Aileron

I'd also like to copywrite the following words: Attach East West Ball Near Help Dep

Lanc bombs Shark bricks Spider bursts Jav guns Terr repels (not the words, the use of the weapons themselves)

Hey, the policy of previous Presidents got us attacked by terrorists repeatedly. Your only criticism of Bush stems from going into Iraq without nice legal political niceties. The US is a sovereign en-*BAD WORD*-y...some times we will need to walk our own path. It may not be your path, but you should atleast accept the fact that we need to do this right now.

Well, can't find any links. The article is: “An Argument that Abortion is Wrong” by Don Marquis

Ducky's or anyone else's views aren't legitimate when I cover a base he needs for his arguement. I repeatly said "future HUMAN life" and he kept citing animals that will never be human. My agruement doesn't apply to animals, so Ducky's "counterarguement" went nowhere. I've covered that arguement before he posted it...it does not work. The difference between a sperm, egg, and zygote I've already covered in my first post, though it got buried. A zygote is a being; sperm and egg are potential beings. A zygote is something that has a future human life. A sperm and egg have a potential human life. (Technically both cases are potential, but there is a big shift in probability before and after.) If I only remembered what reading I got this from, I could post the link.

Yep, everyone in the world has a right to their opinion...as long as it agrees with urs. It they don't, well, they are just ignorant. <_< And Akai, Spain has THE historically worst human rights record. They might not even have a problem not tolerating muslims. After all, Spain has gone through a lot of pain to ensure that their is only one culture in their country. More importantly, if that part of thier opinion, they are correct. We need to draw the line between muslim and terrorist. Without such a line, we must practice genocide, because we clearly need to remove terrorism from the world and if there is no line then all muslims are terrorists. Thus, the stated opinion by you is infact correct, general Muslims and Muslim terrorists are two seperate groups with two seperate agendas. Japan wasn't made by the US. Japan has a history of doing this when they encounter a nation stronger than themselves. When they encounter technological superiority, they learn the technology and impliment it in their society. They did this when Imperial Europe was invading the world, and they are doing it now. Japan agrees with the US because both nations are moving foward economically and pride hard work over government charity. Israel, hey if we wash their hands, they wash ours.

Vile, the "loyalty oaths" is just to prevent idiot protestors from protesting in the middle of the speech. I went to one of his earlier speeches...it was free and all they did was security checks. If someone was willing to hold up a sign outside for 5 hours, they would be willing to sign in and hold up a sign inside for 2 hours. Having anti-Bush protestors inside a Bush rally is first off a bad security problem...it would take only minutes for a fist-fight to beak out. Secondly it kinda contradicts the First Amendment. I have the right to !@#$%^&*emble, so I can protest the President, but when the Republicans try to use their right to !@#$%^&*emble, that's just wrong. <_< And third it is kinda rude, especially when that these speeches are paid for by lots of money from both the parties and the cities. Look, Bush is a citizen too. He is gaurenteed a right under the first amendment to speak under proper cir!@#$%^&*stances. A Republican sponsored rally is proper cir!@#$%^&*stances. Thus, he has the right to make his speech without some protestor interupting it. Ow, and Bush didn't debate in this election? I musta been drinking last night, because I swear I saw Bush behind one of the podiums. <_< And Bush was pointing out that Kerry is VERY liberal, nigh communist. Why? So he can claim the moderates for himself. Polls are at 50% and its clear Bush and the media hate each other. (Last night, Bush almost was going to say something about the media, but had to stop himself. Also, he chuckled when Kerry said "according to the Washington Post") Thus, I'd be willing to bet Bush has a solid lead and the media doesn't want to admit it. I mean, its almost 50-50 on this forum, and this forum is filled with socialists! A population mostly moderate would give Bush a significant lead.

