Dr.Worthless

You may call being kicked out, then go back, then get kicked out, then go back, working, I don't. A man that proclaims he wants israel wiped off the map, that the west is out to get everyone muslim, that everything is the fault of zionism, and that the holocaust didn't happen isn't out for a mutually satisfactory outcome, no matter how much benefit of the doubt you want to give him. President Bush is doing the right thing and negotiating. If the !@#$%^&*ing president of Iran completely did a 180 and went from wanting to cooperate to saying !@#$%^&* the west because the United States called him Evil, do you question his ability to compromise? You should. You may call what was going on "negotiations". I call what was going on buying himself time. I'm interested in negotiating with people who are interested in negotiation, not those that just seek to buy themselves time. Right, except in this instance the tortoise and the hare are 4000 miles apart, speak with eachother about once a month, and the hare might win the race at the end because he's got a big !@#$%^&*ing bomb waiting for the tortoise at the finish line. The hare hasn't won the race yet because he wants the tortoise to think he's actually got the chance to win the race, but what he's really doing is buying himself time to finish the trap at the finish line... Or he's avoided another decade of dancing around the system at the cost of Saddam actually getting all the weapons he wanted, and giving them to folks who will use them. Thousands of AMERICANS dead, a decade of land in the middle of New York that cant be lived on, and an end that would = what we're in right now, War. Like I said before, If Saddam was actually interested in mutual negotation he would have done what was required when it was required, not spent a decade throwing the world community a finger. I can understand you wanting to give Saddam however long he wants to negotiate with the UN, because it wouldn't be London, or Paris, or Quebec, or Madrid, or Berlin that would have got hit.

Absolutly! Me, and apparently President Bush agrees with you because the president is FOR negotations with Iraq and if they will not negotiate for it to go to the UN, then on to the security councle. What you, and most people simply choose to ignore is that the world community, the UN and the security councle, had been dealing with Saddam and Iraq for OVER a decade, and Saddam continually showed he had no interest in working with the UN, or the world community. I understand you think the US rushed head first into a conflict, what you choose to ignore is the decade of negotiation the US unilaterally, and multilaterally through the UN, had with Saddam and Iraq.

So its your opinion that Iran won't have anything to do with us because the current president said they were in the "axis of evil". Heh... Ok, so its your opinion that the UN did its job. So now why are you criticizing the president for wanting to take this issue to the UN? You make no sense... Monte, I'm convince its impossible for me to see things your way, and honestly i'm trying. You wanted Iraq to be delt with by the UN, you want Iran to be delt with by the United States. You say the UN did its job with Iraq, but say the UN isn't a good idea for Iran. Russia/China have been in talks with Iran, infact, im fairly certain that the president wants this situation worked out with Iran's neighbors spear heading the effort, much like with N.Korea. I agree, so I don't see how you can say "omg this is bush's fault he screwed up"...

You shouldn't, the object in discussion is absolutly brilliant and worthy of your worship/admiration.

We've already agreed that Iran has had nuclear ambitions for nearly 20 years, why are you trying to half-!@#$%^&* blame the current administration for something that SHOULD have been brought up a long time ago? The current administration is doing the correct thing, the EXACT same thing we did with IRAQ when we first started going after them for developing a weapon, that is going through the UN. When/If the UN fails again on, we'll see what happens. How can you say "Bush" hasn't "exactly done much" when the issue is most likely going to go to the security councle? Don't tell me you're one of those "unilateral action is bad US, BAD, but take care of Iran now you terrible president!" people. While this would make the most logical sense, how can we apply logic to the current situation, from a man that says the holocaust was a ploy, and that the recent islam cartoons were really setup by jews/"the west" because we're bitter over Hamas being elected in palestine? To the whole they need power spheel, the russians have offered to bring them the needed materials then haul off the byproducts and store them in russia for them, to ensure they don't have the spent material to further refine into weapon-grade plutonium. Of course, Iran refused...

I cannot justify fire bombing emb!@#$%^&*ies and killing people over a political cartoon by any stretch of my imagination. Neither should you.

