| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/15/2004 09:20:01 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Scott, as usual in this argument people of your opinion often compare abortion to things like genocide, murder, slavery or other completely out of context issues.
Please stop, it dumbs the argument down. |
Hmmm. Taking the life of an innocent third party, most often for the sake of convenience. Sounds like murder to me. As usual, people of your opinion attempt to obfuscate the simple truth of the issue.
Please stop using intimidation and belittling language to attempt to stifle the arguements of those who disagree with you. |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 09:34:56 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by kevinf:
Originally posted by ScottK:
I've also heard it put forward that a significant contributor to the pending crisis in the Social Security system is the fact that, over the last 30 years, some 40 million potentially productive and tax paying citizens have been eliminated from our society. (The number is probably higher by now.) |
-Social Security is in crisis because first of all it was never meant to support anyone. When it was instituted the eligible age was 65 and the life expectancy was 60. Second, baby boomers are all retiring and putting too much of a strain on it. |
Agreed, to some extent. However, if there were currently 40 million more living souls available to contribute, the impact would be significantly less severe.
Originally posted by kevinf:
[quote=ScottK] Nice grammer, Yoda. :) [/qoute]
-Umm, actually it's spelled grammar and I'm not pointing that out to make fun but to show how stupid it is to put someone down for this type of mistake. It happens to all of us, especially in a forum. |
Yes, it does, as you pointed out. But I wasn't putting MM down, at least not for his gramm[b]a[/a]. Like Yoda, I do. Note the ":)". Usually included as a sign of happiness or lightheartedness.
Please let me know if I misspelled anything else. :) <---- NOTE: Happiness. |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 09:56:16 PM · #328 |
Need 40 mil. more participants? Why don't we start with the government employees who pay into a different program only to retire,collect 80% gov salary, work a few years, retire again and collect SS too.
Ever wonder why EVERY(*) government job, from federal to local, pays retirees a high percentage of their wage AFTER they retire? It happens when they have the ability to put their hands in YOUR pocket.
*maybe not the smallest of city/county gov. |
|
|
|
11/15/2004 11:11:20 PM · #329 |
I bet if eneryone here would be in the same room, the conversations would be like this:
Mr. Lefty:
I belive that -cut & paste- and -cute & paste- prove that you are wrong, stupid, and big jerk.
Mr. Righty:
Not so, if -cut & paste- is cut & paste- then why is -cut & paste- happening?? poop head.
Mr. Lefty:
Only fools cut & paste. you are blinded by the Bible, proof seen
here -URL-.
Mr. Righty:
That video is propaganda! -cut&paste-
you have been brainwashed by the left. As seen here -URL-!!
Funny how we are so damn smart and informed while we are online. The bigger the cut & paste, the smaller the brain.
you should all try to use your heads and not someone else's.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2004 11:53:31 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
I bet if eneryone here would be in the same room, the conversations would be like this:
Mr. Lefty:
I belive that -cut & paste- and -cute & paste- prove that you are wrong, stupid, and big jerk.
Mr. Righty:
Not so, if -cut & paste- is cut & paste- then why is -cut & paste- happening?? poop head.
Mr. Lefty:
Only fools cut & paste. you are blinded by the Bible, proof seen
here -URL-.
Mr. Righty:
That video is propaganda! -cut&paste-
you have been brainwashed by the left. As seen here -URL-!!
Funny how we are so damn smart and informed while we are online. The bigger the cut & paste, the smaller the brain.
you should all try to use your heads and not someone else's. |
Im going to use frisca's.
Originally posted by frisca:
Its discrimination no matter how you try to dress up the issue. Bringing "morality" into it is to bring the church and state back together which is a gig that Government got out of years ago. |
and I couldnt have said it better myself. |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 01:45:34 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Im going to use frisca's.
Originally posted by frisca:
Its discrimination no matter how you try to dress up the issue. Bringing "morality" into it is to bring the church and state back together which is a gig that Government got out of years ago. |
and I couldnt have said it better myself. |
There's a verse in the Bible, Matthew 15:14, that says "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".
The blindness to which I refer is that the above quotation from Frisca implies 1) that discrmination is a bad thing, and 2) that the Government got out of the "church" gig years ago.
Government has always discriminated - for example it forces those with larger incomes to pay higher tax rates than those with lower incomes. That's discrimination, pure and simple. If discrimination is a bad thing then we ought to do away with tax discrimination immediately. :-)
And as for the "church" gig, the Federal and all of the State Governments STILL officially recognize Christmas Day as a legal holiday and STILL open each session of their respective congress with prayer.
Not to mention the FACT that the federal Constitution ( that everyone THINKS has a "separation of church and state" clause, but does not ), only sets the criteria for the FEDERAL government, not the individual STATE governments. Each STATE can do whatever it wants to do in terms of religion. A STATE can create a state-sponsored church if it so desires - that is its right under our federal Constitution.
Also, it appears that the phrase "the Government" is used ambiguously to refer to either the FEDERAL Government, individual STATE Governments, or BOTH. It would help if folks specified what the context is when they refer to "the Government". |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 02:29:25 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Does the fetus agree to be aborted when the woman chooses to do so? If you say yes, then you're in effect saying that an adult have power over a child |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Taking the life of an innocent third party, most often for the sake of convenience. Sounds like murder to me. As usual, people of your opinion attempt to obfuscate the simple truth of the issue. |
You're assuming we, like you, believe the fetus is a person with all the usual rights, liberties and privileges of any person. We happen to disagree that abortion = murdering little children (I'm sure we would all be against murdering little children). And I'm sure neither side, for or against, is going to be swayed on that point.
