Ducky

I distinctly said that it is murder, and just about anything else someone does of convienance with animals falls into the category of murder. I'm guilty of the same acts, but I'm not sitting here !@#$%^&* footing words around in an attempt to make myself look superior or somehow more saintly.

You are compairing a being with little to no life, with that of someone with 5 years of life. Am I missing something? People can !@#$%^&* and whine all they want about killing tissue and potential life, all the while putting pets to "sleep". People do what conveniences them and makes thier own life better. You guys call people murderer in a demeaning way. We all kill !@#$%^&*, whether we actually want to or not. When you had to put your dog or cat to sleep; Did you flip a coin and decide or did you weigh in all the factors. Obviously you chose that silent embrace was a better route for her than to live suffering. Is that what they wanted? You don't know, you made an informed decision with the knowledge you had. Mothers aren't flipping coins and deciding, they make perfectly qualified decisions. ----------- But hey, "Human life is better." or whatever you guys can choke down.

Or, just not yet a man.

I think they are equal :-p Not really a time for politics as everyone is basically burned out We can try though!

Are you trying to say Mr. Potato head has no awareness? I don't think Mrs. Potato head will take kindly that statement http://www.neonraven.com/images/mr%20phead.jpg

The north leads me to believe they still have Slaves too.

In my experience-- Children who were poor laughed at the rich kids who wasted money on the same cloths with a label. Children who were rich laughed at the poor kids who didn't have money for a label. Kinda pointless.

Truth

I agree with many of Ailerons points. I was hoping that the private/public difference wouldn't come up, but it did. Despite what the school is, I think appropriate action was taken. Prom isn't the end all to all things, and I myself find it considerably silly to spend that much money. Similar to Aileron, I also didn't attend any proms. Not because I lacked the funds, (Which I did regardless) but because as pointed out earlier: It seemed like a big waste of money. My personal solution to the prom is making it non formal for the most part. It won't have an immediate effect, but over the years, more and more kids will start spending less as the idea spreads.

Just saw it on the news this morning, figured I would post something. Here Thoughts? Is this a valid concern, or are people taking things too far.

Considering I wasn't disillusioned and knew no one who was, I have a huge difficulty in understanding the situation in which you are attempting to claim. You are correct, I will give you that. Misread on my part. How are you linking this to negative campaigning. I link it to Apathy towards Kerry himself. Just because he came out to be the top Democratic Candidate doesn't mean he was any good. People do vote that way, yes. NOT EVERYONE VOTES THAT WAT. The whole reason I even posted is because you claimed they should have done this. The fact that people do it, and whether or not they should based on your opinion is the discussion. """""If you were moderate you wouldn't support Bush tongue.gif. Did you not see where his point is on the webpage?""""That's support. You said that because he was in a certain political spectrum, he shouldn't have supported who he did. Later you clarrified that stance with additional arguements and statements. If you don't support something, you don't advocate it. You must have missed the grammar boat on that one, or my mind just completely shut down. I'm curious as to where I said that you were even a conservative in a non example standpoint. I use 'the poor' standpoint alot because it works. People can argue politics allday and simply miss the logic behind it. You seem paranoid and are starting to do some of the things you attempted to call me down for. You know, those !@#$%^&*umptions. Societys' corruption that you support. Back on Track """"If you were moderate you wouldn't support Bush tongue.gif. Did you not see where his point is on the webpage?"""" Why can't he not support Bush. Now remember, you 'don't' believe in political segregation. I'm waiting for a real arguement. Everything up until this point has been side tracked rubbish. Last I checked, people could vote anyway they could possibly imagine for any possible reason; But apparently they aren't supposed to. I'm curious as to why.

