It is not an abortion if the baby is already dead.
Even partial birth abortions are legal for the LIFE of the mother, NOT THE HEALTH of the mother.
Very few institutions, except the fucking hospital, stupid. That's where normal people go to be fixed. "Doctors" don't do abortions. You call that an abortion specialist.
Here is some advice to you. Take a sharp pointy object and stick it in the top of your eye cavities (both of them) and swish it from left to right. Try and sever off your entire frontal lobe. You know this used to be a common practice for people who were "too emotional", until it was banned. Oh how we miss those days. If you complete this illegal procedure, you will be a stone cold logical machine!
A) Late term abortion isn't promoted by anyone except for the reason of the mother's health. There aren't any abortion advocates really trying to argue about things after the third trimester. This issue is a total red herring, and it's intended effect is to make the entire issue of abortion about killing babies as opposed to flushing a non-viable bundle of cells.
1. Reasons of health create loopholes. Only if your life depends on it do you have the right to sacrifice your baby (and regret it the rest of your life). 2. Third Trimester abortions are what we're talking about here, holy shit! You are argueing for the right to kill babies that could otherwise live meaningful lives! I love how you characterize a baby as a bundle of cells. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. I want you to go to THIS PAGE, wait until all the pictures load and take a good look at each one of them.
"The CDC estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.5 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2003)."
Notice the first picture on that page above. That is a child at 8 weeks. Now, why do you argue for late term abortions if they are so unpopular? Wouldn't you agree the world is a better place without doctors who specialize in murdering little babies? You'd probably call a marine a baby killer, but not an abortion specialist. I don't doubt the accuracy of the source! I don't know anybody who would kill their baby as they were about to give birth to it, hope I never do.
STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT, but propaganda-wise it's a goldmine. Your graphic description is just an emotional ploy, totally unrelated to the actual facts of the debate. However, this seems to be a successful trend with the current administration, so I can't fault you for jumping on the rhetorical bandwagon.
Typical of people like you to throw everything into the realm of politics. This is a matter of ethics, cletus.
Let's face it, the fundamental issue is when someone becomes a person. Since there is a fair percentage of us who don't buy the bible's explanation, and some others who don't buy the doctor's explanation ('cause you know, they're only doctors), we have to discuss it in the middle. The plan that the anti-abortion team has is to get anything they can into law that talks about the life of the fetus near the edge of the current grey area so that they have a beachhead to argue from. Same argument as killing a pregnant mother counting as a double murder.
K, lets face it. People aren't really people until they are potty trained, according to the genius of the day. Most doctors condemn partial birth abortions. It is not a qualified medical practice. If you go to a doctor, he will give you your options, including a cesarean section + adoption. You don't get that option from a baby killer. Obviously the facts don't matter to you, all that matters is that you're on the other side of the fence on every issue. You are probably just a drug addict who is obsessed with your right to do what you want with your own body.
Certainly not supported by current abortion law, but they figure if they can sneak it into criminal law they can work it around eventually.
I think most people realize they aren't on the murderers side, and leave it at that. But not John Kerry! He takes the murderers side!
Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.
Personally, I think I should have the right to abort people like you.
As for John Kerry, I don't care how many people he has shot in his lifetime. The man doesn't vote for anything worthwhile, he is a radical skepticist, has no ethical foundation, he's a chronic liar. Here's what I call a liar, someone who has a prior knowledge of something and tells something different, or in Bill Clinton
I like to wild speculation like this upgraded to "insightful" by the liberal masses, like us with our heads on straight are actually going to consider it a real possibility.
In case you haven't heard, an NBC reporter was there when troops first went in, and the explosives were already gone.
A) Late term abortion isn't promoted by anyone except for the reason of the mother's health. There aren't any abortion advocates really trying to argue about things after the third trimester. This issue is a total red herring, and it's intended effect is to make the entire issue of abortion about killing babies as opposed to flushing a non-viable bundle of cells.
Babies have a good chance of living outside the womb at 24 weeks. They remove the placenta with a sharp suction tube, which is just as dangerous as cutting a C-section. Most doctors will tell you that a C-section is safer for the mother, it is tried and true, millions of women have them.
Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.
Personally, I think you should be hung from a lamp post.
A president who consistently lies to the American public about important issues (jizz in the oval office being a not-important issue, for instance), and who surrounds himself with people who do the same, is not qualified for the job. People support Kerry not because he's pro-abortion but because he seems like less of a liar than the current guy.
I would call Kerry more of a liar. Look at the story he's touting right now about the stolen explosives in Iraq. He knows the truth, they were removed before we ever got there. SOURCE. I would call a lie having a prior knowledge of events and then telling something other, or in Bill Clintons case, the exact opposite ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.") That is a lie. George Bush being given faulty intelligence from sources around the globe, that is not a lie in my book and a judge would agree with me there. John Kerry saying he was in Cambodia when he really wasn't, or that he met with the UN security council before the Iraq war when he really didn't, those are lies.