Monte, I was answering the question "Why is murder wrong?" We all know what the definition is by legal sense, but we are debating the moral question here. Battery is wrong because it causes a person pain in the present. Murder is wrong because it causes pain in the present and causes a person non-existence in the future. Knifing a corpse is disrespectfull to the dead, but isn't murder - the person existed in the past, but has no present and future. Euthanasia is debatable, and if justified only so because the person would have no future of personhood anyway. (Sorry about this...I hate it when someone tries to use one controversal issue to argue another.) How does this relate to abortion? Abortion causes the fetus pain in the present, but the fetus and as a matter of fact small children are not persons by secular definitions. However, it does cause a person non-existence in the future. Thus abortion is atleast as wrong as murder minus battery. And Ducky...quit with the approach about animals. I covered that in my first post. I covered that in my second post. Now, I'm covering it again. I must me dense, because I know you are way to stupid to read my posts and recognize that your point was already countered. Look, read my posts, think about what I'm saying, then post. BTW Monte, the 40% figure is hypothetical in itself. It is "probably 40%", so you can't tack another 10% on to it.

Casualties are prima faci wrong and only justified under certain cir!@#$%^&*stances, though discussing those cir!@#$%^&*stances requires an in depth discussion on the morality of war. Suffice to say that the right to life of the victims of war still stands, but are overridden by some greater need. No, I don't need that !@#$%^&*umption. No, I don't need that !@#$%^&*umption either. The reason for the "future" is because that is why murder is wrong. Murder does not deny the victim their past or present. A moral agent is defined as a being with a concept of morality. It is used by SECULAR moralists to make the distiction between human and animal. A human can tell right from wrong, and animal can't. This isn't to say a moral agent will always act in a moral fashion, merely that they have the concept of right and wrong. Its merely there as part of the definition of "person". Bacchus...it is a purely SECULAR arguement. I'll state it simply: Ducky, you are being stupid as usual. In order to come to the conclusion that making an omelet is abortion, you have to reject the idea of personhood. You already made the pre-!@#$%^&*umption to include chickens as persons. Thus, you are !@#$%^&*uming that killing an adult chicken is murder, and laughing at the concept of killing an egg as abortion. You've already thrown the distiction between human and animal out the window, then you criticise the conclusion you came to for that very same reason! I'll restate the arguement in a more simple fashion. Murder = Denying a person the future portion of their life. (The past portion of their life is unaffected by murder) Abortion = Denying a being a future portion of life as a person. Omelett making = Denying a future portion of their life as a chicken.

Ah...but taxes aren't that. Taxes FORCE people to work that 31st hour even if they don't want to though forcing people to do the right thing isn't all that wrong. Social Inequality is a bad thing...but I don't think the solution is taxes. One needs to examine how the upper class makes their millions and pull economic strings to change the system. Social Equality is kinda like the Robin Hood concept...rob from the rich and give to the poor. However, the point of giving to the poor has to be made. Robbing from the rich and pocketing is simple greed, robbing from the rich and throwing the money away amounts to envy. Giving to the poor without robbing from the rich is righteous. That is my problem with government social programs...they tax the rich, but the money ends up in a maze of buerocracy. In the end, the money probably ends up in either some corrupt worker's pocket or flat-out wasted. If we are lucky, it goes into some welfare check that somebody will spend on beer or drugs. If it is going to be pocketed or wasted, the money would probably better off in the hands of the rich. What needs to be done is for corporations to be given incentives for hiring more employees and paying them more. Another thing that could be done is to provide aid to smaller businesses, so that corporations get some compi-*BAD WORD*-ion. We should focus on the latter. CEO's make the money they do because corporations are too easy to run and its too easy for them to find employees. Neither candidate has a platform close to what I think should be done...but Bush's plan is in the same ballpark.

Back to the topic of Bush's speech...look, the purpose of the speech was to say that we beat the standing Iraqi army...you guys know the purpose of the speech was to say we beat the standing Iraqi army...quite trying to turn that speech into something it wasn't. Vile...you are quoting the New York Times. That alone should be enough to raise some red flags.