I never claimed they didn't attempt to tap into the non voting pool.I simply said that you needed swings and there was a large % of them needed to tip the odds in your favor. In Elections, they DO cater to swings. It's what most of the effort is for. They don't show up in random cities where they have majority support multiple times. Look at the places candidates frequently travel, swing states. """The Republican Party has plenty of middle class/ working class supporters, yet they are undeniably pro rich""" So what part of the statement is you NOT saying that? You have yet to offer proof of how he accomplished the feat of getting others not to vote. I don't know many people who felt that they shouldn't have voted because of negative campaign ads. """""If you were moderate you wouldn't support Bush tongue.gif. Did you not see where his point is on the webpage?"""" What part of that is not telling someone who they should have voted for. You were brought up supporting political segregation. Nothing in this statement is false. That's putting no words in your mouth and it is the truth. Thinking someone from the same political spectrum should vote for one specific party is the evidence. Somewhere in your lifetime, this was evident and you found it okay and decided to support the system. It wasn't an arguement, it was my opinion given after my anecdote about not voting for 1 of two parties. Evaluate the word stupid and get back to me In all reality, it is the country we live in. Being poor has its perks on being able to observe a fic!@#$%^&*ious corrupt system. The world is often not what people think of it, living in a "basically almost"' ghetto has shown me that. We battled with different views, but despite it all; You claimed that people should stick to their own plain and simple. That's hilarity at its best.

When somone posts something Anti-American, does anyone on this board post against it, no matter what the topic was about? Negative campaigning discourages as much as encourages voting. IT's a reletive equal balance, so much to the point you will have to find another way that has discouraged voters. If someone says, Your candidate is stupid, do you say "Oh, yea.. ok" or "Well no, he isn't, I will vote to spite you because I believe in him." I didn't vote because of negative campaigning; I didn't vote because I wanted a third party who had no chance to win. Had that third party not been present, I would have voted liberal just because of some of the things Kerry wanted to do. Both candidates were bad regardless. A small window of undecided can still make the majority in which is needed to decide the outcome. 45% liberal 45% Conservative. 10% swing. Let's assume that those number dictate the exact support. You need the majority of those swings to win. We aren't necessarily talking about Camps tealing, as the main focus was on a Moderate who you claimed should have voted one way "Because that's what I would do." That claim is complete rubbish. Are you trying to present an arguement that Bush won without using swings? Are you trying to present an arguement that all middle class and working republicans are all undeniably pro rich? Quit claiming that everyone in Group A should believe in Group A policies and Group B should stick with thier own. You're promoting segregation without fact because that's how you were brought up. You posted no pure facts, only opinion on who you think should do what. I stick by my earlier conclusions.

You obviously can't be spoken to. It wouldn't suprise me if the country's majority are moderates/swing. People, who in all reality decide who to vote for over 1 or 2 issues that effect them personally. There are numerous conservatives who believe in pro choice. If one of the major issues in my life were about abortion and this candidate proposed something outstanding that I liked, I would vote for him. There aren't any if, ands or buts about it. If I feel the person has a way of making better my daily life or those close to me, I support him no matter his political party. You are, a complete moron for not understanding that. I can't even put into words another label to !@#$%^&*le you as. Elections are built towards the indecisive, those that are in the middle like Worthless. There are reletively few ways to discourage people from voting without inciting numerous of them. The whole first half of elections are based solely on swinging moderates. Some candidates even try till the very last day. A party doesn't try and get people to not go, that's supers!@#$%^&*ious bull!@#$%^&*. (One example cited is Florida black prisoners who the liberals took and spun the !@#$%^&* out of to make it seem the election was rigged) All they do is attempt to get a greater number of people in. People vote down the board because they don't follow politics. That's the simple reality. It's a safe !@#$%^&*umption that their way of life will be upheld no matter thier choice. I agree that alot of people will stick to their own party, as not many are familiar with politics. To say someone should have voted a certain way however is completely inane. This combo'd in with a few other silly replies in other threads makes it clear to me you haven't half a clue what you are talking about.

I never said one word about supporting someone with similar views as you. Bush could eat adopted babies for lunch, but so long as he could give free healthcare, I wouldn't give two ASSS. That's exactly what's wrong with this country and why you have taken the dumb !@#$%^&* award. You don't automatically support somone in the same political spectrum as you until you analize what they are about and what they want to do. Why are there even elections. Are you suggesting to register with your politcal party and let everything run it's course. More liberals than conservatives? Looks like a Liberal president?

That takes the prize for the most ignorant statement of the week. You support a person because you believe they have the potential to make the changes you yourself desire. To correct your statement. Because if you are moderate yourself, you are more likely to support a moderate candidate. Maybe that's what is wrong with the world. Supporting people just because they wear the same label you do.

1. I didn't even make that statement. Way to attack me turbo. My way of disproving you is more sound. 2. A few major things here and there doesn't equal Universal. 3. It has yet to prove anything except for yourself.

Fwiw? You cool internet slang user you.