A.) Iran didn't start developing nuclear weapons because they were scared of the current president and his rhetoric, unless they built a time machine in the 80's teleported to 2003 and listened to some the radio, then teleported back and started their ambitions. B.) If you think Iran is building a nuke for defensive purposes, you're as nutty as their current "president".

Teach science in science class, teach religion in phil, class. I don't see the !@#$%^&*ing problem here.. Could it be that my penis created life 100000000000 trillion years ago and I'm not aware of it? Sure, but that should be discussed in the proper forum. Btw, Monte, 3000 years from now Berkeley will be proven right and we'll discover what he did back in the 1700's, we really are living in THE MATRIX OMG!!

I find it extremely amusing that you value the life of someone who's taken a life over one that hasn't had the chance to exist. Though, considering you were awefully quick to point the finger back instead of replying to the jab, I'm not terribly suprised. Besides, we should make serial killers liabilities of the tax dollar, right, after all they deserve to live, but fetus's dont.

Can you provide me links pertaining to this? I'm studying to enter the education field and wasn't aware of this.

You are correct, in that instance it is better. However, Like I said above I'm willing to say that the majority of divorces aren't got because of those situations. Having an increased percentage of divorce increases the children who live in poverty, which increases the gap between have and have nots. All it takes is a spark to light a fire, and if there are alot of have nots, the fire grows quickly.

OMG MONTEZUMA YOU BROKE ONE OF GERBILS RULES OF INTERNET POSTING!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry... Anywho I absolutly agree. The current divorce rate in America is floating around 50%, lets just throw out a number and say 10% of those involve children. How many of those 10% do you think involve truely dysfunctional familes where the child would be done a service by the parents splitting? I would say under half. Divorce can be a good thing, it can also be a bad thing. It was for me when I had to go through it, and it effectivly moved me from middle-class to well into poverty in 1 day. It works both ways, and in most cases I would say it does more harm than good. I don't think we can view children who live in single parent homes as being on equal footing as those with 2 parents. Kids aren't advantaged or disadvantaged, kids live with the reality they are handed. In terms of ability, the kid who lives with 1 parent has just as much as the child who lives with 2. However, most often, the child who lives with 2 parents has access to an incredible amount of resources when compaired to the child whom grows up with 1. In my view, this is a problem. Because when looking at where a child goes in his or her life, if one child is given more resources than another child, when both have the same ability, its more likely that child A is going to go further. If one demographic has more "A" children, than another demographic who has more "B" children, viola, we've got France, and to an extent the USA. Children from the "B" category can and sometimes do become very successful, but far more B's, who have just as much ability, get left behind.

I heard a statistic concerning the employment of the demographic rioting, I don't remember exactly but there were high numbers of high-school dropouts in the demographic also. Poor and Uneducated is a very bad combination. This goes into intentional racism/result-based racism and clearly this is a result-based racism case. If this demographic is in the situation they are in, even in a socialist nation like France, they are clearly being discriminated against, and clearly they aren't very happy about it. The fact that they are counted as unemployed shows that the job isn't there. France's unemployment rate is floating around 10%, around the highest for industrialized countries. Very true, when the average poor person on the earth lives off of around $150, this demographic is doing well above average, and certainly are doing much better than how'd they be if their parents hadn't imigrated to France. However, Many educated folks can't grasp that idea, so to expect uneducated ones to is unrealistic. I believe Divorce is likely to take away one of the above.

I'l do whatever I please, you do not control the forums and you sure as !@#$%^&* don't control how I use quotation marks, if you don't like how I do it, tough !@#$%^&*. "Moron lesson#3" You are not the internet policeman. Examples please. If you use Murder as a noun, you get this. mur·der Audio pronunciation of "murder" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr) n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. If you use it as a verb, you get this. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v. tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce. This was my attempt to get you away from the law definition (where as something has to be human for you to murder it) and into the usage of the word (where as I'm justified in using murdered, as it can mean "to put an end to") I recognize that in terms of law I cannot use the word "murder", because the core arguement is if an unborn child is human or not. In terms of the English Language, I can. I do not use quoting to appeal to your visual preferences, nor do I even consider your preferences when I type a post. Infact. Lets quote your whole post here just for ASSS and giggles. Quoted a definition and didn't explain why the definition used before was different because it was not. c) Ugly use of quoting. Poster doesn't know how to use quotations like any normal writer (this is an insult to many people, not just one). We'll just continue editing your posts until you can post in a manner, in which an actual discussion on abortion can take place. Or the argument in favor of abortions (regulated or not) will be the end result of the discussion no matter how much bull!@#$%^&* you spew. If you don't like my use of quotes, please fill out the "go !@#$%^&* yourself" form, and e-mail it to shut-the-!@#$%^&*-up@reduceinternetpoliceman.org, or if you prefer mail the form to Worthless Headquarters P.O Box 323345253523445 Shove it up your !@#$%^&*, AR 77584 I'll carefully consider your complaint, while digesting some cherry flavor laxitive. Once the magical liquid takes effect, I will fill out the reply section of the form and promptly mail it back to you. I would expect nothing less from SS forums, where Worthless continues to be the vocal minority! Absolutly!