....... Look, I gave the arguement that goes around that question. Murder is wrong because it denies the victim their future human life, not the victim's past. A fetus has no past portion of their life, but that is not the moral consequence here. A fetus does have a future human life. (and for those who thought Ducky's response was sufficient, note that I said future HUMAN life in both this post and the last one, and if you want to be technical I'll change it to "future life as a moral agent".) It does not matter whether or not a fetus IS human because a fetus is a thing that will eventually have human life, and it is the robbing of future human life that makes regular murder wrong. The predictable counter to this would be the "every sperm is sacred" joke or some argument along those lines. However, in order for this arguement to apply, there has to be a being in question. A fetus is a being that would grow into a human if undesurbed. A sperm or an egg would not. They could hypothetically be combined to make a fetus, but the sperm and egg are not really a being yet. (BTW, don't think you can shoot down this arguement with one post...I stole it from a writing by one of those professional philosophy professors...no PhD holding philosopher has beat it yet.)

Wait who would spend 35 Euros on a book that stupid? Ow wait, 35 EUROS. I guess you get what you pay for.

Um, mold would survive and infact thrive inside a trash can. Look, I can settle the arguement over whether or not a fetus is human here and now: we can go around it. Take the example of actuall and undesputed murder. By killing somebody, what is a murderer denying his victim? Human life? no...the victim had a life prior to being killed, and unless the murderer has a time machine, he can't take that away. The only thing the murderer is taking away from his victim is the victim's FUTURE life. While it is debatable that a fetus has a current life, that does not matter. In the vast majority of cases, the fetus would have a potential future life if the abortion is not done. Thus abortion and murder do deny the same thing...a future of human life. Threat to the mother is a good reason to deny this. One future human life is valueble enough to silence another...especially since in most cases the fetus would die anyway. Rape is not...it sucks, but the mother's 9 month rights are not worth an entire human lifetime. Besides, I don't think you guys care about this issue at all...you just hate religion and want to allign yourself against any view that happens to be held by one.

hmmmm....when I read that transcript it looks like Kerry got well owned in the health care issue...not so much in taxes. Still I don't benefit from the upper class' taxes being raised or lowered and know very well that the world is not fair. There is no good reason for us to care if upper class taxes are high, low, dodged, or whatnot. Well, except that our government needs money...but since we are a capitalist system any budget problems stem from us spending money on liberal programs. A national health care system would be great for a socialist government that is set up properly. However, our capitalist government isn't really set up for heavy social programs. I don't like the way liberals think. Kerry is thinking: Alright, I'm too dumb to figure out the proper solution to this situation, so I'm going to tax money from the populace and throw the money at the problem. In any case, the solution to this problem will not be made by dramatic plans from the Presidency but rather a series of small subtle changes in Congress that will occur or maybe even already have occured. Thus, Bush's path of pursuing Tort law reform is better...that's one of the pieces to this puzzle. Kerry's plan is effectively to throw the puzzle off the table and try to singlehandedly make his own.

Vile you fell into the trap. We don't need extra military forces to occupy third world countries. No world power needs to draft in order to occupy a nation like Iraq. There is no army standing against us...only a group of terrorirsts. A draft is a move one does to fight standing armies. The armies are easy to find...but if they have more soldiers than yours, you need to increase the size of your army. However, we are fighting terrorists. If they we standing like an army, we could probably eliminate all terrorists worldwide with as little as 1000 troops. However, they hide, and we are having problems finding them. But the point is that a draft won't help. We already have hundreds of times the muscle power we need over there, why would we ever need more muscle? The point of this bill was to imply a need for a draft. We don't need a draft, nor would a draft even help the unique situation. Every congressman knows this. The reason this bill was proposed is to convince people like yourself that we do need a draft. It was proposed for the shock value "Oh gosh, they are proposing a draft!" despite the fact that our military does not need or even want new soldiers. Besides at this point, I'd say Kerry's policy of bilateral talks with North Korea and "leading" the pressure on Iran have a higher chance of bringing another preemptive war that Bush's can.

