet.
yeah but... your Canadian. Why would we listen to YOU? ;) (just kidding)
They *like* that shit
;)
Hey, if you'd been stuck on a ship for 6 months with 1000 other guys and one shower... you'd be pretty f'n excited to get off too.
It's a collection of cells... VS. ...arbitrary to decide that it is the sole event that determines the right to live.
So you and I _can't_ agree on when life begins, so we should just go with 'life begins at conception'? And there we have it - it may seem perfectly logical to you, but to me - I don't think abortion is morally or ethically wrong and because of that don't believe we should get morally (or legally) involved. But you said However, we'll never be able to stop murder, theft, or rape either. That doesn't stop us from making them illegal. [incidentally, this is the part of your post I "construed to indicate that I would condemn someone for an abortion"]. -- A logical position If you believe that conception = life, but that's not what everyone believes.
The above and the below is what I was refering to when I said you were belittling and disregarding the beliefs of others - I don't believe it's killing a child, and you took that argument to the next level by stating So perhaps we should discard any laws enforcing anyone's right to life, because our 'belief systems' can't all agree on when it begins and ends?. Of course not - it's as silly as suggesting your wife be charged for murder because of her D&C (& my sympathies to you and your wife). I'm just trying to maintain the perspective I have - just because I don't believe abortion is murder doesn't mean I believe there's no such thing as murder or that moral belief systems should be disregarded when making a social policy. It's just dangerous, and each belief system must be weighed carefully before making a decision (and this is one of those things where making a decision is more dangerous than talking about it).
Still, I think I do have the right to have an opinion on the issue and to express it.
Didn't mean to suggest otherwise...
And finally, I'm not saying someone's whole belief system is wrong, I'm saying that thier perceptions of morality are screwed up (this is touchy, but I'll try to explain). If you believe that it's morally wrong to do something, you shouldn't do it. Ever. Under any circumstance. Those who make exceptions probably don't believe what they claim to believe as strongly as they think they do. Here's why:
Personally, I don't think it's morally wrong to kill someone, I think it's morally wrong to murder someone - when you murder someone, you take their life for revenge, pleasure, even for honor, etc. - the motivation for an act as opposed to circumstance. Again, so I'm clear, killing has nothing to do with morality. Which is probably why abortion to me isn't murder; in most circumstances the woman is going to do it out of some sense of survival. To me, anyone who says otherwise is probably doing so out of that screwed up sense of morality that they don't really believe in - the proof of which lies in their willingness to make exceptions. If you think it's morally wrong to KILL, to end the life of a thing, but make exceptions, you're not making the distinction between self defense and murder - your calling the act itself immoral. If it's the act that's immoral (not the circumstance), there can't be exceptions. What I mean is - if someone is willing to make an exception to what they think of as a morality issue, they probably haven't been challenged to define that morality - they're just spouting the common standard without thinking about it's implications. That's why I don't like the morality argument.
has been stealing them...
1) It's a collection of cells that are in the process of becoming a human being. A collection of cells that are not self aware (at least not until sometime in the 3rd trimester, certainly not in the first), cannot survive outside the womb, and only scientfically qualify as an embryo, not a fully developed human being.
... Which I think is kind of what you ended with, but it's hard to tell with some of the hardline tactics you started with...
2) Yes, I'm saying a set of moral values cannot have exceptions (if you want people to take them seriously anyway). Ghandi was a fine example - he would not resort to violence even if it meant dying for his beliefs. You can MAKE exceptions, but by making them, you are breaking the very morals you claim to hold.
3) In an ideal world, all the pro-lifers would be working on making abortion unnecessary by improving the adoption system, removing rapists from the streets, and promoting better sex education and easier availability of effective contraceptives I'm sorry... as opposed to... ? The "pro-choicers'" want that too -- let's not leave out pedofiles and incest cases. But you still aren't taking into account medical reasons for abortion. Find me one person who WANTS abortion to be a part of this world, and I'll show you someone who probably has kids buried in the back yard.
Your other arguments belittle and do not properly address the issue of respecting the beliefs and rights of others (not stopping us from making rape, murder, theft illegal, discard any laws enforcing anyone's right to life, etc.). That's not the point that is being made and you know it. I could use the same tactic on you by saying that by your standards, a woman who has an abortion for a blighted ovum should be put jail for murder. (A blighted ovum is where the embryonic sac develops but there's no baby inside. It'll kill the mother if she doesn't get an abortion, it's an abortion by all rights, but there's no baby involved.)