Perhaps, I wanted you to clarify your statement. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v. tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce. Its context of a verb or a noun does matter. Mabye its you who needs a few lessons? (in reference to below) First of all, I could list my academic accomplishments if you like, but lets take the easy route and assume that I don't need to be walked through anything unless I say. Secondly, you're not catching my arguement. When a human male and a human female have sex and create a zygote (and its future development) that creation cannot be anything other than human. Its development isn't a dice roll, and the mother isn't going to give birth to anything other than a human baby, so why is it we do not classify the creation as human, if its the only thing it can develop into? Lastly, why are you we discussing natural abortions? We cannot control if a zygote will attach itself to to the uterise and begin to grow. Again, lets focus the topic on abortion, if I need a lesson from you rest !@#$%^&*ured i'll ask for it. Ok, and? You aren't complicating anything, you're just making an !@#$%^&* out of yourself. The key word is "split".. by definition if you "split" one object, you then have 2. Wowza... We're not discussing zygotes that didn't attach themselves, we're discussing one that DID and OTHERS then killed them. Why do you insist on swaying from the core arguement? Hey look at me!!, I can make arguement circular, if you bring up a point that I care not to discuss I'll try and belittle your arguement by making you look stupid, or bringing up another topic completely! I wondered why I took a break from the forums, thanks for reminding me =).

Sorry gerbils, I wasn't aware this was the preschool messageboard, I'll go over to where the big people hold discussions instead of pointing out I said "kill" when you said "murder" (rollseyes) Ok.. are you trying to say the Culture of america would be for or against abortion? If you want to make decisions based on culture, who's culture do we use as a measuring stick? Sorry, next time i'll make it a verb and can use it in context of ending a life, no matter lawfully or unlawfully. "Having an abortion is murdering a child" Better? Your foreskin can be nothing other than foreskin... Your foreskin doesn't develop into something, an embryo does. Like I said, playing little games is great but the core arguement goes back to your view of an embryo as a sack of cells, and my view of an embryo as being human. They also thought the earth was flat in past times, "past times" isn't a very good reference in any discussion. I'm still baffled with your requirement of sentience to be determined human. Is it possible for a human to not be sentient. The second the collection of cells thats formed by the combination of a human sperm and a human egg comes into existant, those cells are a human being, they do not have the potential to be anything else. This is one of those issues that I think its literally impossible to understand opposite viewpoints, cause I'm trying very hard to understand yours and I'm drawing a blank. Moreso than not existing at all? I don't get it. Its the fathers sperm. Why are fathers rights non existant until the childs born? On the flip-side, why shouldn't a man have the right to require his babies mother to have an abortion, or the ability to wave his obligation to child support? After all, if the father is not capable to pay child support, or take care of the child, couldn't the same arguement be aplied?