Monte...first off the coalition doesn't violate international law. Secondly yes, it is insignificant. The US has close to 300 million people. Even if all those soldiers were US, they would still be a fraction of 1% of our population. And our casulties are only 1000, only 750 of which from combat. That's about 1% of of troops, and about .0333% of our total population. Domestic issues affect almost the entire 300 million, and each of them could probably kill 1% of our TOTAL population indirectly. So, yes, Iraq IS insignificant. 50% is overreacting because he is pissed, which after a long string of anti-US insults from morons happens. Its really the people who hide behind Bacchus and Montezuma that are really annoying. Well look, I see the economy getting better around me, but the man on TV says it is worse. Now, I know from experience that the man on TV has his own agenda, probably a liberal agenda, and does not care about reporting facts. Thus, when it comes down to it, I believe what I see over what the self-exclaimed "expert" on TV tells me. The outsourcing of jobs is a problem, but there is little we can do about it. Third world countries have workers who can survive off of less money, and even if we solve this, with the advances in computers and robotics I doubt that we could hold onto manufacturing jobs for long. The problems with the deficit, health care, college tuition, and the unemployed factory workers can be solved easily in only ten years. All we need to do is construct a large amount of schools for Science and Medicine. Health Care would be the first to solve itself. More med schools will produce more medical personelle. If you think of our health care system as a classic supply and demand model, we can decrease costs by increasing the supply. If we have more medical personelle, we gain that higher supply, and health care costs go down. This does the opposite to the unemployed factory workers. If there are more schools, the tuition of each school goes down. Thus, more workers would go to college, and that would leave less workers in factory jobs. Now, the difficulty of gaining a degree will be easier as well, so those who were previously unable to get a degree for academic reasons would get one. That can take us back to a potential flaw in health care. If its easier to get a medical degree, won't doctors be less qualified and make more mistakes? Not really. If there are more doctors, individual doctors will be less overworked. A C quality doctor working 6 hour shifts will make less mistakes than an A quality doctor working 12. This only leaves the deficit unadressed. If our tax base is composed of engineers and doctors rather than factory workers, our tax revenues are higher, and we could work the debt off.

Hey, keep in mind that the domestic debates haven't happened yet. When they do, I'm sure the deficit will be discussed. This whole thing is an example of politics at its worst. The possibility of a draft is a fabricated issue. The military doesn't want or need draftees, the quality/personelle ratio is higher without the draft. In many ways, our military is more effective leaving people at home than drafting them. This bill was made and carried by Democrats. As I pointed out earlier, the origional purpose of it was to put women in the draft. They changed it into a proposal of draft, and blamed Bush for it. There is a serious problem with the Democrats in congress. They aren't serving our country, but spending their time writing anti-Bush books and making these kind of proposals.

Being apathetic is nothing to be proud of.

Oh, btw, I haven't commented on the economy yet. My father is a nuclear engineer...and a good nuclear engineer. He is intelligent, hard-working (actually a work-a-holic), and committed. Generally, there is no reason at all he should be unemployed. However, during the Clinton years, he was downsized from his steady job and had to take contract jobs for a few years. He was still working in hs field, but the work was inconsistant and he had move around a lot. He got sick of it and tried to start a Microbrewery, just to get out of the industry. Our partner, being s!@#$%^&*, bailed on us a year after opening and left us with the bill. The business failed and was soon bought by a larger company. My father went back to contracting. Then, came the Bush administration. My father finally landed a steady job, and my family is better off than I remember being. That's what I don't get. During the Clinton administration, my father was out of work in a dying industry. My family wasn't as well off as we wanted. Now during the Bush administration my father has a steady job and we can afford new furniture, a plasma TV, a satelite dish, and many things we wouldn't consider buying in the 90s. Couple this with the knowledge that the media lies, and I come to this conclusion: The economy is better off under the Bush administration than it was ever in the Clinton one. My father couldn't find a job and couldn't start a business when the economy was supposedly running great, but now it is supposedly floundering, and we are rich! Maybe this is something exclusive to the Nuclear Power industry. In that case, Bush isn't supporting the Oil industry as you guys say, because Nuclear Power competes with Oil in electrical produciton. If Bush was giving handouts to oil, nuclear power would have plummeted and my father would be working as a mechanical engineer. Then again, I can think of other examples: at the hospital I worked at we had all sorts of staffing problems: we needed long shifts and simply could not find enough people to fully fill in our ranks. There was a shortage of WORKERS, not a shortage of jobs. We can't find enough Nurses and Technicians. Thus, I know exactly what Bush did to the economy. He made it worse for the financial lawyer/banker/insurance/investor/accountant type and made it better for the technician/engineer/medical personelle/computer/ type. He increased the demand for scientific workers and decreased the demand for the business type. Now ask yourself, what type of worker does our society NEED? If we have a shortage of the business workers, we give up sweaky clean checkbooks and people making their living buying and selling off the stock market. If we have a shortage of scientist types, we give up the technology that requires their function, whether it be health care, electrical power, computers, etc. Bush made the right decision for the economy, and has though mildly pointed out the problem with every financial setback from the deficet to health care...we need more Science and Engineering workers. You are right in that neither candidate really puts these issues to concern. Yet again, the domestic debates haven't happened yet. I agree with you that it is a shame that the War in Iraq, which really should be insignificant even in foreign issues, is getting all the attention.

