Now that Ive cooled off....

[Interceptor]

I know there are ways to prevent it and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be practiced. Sometimes it just happens though. No contraceptive is 100% effective and some people just aren't ready to have children. We should probably think of the child in these instanances too. It's quite the financial burden raising a child, and a lot of parents to be simply can't afford it. Leaving their unborn to possibly face a life of poverish conditions. Though don't get me wrong, I'm sure abortion is an abused practice and that some who use it are just straight up irresponsible. But who are we to decided that?

[Dmitry M. (Lazer)]

I think first off you have to leave religion out of it

You can't just keep out what you believe in. A religion is your belief and if you stand strong on it and you fight for what you believe. So religion has no play in goverment but it may have an influence on the person voting. But why is it wrong, isn't everything we vote for is what we believe. If you don't think so and you believe everything is fact, then i doubt we would have others voting for different parties.

Like the Marijuana party, thought not many votes go to it, there are some votes that do go to that party. Yes factual it's not right good to vote for that party, because it brings out no use, but to those that believe it does, they should be able to vote for whatever reasons they wish.

THIS IS WHAT MAKES OUR COUNTRY FREE! If it not be for that you would never have Free Speech.

[svosen]

Women should be able to do whatever they want to their own bodies - I agree.

However, when they abort a fetus, they are inflicting harm on a separate human being. They should not be allowed legalized free-reign over those lives.

As far as the notion of abortion being preferential to being born into an impoverished family: Why is it that you all talk about how we should each be allowed to decide what is right for us, but you are unwilling to realize that aborting a child for reasons of your own is forcing your will on another human. How can you honestly justify making decisions to end human life based on your interpretation of POSSIBLE conditions of their lives? It may be that they face a tough life, but if you kill them before birth they will not have the option of trying to overcome those circumstances. Based on your logic, we should go out and slaughter all children who might face hardship at some point in their lives. After all, who wants to live if there are going to be trials to face?

Living with the consequences of your actions: How pathetic and selfish are we now, that we are unwilling to live with the consequences of our actions? People want only what's best for them (or at least what they desire); who cares how it affects anyone else. I can't believe that anyone would rather kill an unborn child than deal with the "difficulties" of raising him, simply because they are so selfish that they don't want to deal with change.

This really all comes back to the concept I've been mentioning: relative truth. It is a completely illogical concept - believing that there is not absolute truth (an individual's "truth" doesn't have to stand up to anything other than his opinion, nor does any other person's beliefs). I see nobody has bothered to attempt to adequately describe how relative truth can possibly be a logical, substantial belief system that can be reconciled with reality.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by KCAA


6 million jobs.

Absolute ****ing bullshit.

If you're going to make dumbass ****ing lies like this, our conversation is over. It's bad enough you lied about unemployment, outsourcing, and everything else, and that your only argument seems to be we're a theocracy because your daddy says so, but to make dumbass, bald faced lies like this is just absolutely beneath contempt.

If our economy actually lost 6 million jobs, either net or gross, during Bush's presidency, we'd be in a depression. We've actually had a net gain during his administration, even after the recession and 9/11.

I can't ****ing stand liars.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by Voice

Ryan: Your statements on Native Americans and Slaves are so ridiculous, where in the **** did you learn that shit?

I never said that Slavery or torture was done in the name of god, I said the people who did it were religious men who believed strongly in the bible. My problem has never been with religion itself, it has always been with people who follow it....certain people. Not the religion itself.

That's why I can say that I believe in THE GOD. The only god that there is. I believe in his teachings, I believe in the bible. What I don't believe in is the forcing of his word on other people. All that has caused is war and murder.


Getting plastered in my house is my right, I can do that.....they tried making that illegal before too....and look what that brought about...the ****ing MAFIA.

My point is, yes, chopping a woman's head off should be illegal...but should a woman's choice to have a baby or not be illegal? no...it shouldn't.

Just the implication that George W. Bush is trying to impose this as an ammendment sickens me....and if you don't agree that it will open the window for other ammendments taking away even more freedom....then we just disagree.

Voice, how the **** do you think we got slaves out of Africa? You think a few white guys went in there and just took away slaves and the tribes there said "have fun enslaving our people!"?

The slave trade REQUIRED blacks in Africa to sell other black people. It was usually a dominant tribe selling members of other tribes for profit. It's not something you learn in school, because it's not PC. Usually all we are taught in high school is that America owned slaves and Lincoln freed them and that was what the civil war was about.

Truth is, slavery had little to do with the civil war, and black people have been selling off other blacks as slaves for hundreds of years. If you find that hard to believe, I suggest you take a look at even recent African history, and stop relying on the bullshit you're fed in public high school.

As for indians, what part of my post are you disputing? The fact that they migrated here from asia, or the fact that they were indeed just as violent a culture as Europe? Even in public schools I'm sure you must have learned about the various coalitions indians formed to wage war on other indians.

Let me guess... you're one of those people who believes Thanksgiving is a holiday commemorating the murder of the "Native American", huh?

I swear, far too many people in this country cite their own ignorance as proof that their worldview is correct:

"I've never heard of this, so instead of actually looking into it to see if it's true, or thinking about it in a rational way, I'll just dismiss it as being false."

I'd prefer not to have to make linker arguments, essay style, but if I have to document common sense and plain fact with Google links every time I make a statement, just to stop you from basing your objections on your own ignorance, I will.

Your last statements about abortion and constitutional ammendments is nothing but a Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy. Make a logical argument and then we'll discuss your stance on that issue.

[Dmitry M. (Lazer)]

Originally posted by Ryan H.