Saying you are contradicting yourself by saying its ok to kill animals and not ok to kill humans is !@#$%^&*anine and is only a "yeah well what about this" arguement by pro-choicers. Bottom line is its not ok to kill another human being, steer the arguement back to the core of the difference, that being my belief that a human is a human at the point of conception, and your belief that humans are a sack of cells until we become self aware. (Which is rediculous in my opinion, as if the some fetus's do not become self aware...) Seriously.. if you aren't willing to actually be responsible for a child, don't take risks that could potentially bring one into this world. Abortion should not be your "oops I made a mistake" catch all card. Its not even a premarital sex question, its a sex question. I don't care if you've been married for 30 years and are a 45 year old virgin, if you aren't willing to bring a child into this world and be responsible for its upbringing, you better !@#$%^&* well buy fresh condoms, make sure the chick is on the pill, spray contraceptive foam up inside of her before you get busy, etc. No where in the definition you provided does the word "sentient" appear. Thats a stipulation you throw in so the definition cannot be applied to embryos. If am embryo isn't a human, what is it? A human embryo can be nothing other than human, by design. You can argue "well on X day its just a collection of cells", however that collection of cells cannot be anything other than human, given its development. You can say you are killing a collection of cells, but you are killing a human being, the cells cannot be anything else but. Justifying ending the life because it is not yet sentient is not only ignorant, but appauling. "It doesn't realize we're killing it, so I guess it's ok..." /boggle. In my opinion, Abortion should be for cases of rape and cases where the mothers life is in jeapordy. Anything else is really just birth control. Furthermore, if Abortions are kept as is, women should be required to have the written concent of the father of the child, if the father isn't available (ran off, etc) it can be the womans choice.

Placing the rights of one human being over another isn't ever good. Then again, that goes into if you believe an embryo is a human or not, the whole arguement is circular. So wait, obviously the female didn't make a good decision when she decided to spread her legs without some form of birth control. She didn't have the foresight to realize the concequences of her actions whenever she had sex, so what makes you think she has the potential to realize the concequences of an abortion? Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control, which in my opinion it currently is.

God, as are mine.. Growing up in a city of 4,000 in the Arkansas mountains, most of us had never seen $20,000 in our lives, much less renting a "lodge" or going on a cruise worth that much. I wouldn't give up the dozens of parties out at my friends hunting cabin in the middle of the Ozark mountains. Beautiful location, about 30 miles out of civilization in the middle of bum-!@#$%^&* nowhere, along the banks of the Mulberry River. Me and my buds still go out there upon occasion, possibly the best place in the world. www.turnerbend.com if you all are curious to see the terrain and surroundings of this little piece of heaven =), unfortunatly Arkansas has been through a drought this year, the river hasn't been much over 1.0 since the begining of the year =/

The poor kids weren't participating in the Prom anyway, so its a moot point trying to argue that canceling the prom deprives them of the experience. Its a question of liability in my eyes, if the Prom couldn't be controlled due to spoiled rich kids, its in the schools best interest to cancle the prom, that simple.

A.) I doubt the University will fire her without due cause, that opens the ins!@#$%^&*ution for a lawsuit. B.) I doubt the various groups calling for her head will ease down, character assassination is a powerful politicla tool. C.) If the lady is proven innocent I hope she slaps those loose-lipped loudmouths with the mother of all slander suits.

And here in the United States we wonder why the newest generation coming up has a higher rate of inep!@#$%^&*ude, a higher likelyhood to cheat, etc, etc, etc. In this instance the prom was simply socioeconomic event, with the "Haves" participating and the "Have-Nots" being excluded. The principle in this case made the right decision. Here in Arkansas the problem isn't as bad as it is in other places, but there is a wide disparity between the "have" and "have nots". It's not right to lump children based on their family's socioeconomic level, but in my experiences my hardest working children are those that haven't had life handed to them, where as children who are privledged tend to expect things given to them, without much effort on their part. I wish parents would realize that they are only hurting their children when they treat them like royalty. The above being said, its only the extreme cases of over-privledge that really produce non-productive members of society, and unfortunatly the parents are only breeding life long leeches. As to my Prom. $45 on a rented tux, picked my girlfriend up in my 84 Camaro that I paid $1500 for, and we had a blast

The answer, very big, and very small.

The Universal Truth can be found in my pants, thats all you need to know. Lets start a new !@#$%^&*ing thread so I can get angry and logically smack people around again. The last major thread turned into "OMG WORTHLESS IS SO MEAN BOOOHOOO he cussed me but I can call people Hitler and Fascist without any proof boooohoooo (goes back to making factless acusations)"

Yeah, Hitler really didn't give a !@#$%^&* what you did with your money or how you made it.. As long as you weren't a Jew.