Do unto others is flawed in a similar way that some religion in general is. You simply can't prove or disprove a universal right and wrong. Let's take a debate in another thread for example. Homosexual marriage. Do unto others infers that Homosexual marriage is moral. It's not uncommon for a minority without right to a specific thing to want equal oppurtunity. However, there is no universal right or wrong to it because the majority of us can't simply become homosexual overnight and put ourselves into the perspective. That's simple reality. Using Aileron as an example-- (No other opposer comes to mind) Would he want marriage 'rights' if he were homosexual. In short, it's almost safe to assume that he would say no (The arguement doesn't matter); but there is no definate way that he could ever know the true answer. Universal implies that it is present in every situation; which it isn't. That's my only current 'beef'. 12 hour workdays of late are making me too tired.

Why wouldn't you support Bush being a moderate. Doesn't make sense.

That doesn't explain right and wrong.

Economic Left/Right: -3.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36 Same deal as the past few times I have taken it.

No, it's not about self indulgance at every oppurtunity. That's a spinned fact so you are able to feel more comfortable with yourself.It's indulgance, whenever you want, with anything you want. That doesn't equate to everything. A woman who enjoys casual sex doesn't have to be a glutton. I never touched your commandment. I simply stated to those who believe killing is wrong. I made certain to avoid the commandment in all actuality so that my point was valid. Your broad classification and !@#$%^&*umption on what a satanist would do ends with one or two people? Black people eat watermelon and chicken everyday? I can't speak for Sever, but I can for myself.I don't make wrong decisions. Ever. It simply isn't an option available. People choose right and wrong for themselves, true. Basically at this point, I am defined into a group, hooray. So, you are 'right' in the discussion, but you can't tell us why; other than examples of scientific data that socially can't be disproven given the average intellect of a person and changing what was truly meant by what everyone has previously said. I take into consideration your 3 catagories save the last one. To believe the last one, you must first believe that morality (In this sense; right/wrong) is real. It isn't a matter of what is right for me may be wrong for you. It's a matter of what is right for me may be wrong for you only because I am never wrong. Given example numbers., I know there are 100% right decisions. You acknowledge 75% right decisions and 25% wrong ones. So despite what anyone says and who they are, they are automatically at the same percentile as you. For what reason? Universal right and wrong that you can't define. You didn't even list evidence that there is right and wrong based on decision. You only cited right and wrong based on factual evidence. (Something we have never argue'd on here.) If 100 people die, then 100 people died. There's no debate. If 2+2=4, then it is. There isn't a decision involved. Abortion, gay marriage, war, religion and any other contraversal issues are based on decision. Right and Wrong have many descriptions, and the only way you are solidifying thier existance are in ways we aren't even talking about in context. A man has locked himself in a cage and is starving to death. The man is known to have killed 17,000 people in a bombing on a phsycological whim. What do you do. If you leave the man there, you are being vengeful. If you let the man go, you will most likely be destroyed in whatever fashion, a;png with the chance other people will lose thier lives. In both scenerio's, you are happy with the decision you have made for whatever reason. That is indulgence. You my friend, are a satanist.

You were pointing out what the morally right decision was due to your faith, and misinterpretted that of another faith. An extremely common occurance when it comes to debating things with you. Christianity, as you stated gives help for things people would not know/realize on their own. Satanism expects you to know these things, and encourages indulgance based on your appropriate level of commitment and knowledge. No where does it state: "Be a glutton, everything will be fine." Morality and whether right and wrong is present is a different topic. One in which you already know my answer. Morality, if you believe in its existance does not always go hand in hand with decision though. A person may state it's wrong to kill people, but those who follow such a rule state self defense is something else entirely. It's only moral until thier own well being is threatened or they feel the need to gain an edge. One could assume ghandi was a greater man only out of preference. A man could say pacifism is a better route than death in a certain scenerio, not because he believes killing is wrong, but because it's an easier feat to accomplish for himself., or he can gain more support that way. I fully endorse the way Hitler went about things. I fully endorse the way Bush executed what he did. I don't endorse the reasons behind each of them though. I never stated you are bull!@#$%^&*ting yourself. Be happy and know you have a place in heaven. If you think it's true, it is. You attacked a group of people on false !@#$%^&*umption, get over it. In no way did I mean to imply Bush = Hitler. I used a modern controversial reference. I put this in here because I know you will twist the topic into a discussion that it isn't.