I find it hard to believe people actually support Kerry. Every time I ask self-proclaimed democrats why they support abortion, they say they believe in a womans right to choose, so I ask them if they know what a late term abortion is, and they dont really know, so I explain that its when they induce labor and when the baby peeks his new-born head out, they drill a hole in his skull and suck out his brains and rip his limbs off and put him in a plastic container. They laugh at me, but when they see the solemn look they stop laughing, and tend to agree with me that abortion is wrong.
Then you have people like John Kerry out there voting against the Lacy Petersen bill, because it might promote the anti-abortion cause.
Don't even get me started on the Iraq war. John Kerry should be thrown in jail for aiding the enemy.
Kill them all from the horizon? That's nutty. I find it very hard to believe that this is the first year you're voting Democrat.
Obviously you are one who thinks that any war is a no-win situation. I have no reason to believe that we are "losing" in Iraq, therefore when someone says that George Bush is delusional, I have to digress. It's the people who're convinced we're losing, and build upon that, who're delusional. Anything but perfection leads them to think this. You've skipped over the very reason why you think we're losing and into accusations like "Bush is denying the reality of the situation in Iraq". Its a circular argument, and very often people fall for it.
Now ask yourself. If Lincoln had gotten up after the battle of Gettysburg and told America how many people died, and how he miscalculated general lee, and that the war is going poorly, do you think the union would have won?
"waste products in barrels", you mean like the ones featured in the movie "robo cop"? I liked that part at the end when that guy got all messed up from the toxic waste and then the car hit him and he popped like a water baloon. Scary.
I don't think toxic waste dumping has been an issue for Americans for decades.
Yucca Mountain is not "unstable", theres a small chance there could be an earthquake out here, I live in Salt Lake City and we never get earthquakes, if we do they are so small you can't feel them. I believe Nevada is about the same. Even if there were a huge earthquake, mountains won't be crumbling, you know.
My personal belief is that renewable energy will become more profitable in the near future and nuclear power will be less important for domestic power, more important as a mobile power source. The disposal of waste is not such a serious problem. The half-life of uranium is only 29 years and is considered safe after about 300 years. That is not such a long time. The only problem I see is transportation, terrorists would be eager to get their hands on a few kilo's of nuclear waste. Your fears that it will be too expensive are nutty, go do some research.
Fusion research is eating billions of dollars of government money every year, and it is just kicking up. Fusion has more problems with nuclear contamination, the tritium used in a fusion reactor is much more dangerous than uranium for humans, the reactor radiates its shielding, requires a lot more maintenance given the higher temperatures a fusion reactor operates at. I'm all for fusion research, for the good of science, but I'm not convinced that fusion is the miracle people make it out to be. Cold fusion would be nice, but warm fusion is extremely difficult and may prove never to be profitable. It will all come back to renewable power, and simple fission reactors in space, undersea, aircraft carriers, etc. There is a lot more nuclear fuel to be found in the earth than petrol, and when you weigh the two, nuclear fission produces far less pollution than petrol. Even if you were to process petrol in a fuel cell, it would produce billions of tons of waste.
I think your notion that Rumsfeld thought it would be "kisses and rose petals" is false, if you read he pre-war report, he was very clear about the likelyhood of a sunni uprising. I can think of a few good reasons for not using 3 times as many troops as we have there now:
cost
2-3x increase in American casualties
not conveying the image of an "occupational force"
encouraging other countries to participate.
The problem with you anti-war liberals is that you're short sited. You don't see any value in it at all, and you don't think peace in the middle east can be attained. As George Bush said it, "freedom will bring peace and security". I never expected it to be "kisses and rose pettals" but the whole shock and awe campaign was a decent effort to reduce enemy morale, but it failed. What can you do but look back and point fingers?
Your plan sounds nice and all, Marxist, but 1. Social Conservativism is not in the Marxist credo, the whole idea of individuals competing is scary. 2. our economy would not last long without government sanctioned corporate entities. Every other country in the world does this and until you can assure us world peace, nobody will listen to your nonsense anti-corporate preaching. I'm assuming you are not alluding to some system of special favors, Halliburton et al. That is also nonsense, see factcheck.org (not to be mistaken for factcheck.com)
See all Kerry has to do is use a few big words and he has your vote. Whoever has the longer answer has your vote. You can't appreciate a short simple answer. "NO" or "YES", like the gay marriage question in the third debate, Kerry gave two answers as usual, it typically goes something like this:
"I support the president, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but look at Dick Cheney's daughter, she's gay and she would tell you she was born that way, so what do you do? What do you do.... to sum it up, I think both ways and you stupid nincompoops just can't figure it out can you?"
"Oh, by the way, I am changing my mind about this and that, for those who didn't notice. I am now against the war in Iraq and pro-tax cuts. Sortof a switch-a-roo, if you will, heh heh. The only reason I changed my mind is because I'm a genius, but the president was supposed to know all along! He failed you! And look at that fool, he won't even admit it! So he's a failure who won't admit failure!"
I think if a bunch of naked men came running at me and I had a gun that shot 600-1000 rounds per minute and didn't need reloading for about 5 minutes, and didn't overheat, I could amass a pile of bodies around me that would eventually form a slippery barrier between me and the rest of the naked men, with no mention of their waning morale after about a minute into the massacre.