Well, I do apologize for insulting Monte a little...he didn't cause most of that. But then again, Monte is the king of the "US deserved Sept. 11th" line of thought, and those insults weren't the meaningfull kind. I forget exactly who said it and how it was worded, (I do remember it was that topic around Christmas) but yeah, I probably would have killed him if he said it to my face. Part of it stems from the fact I believe in my religion, part of it stems from the fact that I have worked in a hospital and have seen people die when they did not deserve it. Generally, that comment was really really offensive, I had to stay off the forums for a week just to cool down. Now back to the real stuff, the electoral college system isn't flawed. If you analyze the name United States, you get the impression that the US is not a sigular entinty but a combination of states. As the US was created, this was the idea - several autonomous regions bound together by something stronger than an alliance but weaker than a federalist government. In a way this changed and in a way it hasn't. Since the nation was founded, the US has become more multicultural, but the cultures aren't as regionalized between different states. Though, in many ways they still are. There aren't many Hispanics in Maine. Thus, our system of government shouldn't be change much. Suppose there was a worldwide vote of just four people: A German, a Venezuelan, and two Chinease. After they voted on a certain proposal, the results came to be 2:2. Upon further examination, it showed the two Chinease voted yay and the Venezuelan and the German nay. The logical decision at this point is to count countries as en-*BAD WORD*-ies and vote based on the countries' decision. After all, relative to the Venezuelan and the German, the two Chinease persons think very similarly. It takes a lot more to please a Venezuelan and a German than two Chinease. The proposal could be "lets rob everyone and give the booty to China." Democracies' purpose is to put a variety of mindsets in the decision making process. Thus, two people of similar mindset should hold less weight than two people of radically different mindsets. Similarly, in an election with results practically 50:50, getting different states should count. Members of the same state usually have similar mindsets. Thus, a variety of ideas are obtained with holding a variety of states. That is the other problem with elections - people forget that states are supposed to be meaningfull venues of government.