I'll simplify my point (and to some degree the pro-choice position) for you:
There are thousands of reasons a woman would want or need an abortion. You are not in a position to judge the morality of that decision, nor are you in a position to pass judgement. There are far too many emotional, physical, moral, religious and pure economic reasons for you (or anyone other than the woman and in SOME cases the man responsible) to get involved. You don't have to live with it, and I can tell you first hand that it is not something a woman does lightly. You may think it's wrong, you may believe with all your heart that it is murder in the highest, but it's still not for you to decide. If you believe in God, believe he'll take care of it. If you don't but believe it's morally wrong, then you have a moral dilema that only you can solve for yourself - you cannot solve it for the rest of the world.
Yes, you could make it illegal. Throw another stick of plutonium on the legal system, because it's not like we've already criminalized the living shit out of everything else anyway. This is NOT an issue that the law, the church, morality, your personal convictions or GOD himself can sort out (short of killing everyone on the planet). We'd all be better served by solving the reasons women get abortions, making it illegal will only make things worse.
Back peddling not allowed. The AC said indicted, I said indicted.
And if you're still consumed with "who's worse, Clinton or Bush's", you've missed the point. They both lack integrity, period, and neither of them should have been allowed in public office (at the neighborhood level, much less the national level).
I mean, c'mon, are those two _the best_ our country has to offer? We couldn't find ONE honest ass hole to take charge? I don't buy it...
Zeinfeld, I swear to the internet gods if you print the Republican echo chamber one more time, I'm going to electronically bitch slap you... It's annoying, unclever, and tired. SHEESH! /rant.
Second, anyone who listens to, quotes, or uses in any way shape or form Rush Limbaugh as a source of political insight is not worth arguing with. Even Rush admits that he doesn't tell the whole story because the whole story wouldn't be interesting.
Don't get me wrong, man, I've been reading your posts, and some of them are interesting, but that whole 'echo chamber' thing is distracting, irritating, and childish. It has about as much impact as "repugs", "shrub", ad. nausium.
And it sounds like you need to get your news elsewhere... Alternet isn't bad, bbc is ok sometimes. Point is, they're out there, you just have to go look for them (and cross check the integrity of the source if it's something you care about).
Nonsense indeed, there are no 'levels' of integrity. You either have it or you don't. Defending or attacking the _magnitude_ of someone's lack of integrity as justification doesn't (in my opinion) make them more or less trust worthy or respectable than another... it makes them devoid of integrity and unworthy of the respect you think they deserve.
I'm not defending anyone, I'm attacking your ambigious sense of honor.
Before responding, understand that I'm not pro-bush or republican or anti-democrat, I just can't stand those who think thier "side" is better than the other. When will you understand that there aren't sides, there are only those who get caught in the middle? Step back for a minute from the fray and look at the collateral damage your 'sides' are causing. Then tell me again who it is your defending.
PS - Clinton was also indicted - did we forget whitewater? By my count that makes us 5 for 5 of the Presidents you named.
If your religious dogma is liberal, how can your religion be taught by 'repeat after me'? (Dogma and Liberal have nearly opposite meanings...) ;)
so youre saying in this case killing a human is ok
That is a moral argument based on a subjective set of ethics. Before you defend yourself, consider this - according to many (even Christian) belief systems, a person doesn't have a soul until they "draw the breath of life". It's not hard to realize that for many, the breath of life is oxygen outside the mothers womb (not as you may believe, the training of the lungs in the last trimester). In short - it's not a person, it's an organism. In that belief system, morality is not an issue. If you think that's a justification, please recall that its ok to kill in self defense is also a justification of a set of moral values. It's actually NOT OK to kill in self defense if you believe in such a thing as taking a life being immoral.
This argument will never be solved for one reason above all else - you CANNOT decide the actions another person WILL take, they must decide for themselves. You will never be able to stop abortion (nor will you be able to convince the rest of the world that your concept of morality is right) - it's the oldest procedure after the oldest proffession. Ancient cultures would stack rocks and logs on an unmarried womans stomach until 'it went away' if she became pregnant before marrage. It almost always ended in death. Being the advanced culture we are we've moved on to the more humane coat hanger.
In short Tom, before you become engrossed in the 'facts' of your morality, consider the morality of killing two people when you can prevent the death of one. Temper your judgement with compassion, and learn how to forgive.