Ok, in the first debate Kerry says that the army reserves is a "backdoor draft", and that we will need to re-instate the draft (apparently went unnoticed by the vast majority of democrats). He also says that he will double the size of Special Forces, and by that he must mean double the size of the entire military, or increase the military by 50% and lower the standards of the special forces, because you can't just train more special forces, they are the cream of the crop, not just highly specialized training. Whatever he claims now, better benefits or whatever, is more of this hot air he's been spewing about doing everything "better". There is already a $3000 enlistment bonus and people actually are joining the military in greater numbers (maybe you're the idiot here?) The fact that Kerry goes on to criticize bush for calling up reserve units and yet he claims he will increase the size of the military is another instance of self contradicting statements.
> From what I can tell Kerry says anything and everything.
Only if you're not listening to everything- that's the big problem with Kerry, you can't take a half a sentence out of context and have any hope of figuring out what he's saying.
What? If I weren't listening to everything, he might actually sound like he's making sense! Your logic is flawed here, dopey. As a matter of fact, I follow politics very actively, I probably know more than you do. Kerry says hardly anything of substance, I dont think many would argue with me there.
You don't have to guess- 9th grade English sentence deconstruction will get you there as long as you include all the words in the sentence.
I do have to guess because he is not giving any concrete answers. Every question he waffles around. I don't know how one would execute a "secondary" exit strategy, you exit once and you don't exit again, and where on earth did you get this? Are you just making this up? Do you think Kerry would actually say "well I intend to add 40,000 troops, and if that fails, I'll do the next best thing, retreat!" Do you expect me to take you seriously?
By the way, if you learned how to deconstruct a sentence in the 9th grade, you weren't learning fast enough.
I am to some extent- the claim that Zarqawi was in Iraq *before we invaded* is what I'm saying is false. I didn't hear the VP claim, but given the current VP, I wouldn't trust him to do my laundry let alone tell me the truth about Iraq.
You heard him say that right? He said that Zarqawi crossed the border into Iraq. I don't know where you get your info. I think you're just flat out wrong here. US reveals 'al-Qaeda Iraq plot'.
The nuclear option comes from General Titus in 70 A.D. He didn't have nukes of course- he had bronze swords and salt- but he effectively killed 500 Zionist Zealots for every Centurion killed, destroyed Jerusalem, and sowed the fields with salt so that nothing could grow. The fact that we could do effectively the same thing in under 15 minutes today is just technological advance.
So I take it you are a hardline conservative. I think I've heard Michael Savage say the same thing. I personally don't think America can be blowing up entire continents when we have the precision capability to do the job without as much blood shed. We will succeed. You're just caught up in all this Democrat Party negativity.
You know what's really strange? That you still believe this even though this has been shown many times to be a lie told by a sycophant in the CIA to get promoted.
Zarqawi is in Iraq right now waging war on us, ever since we blew up his terrorist traning camp in Afghanistan. The vice president stated this the other day and I have yet to hear an uproar over it. I think you're confused.
I'm not complaining about anything- my favored strategy in the war on terror would have Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Jordan, and parts of Egypt glowing in the dark WITHIN 72 HOURS OF THE TOWERS FALLING. Anything short of that is a stupid waste of time and American lives- and might as well not have been done at all for all the terrorism it's going to stop.
This post gets a 4, Insightful. This is a testament to how messed up the/. moderation system has gotten. They need to do somethin about this bias. People caught modding up/down for political reasons aught to be deleted. This is just silly.
How does Kerry intend to get those 200,000 troops? Re-instate the draft? I thought I heard Kerry say we should reduce the number of troops, train more special forces. From what I can tell Kerry says anything and everything. If I had to guess, I'd say Kerry will pull more troops out and hope the international community fills in for us (which they won't do and they have already stated this). This is similar to his strategy with North Korea, stop building the nuclear weapons and hope North Korea follows.
You think Kerry would attack Iran? Fat chance. He favors sanctions, according to his answers in the debates. I'm sure Iran would rather have bill clinton back in the white house, let alone anti-war Kerry. Why on earth is the parent "insightful"?
You know what is really strange? Everyone jumps on Bush for going into Iraq, even though a lot of the terrorists in Afghan traning camps went to Iraq before we went in there (Zarqawi). Now, people are crossing the border from Iran/Syria into Iraq and you're complaining that we aren't attacking Iran? Who do you think is gonna take action here? The anti-vietnam "hero"? Do you really want another war?
The Iran situation is not over yet, there may be a diplomatic conclusion, so don't start screaming for war yet.
Wait, what is this? Why should *anybody* be nice to journalists? Journalists are entirely self-serving! Journalists need to be set straight every now and then, lately they have gone too far with the lies and exaggerations.
Can you cite some definitive, controlled, and large-sample sociological study which has adequately investigated this issue? I'm curious - even the dissenters in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health acknowledged they had no solid evidence heterosexual couples provided the "optimal" setting for child rearing.