Well, he is right...ur avatar is kinda gay. Mine needs to retire too, but I'm too lazy. Wait...I have better things to do than worry about a stupid avatar. Ducky u are right in that the US isn't insulted with every post...just every topic. It is ridiculous. Russia just did away with the democratic process and there wasn't a peep...just the same old bull!@#$%^&* about why the US shouldn't have gone into Iraq. And forget about us caring about insulting anyone else at this point. The non-socialists in this forum have been insulted way too much for us to be nice now...our leaders and our government has been publically mocked without withstraint for, well, since before I came to these forums. I personally have been called ignorant, arrogant, "typical american", been protrayed as a cultist, and many worse things, just for being a MODERATE. I'm not even conservative! However, the personal attacks I have recieved are light. What's worse is that everything I have believed in has been mocked on these forums. My religion has been labeled ficticious and compaired to a fairy tale. If I could kill the people who said specifically those comments, I would without guilt....I mean that in the literal sense. The parents of these individuals should be ashamed of themselves for not teaching their children manners. My country has been mocked almost constantly. There is ALWAYs an active anti-US topic in this forum. You have called us greedy and careless, have made sterotypical comments of our citizens, have publicized every conspiracy theories you can concoct, have made the claim over and over that 3000 of our citizens deserved to die, view terrorists as partially justified, pointed out how the US should adopt other nation's socialist policy (like Canada's 'wonderfull" wait 3 years for emergency treatment health care system), and have even made the claim that we caused Sept. 11th ourselves! Of all of these, its the terrorists partially justifed part that really boils me over. You hate our citizens so much that you side with terrorists when they kill our civilians, then criticise Bush for going against world opinion. World opinion approves the slaughter of our civilians - you view Sept 11th as partially justified! We shouldn't consider your kind allies, let alone listen to you...you would rather have our citizens killed than face the fact that atlease one kind of anti-Americanism is wrong. If I wasn't a math nerd and useless in combat, I would have joined the army and would be fighting in Iraq. I would die for the country that you guys arrogantly mock. I'm sure you people would die for your countries as well. I also have a resonable respect for my President. He is an honorable man who has served this country for years in many ways. While his policy isn't without fault, he deserves an amount of respect this forum hasn't given. If you aren't going to respect the man, atleast respect the position. It is a very painfull job - all presidents in the history of recording have greyed during their terms. After all this, you criticise him for stuttering speech (most of it stems from him not liking something in a pre-written speech), for choking on a pretzel, tripping every once in a while, etc. If you don't like Bush's policy, atleast keep your criticism intellectual because of his service. Look, how many conservative Americans have shown up for a month, got disgusted, and left? I've lost count. This evidence should speak for itself. The only reason I stay is because I cannot stand the thought of you people being happy. And after all that, do you think I give a !@#$%^&* when one Aussie is called a homosexual? I'll infact add to it...because I feel like it. Monte, you are stupid !@#$%^&* flinging ape whose entire life consists of two activities: waste your time on this forum, and participation in anal sex with kangaroos. I doubt you are like anything like Crocodile Dundee...Crocodile Dundee was attracted to women, had functional muscles, and could survive outside an air-conditioned environment. The only decent thing that ever came out of your country was that no-name swimmer last olympics, and Phelps kicked his !@#$%^&*! I don't want to see any one of you cry insult again. I've put up with more than enough from you people to care. Bush has made his criticism of Kerry slightly more complicated than flip-flop. He pointed out that Kerry viewed the Iraq war as a "mistake" and that the coalition was "coerced or bribed", and then expects other nations to join. Why would you want to sign on to a "mistake" and be in a group labled as "coerced or bribed"? Kerry has no respect for foreigners who grew up a little and decided to make the most of the cituation. Since the debate, Poland, whose sacrifices Kerry ignored, is considering withdrawing from Iraq. It seems like the traditional flip-flop arguement...but it is actually something different. Kerry doesn't comprehend that his statements have consequences. Statements like the ones Kerry make only decrease our morale and increase the morale of our enemies. And no, the two-party system is okay. The problem is the lack of meaningfull primaries. Its more like the party high-ups choosing a candidate than the populace. The primaries should be more important than the secondary elections, hence why they are called "primary". In the primary elections, people have a choice who they preferr out of many candidates, and the existence of a secondary election is only supposed to prevent parties from being split. The problem is that the party br!@#$%^&* selects the winner of the primaries, and the populace only comes in play during the secondaries. The only problem I see in elections is apathetic morons who don't vote. People need to vote, and not just in the secondary presidential elections. The system only works if the population votes in every election.

yeah, no poll on the liberal websites on ur favorite's list.

Well, they ARE affected by us, simply bevause their countries suxors. They care about US politics because their economies and political systems would collapse without US support. And, if we didn't fight the War on Terror, they would have to, and that means that they would have to spend less money keeping their citizens off the job and on welfare and more money on their military. Trust me, you guys think you have no respect for the US. I hold even less respect for Europe, Canada, and Australia. (Though Japan is cool, and Russia will be so after they come around.) Back to the subject - I DO care who is elected in foreign nations...but the point 50% Packetloss is trying to make is that a US citizen won't cross the line as to state it. I have my opinions of Blair, Chirac and Putin, but I know that is the UKs, France's and Russia's decision, and I'll let them make it. Don't get me wrong...I hold no moral qualms about forcing one's opinion on others if one is right, but I know that nations are sovereign, and unless my country would be willing to invade, my opinion has no weight in foreign countries.

Still - none of your guys know what lame is, except Reload.