KCAA here are some facts:

Absolute ****ing bullshit.

If you're going to make dumbass ****ing lies like this, our conversation is over. It's bad enough you lied about unemployment, outsourcing, and everything else, and that your only argument seems to be we're a theocracy because your daddy says so, but to make dumbass, bald faced lies like this is just absolutely beneath contempt.

If our economy actually lost 6 million jobs, either net or gross, during Bush's presidency, we'd be in a depression. We've actually had a net gain during his administration, even after the recession and 9/11.

I can't ****ing stand liars.

The highest unemployment has ever been till date in Bush's Presidency was at 6.3%. As of Oct. 2005 the unemployment rate is at 5.5%.

If you want to start making false comments KCAA, how about i show you this fact, in January & February of 1994, during Clinton's Presidency unemployment was at 6.6%, higher then it's ever been during Bush's Presidency. And yes Clinton did get it down to 3.9% as of December of 2000. Now how about you give Bush a chance on the unemployment rate and maybe he will get it down lower as well.

EDIT: Keep in mind Unemployment rates mentioned are considered for ages 16 and over.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by Dmitry M. (Lazer)


:EDIT: Keep in mind Unemployment rates mentioned are considered for ages 16 and over.

You're wasting your time. He apparently believes Bush 'lost' six million jobs.

And unemployment rates are never near zero, anyway, because even the government will tell you that between 3-5% of the population is, at any given time, unemployable.

And either way, presidents have little, if any, direct control over the economy.

Clinton had shit to do with the economy rising OR falling during his tenure. The private sector, namely the dot com boom, was responsible for the massive amount of growth, and the private sector, namely the dot com bubble burst, was responsible for the economy tanking.

Basically, the dot com and tech boom had the economy growing faster than it could support itself. Any time you have that kind of growth, you're going to get just as big a collapse as you did an increase, because sooner or later the market can't maintain growth and it collapses on itself.

The only way a president can directly influence the economy and unemployment is by increasing or decreasing government. Kerry said he would create ten million jobs. The only way he, John Kerry, could have done that would be to increase the size of government by ten million jobs.

The fact is that the economy is cyclical, and the results of fiscal policy are usually felt years after whatever president enacted them leaves office. The boom in the early nineties had a lot to do with Reagan's tax cuts in 1980 and '86, because the tax cuts lowered the top marginal tax rate from a whopping 70% to 48%, and business tax cuts gave companies and investors WAY more venture capital to invest in what was then a burgeoning technology sector.

Clinton's fiscal policy was relatively mild, and will probably have little if any lasting effect, positive or negative, because even his tax increases were largely negated by the private sector's enormous growth.

As for Bush's fiscal policy, only a ****ing moron is ready to pass judgement on it now. It's entirely possible that his making the tax cuts and estate tax elimination permanent could have DIRE effects on the economy. It's also possible that they could tremendously BOOST the economy. It takes years for the market to respond to executive fiscal policy, unless it's something incredibly drastic like FDR's decision to create withholding taxes. See, back during the war, people paid all their taxes at the end of the year, but we needed more money faster to keep our war machine going, so the government started taxing paychecks up front, to get tax revenue faster. It was supposed to stop after the end of the war, but the policy was never reversed.

If anyone plans on arguing any of the points brought forth in this post, I would appreciate it if they did so from the realms of reality. If you're going to claim that Bush lost six million jobs or that the unemployment rate is ridiculously high, you're just going to be wasting our time.

[KCAA]

Originally posted by Ryan H.


Absolute ****ing bullshit.

If you're going to make dumbass ****ing lies like this, our conversation is over. It's bad enough you lied about unemployment, outsourcing, and everything else, and that your only argument seems to be we're a theocracy because your daddy says so, but to make dumbass, bald faced lies like this is just absolutely beneath contempt.

If our economy actually lost 6 million jobs, either net or gross, during Bush's presidency, we'd be in a depression. We've actually had a net gain during his administration, even after the recession and 9/11.

I can't ****ing stand liars.

Okay, fine I exaggerated alot. Did you know politicians do that alot? How bout a reasonable number ---hmmm say 2.7 million.

By the way, why again were blacks FORCED to slave trade? Oh yeah, because they get killed by WHITES if they don't....hmmm...id say blacks had a choice.

Ryan & Dimitry - Will either of you, if Bush ****s up, and we still lose jobs or something like that...will you then say fine Bush was ineffective. Or will you continue to defend him.

[Lefty Grove]

Originally posted by KCAA

Lefty --- If you argue that life starts at "x" point, then you cannot in any circumstance kill ANY living thing. Because that would be immoral. Killing ants...thats killing life.

Yeah, I agree with you on that. I say if we kill animals of all kind, we should be allowed to have an abortion (early).

But then there are arguements on "which organism has more potential, we could be killing the next Albert Einstein," etc. I don't agree with them, but I'm just saying there are two sides to the story.

[Dmitry M. (Lazer)]

Originally posted by KCAA

Ryan & Dimitry - Will either of you, if Bush ****s up, and we still lose jobs or something like that...will you then say fine Bush was ineffective. Or will you continue to defend him.

Yes i will, but are you blind or what. Unemployment rate has gone down. And is steadily decreasing. You will see that it will decrease once Bush is in his last term. Like Ryan mentioned the President or Government does not have control or any direct way in association with the economy. We live in a Free-Market economy. Though the Government can allow tax breaks to try and increase jobs, which is a theory without proof. But truthfully it probably works to a certain extent but not that of which the government believes it'll work, there is still no direct way for the government to deal with the economy, other then shutting down trusts and monopolies.