I won't site specific studies, but I know there have been studies that show that children who grow up without a mother or a father, or who have to adjust to a new mother/father have more problems than kids raised in a functional family unit. Before you throw this out, go do a google search if you need proof, I'm not trying to convince you one way or another. Note that I never said gay couples should never be able to adopt a kid. I agree that if a man and a woman divorce, having two mothers might better than one, but not in all cases. The same goes for a child who has to adjust to a new mother/father after his/her parents divorce. Now, back to my original post, the point was not to make a moral objection (even if I may have them), I was only pointing out that people assume that they can change society to accept gay marriages. Just because something is made legal does not mean it will be accepted. I specifically stated that a child who's closest living relative, who may be gay, may be a better choice than a random heterosexual couple, although the fact that they are gay aught to weigh against them in an all-other-things-equal situation with another relative.
Pat is a self-confessed 'tomboy'; she was raised in a family of six boys, and she has mild Asperger's syndrome. She marries the very manly man Dan, and they enjoy the same activities; practically the only 'female' thing Pat does is sleep with her husband, and even then she's into kinky S&M stuff. Are Pat and Dan communicating an appropriate "feminine/masculine" image?
Dan has had a change of heart and decides to be fashionable; now he's a "metrosexual". This isn't in the masculinity book! Should he lose his children?
Being a tomboy is one thing. Getting into domination and sexual torture and sharing that with your kids is obviously a no-no. Going back to the sociological repercussions, the kid will undoubtedly express the unusual norms his parents have created in a school setting, or other public setting. Studies show that children who are breast fed have less problems than children fed through a bottle, with or without formula. Should you bring in a third member to breast feed the child? Is that a cohesive family unit? A man and a woman can act however they want, the thing is if a kid is not getting an appropriate role model, he may be conflicted between his heterosexual instincts, and the femenine/masculine roles his/her two dads/mothers are portraying. You describe these hypotheticals, but you don't concede that there are any problems at all with it. From what I can tell, the gay marriage movement is more centered on the rights of gay couples, not the well being of children.
So - children of gay parents are in a bad place because nobody likes children of gay parents. Isn't that a little sweeping of a generalization to make about the entire world?
That is almost what I'm saying. I wouldn't use the word "like" in that sentence. I wouldn't want my children (if I am ever to have any) hanging around with gay children for the same reason I don't want them hanging around with kids who do drugs. What they consider to be normal, I don't, and I have a right to protect my children from drugs, nudity, whatever. This is why gay marriage will never take. It is similar to legalizing public nudity. Some people think they have the right to walk around naked. Now, back to my original post, if it is left up to the states, you would have communities like you mentioned where gay couples could seek acceptance where it otherwise wouldn't exist. Also, I am not making a generalization abou
I am not going to go looking for statistics on the wait time to adopt a newborn baby, but I know there is a long wait.
As for a straight couple making a healthier family, I am sticking to a sociological perspective in my previous post, and rather than getting into morals, I'll just say that a kid who is raised in a gay family will be disadvantaged socially. His two dads or whatever will not be able to participate in activities that require a mother. He/she may be ostracized by peers. They wouldn't get a double sided femenine/masculine upbringing, and it would most likely encourage non-conformity by the child, which some would argue is a good thing but I disagree with that. There are probably other sociological factors but those are the ones that come to mind.
So what I am saying is that the small minority of gay people want to radically alter the fabric of american society, and I don't think that change will ever take root. I think if its left up to states to decide the gay marriage issue, the change will be much easier for everybody. Gay communities will form and these sociological repercussions will be less severe or completely non-existant. That is the point I am making.
As a matter of fact, I'm 22, so I'd still consider myself pretty young, but just old enough to see the errors that radical non-conformists make.
b) Do not know MTV, et al's budget and
Heh, I am not a stock owner or anything, but I know they do *pretty well*! Everytime I catch a glimpse of MTV it is like looking into a paralell universe, and even a teenager will admit that! What is it, I read an article where someone interviewed some kids from laguna beach, and they were saying how the reality OC show on MTV filming high school students in laguna beach was totally distorted, and they can't see any of their peers having a "black and white" party unless MTV was paying out. Some kids were saying "jeez, we're not THAT rich!". I take it you're an MTV fan?
c) Are under the misguided impression that church can save a horny teenager.
As a matter of fact, I am. Monogamy is a good thing, they tell you. Save yourself for that special someone you want to stay with your entire life. It is not purely a religious philosophy, it makes sense from just about any angle, but it's something that most religions emphasize.
It may sound like a simple solution, and I agree with you for the most part, but I would have to point out that society would not accept something just because a judge interprets the constition one way. Just because something SHOULD be one way doesn't mean it should, if you know what I mean. It's the same with drugs. Sure people should be able to do what they want with their own body (and they can, if they move to canada or amsterdam or something) but it has "spillover costs" associated with it, and it affects the rest of society. For gay marriage, the spillover costs are vague, but it mostly goes down to the family unit, which is well defined, and is a vital part of our bureaucracy. I wont go into any more detail than that, but I agree that the federal government should recognize civil unions, but the state should decide whether gays should fall under civil unions or marriage. I also think federal adoption laws should be reformed to specify when a kid can legally be adopted by a gay couple, if they have strong family ties to one of the partners, or if the kid has been floating around without a steady home for a number of years. Infants should not be adopted by gay couples under any circumstances. A straight couple makes a much healthier family unit and there are plenty of couples waiting in line to adopt a baby. If the government had no say in who could get married, it might as well not exist at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is some advice to you. Take a sharp pointy object and stick it in the top of your eye cavities (both of them) and swish it from left to right. Try and sever off your entire frontal lobe. You know this used to be a common practice for people who were "too emotional", until it was banned. Oh how we miss those days. If you complete this illegal procedure, you will be a stone cold logical machine!
A) Late term abortion isn't promoted by anyone except for the reason of the mother's health. There aren't any abortion advocates really trying to argue about things after the third trimester. This issue is a total red herring, and it's intended effect is to make the entire issue of abortion about killing babies as opposed to flushing a non-viable bundle of cells.
1. Reasons of health create loopholes. Only if your life depends on it do you have the right to sacrifice your baby (and regret it the rest of your life). 2. Third Trimester abortions are what we're talking about here, holy shit! You are argueing for the right to kill babies that could otherwise live meaningful lives! I love how you characterize a baby as a bundle of cells. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. I want you to go to THIS PAGE, wait until all the pictures load and take a good look at each one of them.
"The CDC estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.5 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2003)."
Notice the first picture on that page above. That is a child at 8 weeks. Now, why do you argue for late term abortions if they are so unpopular? Wouldn't you agree the world is a better place without doctors who specialize in murdering little babies? You'd probably call a marine a baby killer, but not an abortion specialist. I don't doubt the accuracy of the source! I don't know anybody who would kill their baby as they were about to give birth to it, hope I never do.
STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT, but propaganda-wise it's a goldmine. Your graphic description is just an emotional ploy, totally unrelated to the actual facts of the debate. However, this seems to be a successful trend with the current administration, so I can't fault you for jumping on the rhetorical bandwagon.
Typical of people like you to throw everything into the realm of politics. This is a matter of ethics, cletus.
Let's face it, the fundamental issue is when someone becomes a person. Since there is a fair percentage of us who don't buy the bible's explanation, and some others who don't buy the doctor's explanation ('cause you know, they're only doctors), we have to discuss it in the middle. The plan that the anti-abortion team has is to get anything they can into law that talks about the life of the fetus near the edge of the current grey area so that they have a beachhead to argue from. Same argument as killing a pregnant mother counting as a double murder.
K, lets face it. People aren't really people until they are potty trained, according to the genius of the day. Most doctors condemn partial birth abortions. It is not a qualified medical practice. If you go to a doctor, he will give you your options, including a cesarean section + adoption. You don't get that option from a baby killer. Obviously the facts don't matter to you, all that matters is that you're on the other side of the fence on every issue. You are probably just a drug addict who is obsessed with your right to do what you want with your own body.
Certainly not supported by current abortion law, but they figure if they can sneak it into criminal law they can work it around eventually.
I think most people realize they aren't on the murderers side, and leave it at that. But not John Kerry! He takes the murderers side!
Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.
Personally, I think I should have the right to abort people like you.
As for John Kerry, I don't care how many people he has shot in his lifetime. The man doesn't vote for anything worthwhile, he is a radical skepticist, has no ethical foundation, he's a chronic liar. Here's what I call a liar, someone who has a prior knowledge of something and tells something different, or in Bill Clinton
I like to wild speculation like this upgraded to "insightful" by the liberal masses, like us with our heads on straight are actually going to consider it a real possibility.
In case you haven't heard, an NBC reporter was there when troops first went in, and the explosives were already gone.
A) Late term abortion isn't promoted by anyone except for the reason of the mother's health. There aren't any abortion advocates really trying to argue about things after the third trimester. This issue is a total red herring, and it's intended effect is to make the entire issue of abortion about killing babies as opposed to flushing a non-viable bundle of cells.
Babies have a good chance of living outside the womb at 24 weeks. They remove the placenta with a sharp suction tube, which is just as dangerous as cutting a C-section. Most doctors will tell you that a C-section is safer for the mother, it is tried and true, millions of women have them.
Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.
Personally, I think you should be hung from a lamp post.
A president who consistently lies to the American public about important issues (jizz in the oval office being a not-important issue, for instance), and who surrounds himself with people who do the same, is not qualified for the job. People support Kerry not because he's pro-abortion but because he seems like less of a liar than the current guy.
I would call Kerry more of a liar. Look at the story he's touting right now about the stolen explosives in Iraq. He knows the truth, they were removed before we ever got there. SOURCE. I would call a lie having a prior knowledge of events and then telling something other, or in Bill Clintons case, the exact opposite ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.") That is a lie. George Bush being given faulty intelligence from sources around the globe, that is not a lie in my book and a judge would agree with me there. John Kerry saying he was in Cambodia when he really wasn't, or that he met with the UN security council before the Iraq war when he really didn't, those are lies.
My sentiments exactly.
I find it hard to believe people actually support Kerry. Every time I ask self-proclaimed democrats why they support abortion, they say they believe in a womans right to choose, so I ask them if they know what a late term abortion is, and they dont really know, so I explain that its when they induce labor and when the baby peeks his new-born head out, they drill a hole in his skull and suck out his brains and rip his limbs off and put him in a plastic container. They laugh at me, but when they see the solemn look they stop laughing, and tend to agree with me that abortion is wrong.
Then you have people like John Kerry out there voting against the Lacy Petersen bill, because it might promote the anti-abortion cause.
Don't even get me started on the Iraq war. John Kerry should be thrown in jail for aiding the enemy.
Kill them all from the horizon? That's nutty. I find it very hard to believe that this is the first year you're voting Democrat.
Obviously you are one who thinks that any war is a no-win situation. I have no reason to believe that we are "losing" in Iraq, therefore when someone says that George Bush is delusional, I have to digress. It's the people who're convinced we're losing, and build upon that, who're delusional. Anything but perfection leads them to think this. You've skipped over the very reason why you think we're losing and into accusations like "Bush is denying the reality of the situation in Iraq". Its a circular argument, and very often people fall for it.
Now ask yourself. If Lincoln had gotten up after the battle of Gettysburg and told America how many people died, and how he miscalculated general lee, and that the war is going poorly, do you think the union would have won?
Your obviously a partisan Democrat.
"waste products in barrels", you mean like the ones featured in the movie "robo cop"? I liked that part at the end when that guy got all messed up from the toxic waste and then the car hit him and he popped like a water baloon. Scary.
I don't think toxic waste dumping has been an issue for Americans for decades.
Yucca Mountain is not "unstable", theres a small chance there could be an earthquake out here, I live in Salt Lake City and we never get earthquakes, if we do they are so small you can't feel them. I believe Nevada is about the same. Even if there were a huge earthquake, mountains won't be crumbling, you know.
My personal belief is that renewable energy will become more profitable in the near future and nuclear power will be less important for domestic power, more important as a mobile power source. The disposal of waste is not such a serious problem. The half-life of uranium is only 29 years and is considered safe after about 300 years. That is not such a long time. The only problem I see is transportation, terrorists would be eager to get their hands on a few kilo's of nuclear waste. Your fears that it will be too expensive are nutty, go do some research.
Fusion research is eating billions of dollars of government money every year, and it is just kicking up. Fusion has more problems with nuclear contamination, the tritium used in a fusion reactor is much more dangerous than uranium for humans, the reactor radiates its shielding, requires a lot more maintenance given the higher temperatures a fusion reactor operates at. I'm all for fusion research, for the good of science, but I'm not convinced that fusion is the miracle people make it out to be. Cold fusion would be nice, but warm fusion is extremely difficult and may prove never to be profitable. It will all come back to renewable power, and simple fission reactors in space, undersea, aircraft carriers, etc. There is a lot more nuclear fuel to be found in the earth than petrol, and when you weigh the two, nuclear fission produces far less pollution than petrol. Even if you were to process petrol in a fuel cell, it would produce billions of tons of waste.
I think your notion that Rumsfeld thought it would be "kisses and rose petals" is false, if you read he pre-war report, he was very clear about the likelyhood of a sunni uprising. I can think of a few good reasons for not using 3 times as many troops as we have there now:
The problem with you anti-war liberals is that you're short sited. You don't see any value in it at all, and you don't think peace in the middle east can be attained. As George Bush said it, "freedom will bring peace and security". I never expected it to be "kisses and rose pettals" but the whole shock and awe campaign was a decent effort to reduce enemy morale, but it failed. What can you do but look back and point fingers?
Your plan sounds nice and all, Marxist, but 1. Social Conservativism is not in the Marxist credo, the whole idea of individuals competing is scary. 2. our economy would not last long without government sanctioned corporate entities. Every other country in the world does this and until you can assure us world peace, nobody will listen to your nonsense anti-corporate preaching. I'm assuming you are not alluding to some system of special favors, Halliburton et al. That is also nonsense, see factcheck.org (not to be mistaken for factcheck.com)
Why are you anti-corporations?
See all Kerry has to do is use a few big words and he has your vote. Whoever has the longer answer has your vote. You can't appreciate a short simple answer. "NO" or "YES", like the gay marriage question in the third debate, Kerry gave two answers as usual, it typically goes something like this:
"I support the president, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but look at Dick Cheney's daughter, she's gay and she would tell you she was born that way, so what do you do? What do you do.... to sum it up, I think both ways and you stupid nincompoops just can't figure it out can you?"
"Oh, by the way, I am changing my mind about this and that, for those who didn't notice. I am now against the war in Iraq and pro-tax cuts. Sortof a switch-a-roo, if you will, heh heh. The only reason I changed my mind is because I'm a genius, but the president was supposed to know all along! He failed you! And look at that fool, he won't even admit it! So he's a failure who won't admit failure!"
Yes they are pinkos, but I found the name pretty funny.
I think if a bunch of naked men came running at me and I had a gun that shot 600-1000 rounds per minute and didn't need reloading for about 5 minutes, and didn't overheat, I could amass a pile of bodies around me that would eventually form a slippery barrier between me and the rest of the naked men, with no mention of their waning morale after about a minute into the massacre.
Ok, in the first debate Kerry says that the army reserves is a "backdoor draft", and that we will need to re-instate the draft (apparently went unnoticed by the vast majority of democrats). He also says that he will double the size of Special Forces, and by that he must mean double the size of the entire military, or increase the military by 50% and lower the standards of the special forces, because you can't just train more special forces, they are the cream of the crop, not just highly specialized training. Whatever he claims now, better benefits or whatever, is more of this hot air he's been spewing about doing everything "better". There is already a $3000 enlistment bonus and people actually are joining the military in greater numbers (maybe you're the idiot here?) The fact that Kerry goes on to criticize bush for calling up reserve units and yet he claims he will increase the size of the military is another instance of self contradicting statements.
> From what I can tell Kerry says anything and everything.
Only if you're not listening to everything- that's the big problem with Kerry, you can't take a half a sentence out of context and have any hope of figuring out what he's saying.
What? If I weren't listening to everything, he might actually sound like he's making sense! Your logic is flawed here, dopey. As a matter of fact, I follow politics very actively, I probably know more than you do. Kerry says hardly anything of substance, I dont think many would argue with me there.
You don't have to guess- 9th grade English sentence deconstruction will get you there as long as you include all the words in the sentence.
I do have to guess because he is not giving any concrete answers. Every question he waffles around. I don't know how one would execute a "secondary" exit strategy, you exit once and you don't exit again, and where on earth did you get this? Are you just making this up? Do you think Kerry would actually say "well I intend to add 40,000 troops, and if that fails, I'll do the next best thing, retreat!" Do you expect me to take you seriously?
By the way, if you learned how to deconstruct a sentence in the 9th grade, you weren't learning fast enough.
I am to some extent- the claim that Zarqawi was in Iraq *before we invaded* is what I'm saying is false. I didn't hear the VP claim, but given the current VP, I wouldn't trust him to do my laundry let alone tell me the truth about Iraq.
You heard him say that right? He said that Zarqawi crossed the border into Iraq. I don't know where you get your info. I think you're just flat out wrong here. US reveals 'al-Qaeda Iraq plot'.
The nuclear option comes from General Titus in 70 A.D. He didn't have nukes of course- he had bronze swords and salt- but he effectively killed 500 Zionist Zealots for every Centurion killed, destroyed Jerusalem, and sowed the fields with salt so that nothing could grow. The fact that we could do effectively the same thing in under 15 minutes today is just technological advance.
So I take it you are a hardline conservative. I think I've heard Michael Savage say the same thing. I personally don't think America can be blowing up entire continents when we have the precision capability to do the job without as much blood shed. We will succeed. You're just caught up in all this Democrat Party negativity.
Hah, you sound like Kerry, a true politician.
You know what's really strange? That you still believe this even though this has been shown many times to be a lie told by a sycophant in the CIA to get promoted.
Zarqawi is in Iraq right now waging war on us, ever since we blew up his terrorist traning camp in Afghanistan. The vice president stated this the other day and I have yet to hear an uproar over it. I think you're confused.
I'm not complaining about anything- my favored strategy in the war on terror would have Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Jordan, and parts of Egypt glowing in the dark WITHIN 72 HOURS OF THE TOWERS FALLING. Anything short of that is a stupid waste of time and American lives- and might as well not have been done at all for all the terrorism it's going to stop.
This post gets a 4, Insightful. This is a testament to how messed up the /. moderation system has gotten. They need to do somethin about this bias. People caught modding up/down for political reasons aught to be deleted. This is just silly.
Which parent are we talking about here? Oh yes, your post. You're pro-Iran now? You were saying we should go to war against Iran.
How does Kerry intend to get those 200,000 troops? Re-instate the draft? I thought I heard Kerry say we should reduce the number of troops, train more special forces. From what I can tell Kerry says anything and everything. If I had to guess, I'd say Kerry will pull more troops out and hope the international community fills in for us (which they won't do and they have already stated this). This is similar to his strategy with North Korea, stop building the nuclear weapons and hope North Korea follows.
You think Kerry would attack Iran? Fat chance. He favors sanctions, according to his answers in the debates. I'm sure Iran would rather have bill clinton back in the white house, let alone anti-war Kerry. Why on earth is the parent "insightful"?
You know what is really strange? Everyone jumps on Bush for going into Iraq, even though a lot of the terrorists in Afghan traning camps went to Iraq before we went in there (Zarqawi). Now, people are crossing the border from Iran/Syria into Iraq and you're complaining that we aren't attacking Iran? Who do you think is gonna take action here? The anti-vietnam "hero"? Do you really want another war?
The Iran situation is not over yet, there may be a diplomatic conclusion, so don't start screaming for war yet.
Wait, what is this? Why should *anybody* be nice to journalists? Journalists are entirely self-serving! Journalists need to be set straight every now and then, lately they have gone too far with the lies and exaggerations.
Ok, here we go...
I won't site specific studies, but I know there have been studies that show that children who grow up without a mother or a father, or who have to adjust to a new mother/father have more problems than kids raised in a functional family unit. Before you throw this out, go do a google search if you need proof, I'm not trying to convince you one way or another. Note that I never said gay couples should never be able to adopt a kid. I agree that if a man and a woman divorce, having two mothers might better than one, but not in all cases. The same goes for a child who has to adjust to a new mother/father after his/her parents divorce. Now, back to my original post, the point was not to make a moral objection (even if I may have them), I was only pointing out that people assume that they can change society to accept gay marriages. Just because something is made legal does not mean it will be accepted. I specifically stated that a child who's closest living relative, who may be gay, may be a better choice than a random heterosexual couple, although the fact that they are gay aught to weigh against them in an all-other-things-equal situation with another relative.
Being a tomboy is one thing. Getting into domination and sexual torture and sharing that with your kids is obviously a no-no. Going back to the sociological repercussions, the kid will undoubtedly express the unusual norms his parents have created in a school setting, or other public setting. Studies show that children who are breast fed have less problems than children fed through a bottle, with or without formula. Should you bring in a third member to breast feed the child? Is that a cohesive family unit? A man and a woman can act however they want, the thing is if a kid is not getting an appropriate role model, he may be conflicted between his heterosexual instincts, and the femenine/masculine roles his/her two dads/mothers are portraying. You describe these hypotheticals, but you don't concede that there are any problems at all with it. From what I can tell, the gay marriage movement is more centered on the rights of gay couples, not the well being of children.
That is almost what I'm saying. I wouldn't use the word "like" in that sentence. I wouldn't want my children (if I am ever to have any) hanging around with gay children for the same reason I don't want them hanging around with kids who do drugs. What they consider to be normal, I don't, and I have a right to protect my children from drugs, nudity, whatever. This is why gay marriage will never take. It is similar to legalizing public nudity. Some people think they have the right to walk around naked. Now, back to my original post, if it is left up to the states, you would have communities like you mentioned where gay couples could seek acceptance where it otherwise wouldn't exist. Also, I am not making a generalization abou
I am not going to go looking for statistics on the wait time to adopt a newborn baby, but I know there is a long wait.
As for a straight couple making a healthier family, I am sticking to a sociological perspective in my previous post, and rather than getting into morals, I'll just say that a kid who is raised in a gay family will be disadvantaged socially. His two dads or whatever will not be able to participate in activities that require a mother. He/she may be ostracized by peers. They wouldn't get a double sided femenine/masculine upbringing, and it would most likely encourage non-conformity by the child, which some would argue is a good thing but I disagree with that. There are probably other sociological factors but those are the ones that come to mind.
So what I am saying is that the small minority of gay people want to radically alter the fabric of american society, and I don't think that change will ever take root. I think if its left up to states to decide the gay marriage issue, the change will be much easier for everybody. Gay communities will form and these sociological repercussions will be less severe or completely non-existant. That is the point I am making.
a) Are not a "youth"
As a matter of fact, I'm 22, so I'd still consider myself pretty young, but just old enough to see the errors that radical non-conformists make.
b) Do not know MTV, et al's budget and
Heh, I am not a stock owner or anything, but I know they do *pretty well*! Everytime I catch a glimpse of MTV it is like looking into a paralell universe, and even a teenager will admit that! What is it, I read an article where someone interviewed some kids from laguna beach, and they were saying how the reality OC show on MTV filming high school students in laguna beach was totally distorted, and they can't see any of their peers having a "black and white" party unless MTV was paying out. Some kids were saying "jeez, we're not THAT rich!". I take it you're an MTV fan?
c) Are under the misguided impression that church can save a horny teenager.
As a matter of fact, I am. Monogamy is a good thing, they tell you. Save yourself for that special someone you want to stay with your entire life. It is not purely a religious philosophy, it makes sense from just about any angle, but it's something that most religions emphasize.
It may sound like a simple solution, and I agree with you for the most part, but I would have to point out that society would not accept something just because a judge interprets the constition one way. Just because something SHOULD be one way doesn't mean it should, if you know what I mean. It's the same with drugs. Sure people should be able to do what they want with their own body (and they can, if they move to canada or amsterdam or something) but it has "spillover costs" associated with it, and it affects the rest of society. For gay marriage, the spillover costs are vague, but it mostly goes down to the family unit, which is well defined, and is a vital part of our bureaucracy. I wont go into any more detail than that, but I agree that the federal government should recognize civil unions, but the state should decide whether gays should fall under civil unions or marriage. I also think federal adoption laws should be reformed to specify when a kid can legally be adopted by a gay couple, if they have strong family ties to one of the partners, or if the kid has been floating around without a steady home for a number of years. Infants should not be adopted by gay couples under any circumstances. A straight couple makes a much healthier family unit and there are plenty of couples waiting in line to adopt a baby. If the government had no say in who could get married, it might as well not exist at all.