Originally posted by ScottK:
And which of those rights could not be granted by a decree of civil union? |
The 1100 federal benefits given to married couples that aren't covered under civil union because a civil union is only recognized by the state.
Originally posted by paganini:
If two consenting adults decide to kill each other, would you allow that too? |
Sounds like war. If I were to condome that, I wouldn't be alone.
Originally posted by paganini:
If two consenting adults decide to commit suicide, would you tolerate that too? |
I would support a person's decision if terminally ill to end their own life.
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Funny how we are so damn smart and informed while we are online. |
So, now it's a bad thing when people take time to think about what they are saying, research the issue so they are better informed, and then back up their point with, hopefully, accurate information? I think I prefer that senario to two uninformed people in a room with no access to information going back and forth with 'you're wrong. no you're wrong. no you are.'
Originally posted by RonB:
1) that discrmination is a bad thing |
Why would we want to add an amendment to the constitution which actaully restricts certain rights to certain people. Every amendment added has been to give rights to people, not take them away. That's the dicrimination we are talking about and do we really want to use the constitution like that? |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 06:31:18 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by kevinf:
Every amendment added has been to give rights to people, not take them away. |
I know that you'd like everyone to believe that, but, of course, you're wrong.
The 14th amendment took away the rights of former officials who subsequently engaged in insurrection of rebellion from serving as a Senator or Representative in Congress ( unless overriden by a two-thirds majority of both houses ).
The 16th amendment took away the right to be taxed based on apportionment.
The 18th amendment took away the right to manufacture, sell, or transport intoxicating liquors.
The 22nd amendment took away the right of an individual to serve more than 2 terms as President
|
|
|
|
11/16/2004 09:29:10 PM · #334 |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 12:12:43 AM · #335 |
Originally posted by kevinf:
So, now it's a bad thing when people take time to think about what they are saying, research the issue so they are better informed, and then back up their point with, hopefully, accurate information? I think I prefer that senario to two uninformed people in a room with no access to information going back and forth with 'you're wrong. no you're wrong. no you are.'
|
who said anything about being bad?? |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 12:17:30 AM · #336 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Im going to use frisca's.
Originally posted by frisca:
Its discrimination no matter how you try to dress up the issue. Bringing "morality" into it is to bring the church and state back together which is a gig that Government got out of years ago. |
and I couldnt have said it better myself. |
You are so crafty, I love it. Seriously I do.
ps. go Steelers!! woot woot. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 01:43:39 AM · #337 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by kevinf:
Every amendment added has been to give rights to people, not take them away. |
I know that you'd like everyone to believe that, but, of course, you're wrong.
The 14th amendment took away the rights of former officials who subsequently engaged in insurrection of rebellion from serving as a Senator or Representative in Congress ( unless overriden by a two-thirds majority of both houses ).
The 16th amendment took away the right to be taxed based on apportionment.
The 18th amendment took away the right to manufacture, sell, or transport intoxicating liquors.
The 22nd amendment took away the right of an individual to serve more than 2 terms as President |
None of the examples you just gave Ron are a discrimination against a person because of the way they were born. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 11:39:59 AM · #338 |
Really, I can understand your logic but I would disagree with you. I think MadMordegon hit on it but I want to just take it a little father.
The 16th amendment I think was an attempt to make us all equally subject to income tax with no class exception. The 18th amendment was a mistake and later repealed, as we all know. The 22nd amendment - honestly I'm not sure why you would include this as an example. It sets a term limit on the office of the President which to me is an obvious attemp at giving us all a fair shot. The 14th amendment is a little tricky but it doesn't discriminate against who a person is (a woman, black, homosexual...). If any person takes an oath to uphold the Constitution while holding public office but then acts in a way that contradicts their oath then they can no longer hold public office. It takes away a person's right (basically a traitor, criminal, whatever), I'll give you that, but it isn't disrimination as in discriminating based on race, gender, age or sexuality - which no amendments have ever done. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 03:28:59 PM · #339 |
BUSH THE PLAYA':
Message edited by author 2004-11-17 15:29:17.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:04:00 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
BUSH THE PLAYA':
|
Do I smell a "Whitehouse gone wild" ?
*queues the porno music* bam chika wah wah |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 06:09:38 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by bdobe:
BUSH THE PLAYA':
|
Do I smell a "Whitehouse gone wild" ?
*queues the porno music* bam chika wah wah |
Bush the Playa?? Or Bush Playing with Bush? LOL. Ooops... (am I allowed to say that??)
|
|
|
|
11/18/2004 08:14:48 AM · #342 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by kevinf:
Every amendment added has been to give rights to people, not take them away. |
I know that you'd like everyone to believe that, but, of course, you're wrong.
The 14th amendment took away the rights of former officials who subsequently engaged in insurrection of rebellion from serving as a Senator or Representative in Congress ( unless overriden by a two-thirds majority of both houses ).
The 16th amendment took away the right to be taxed based on apportionment.
The 18th amendment took away the right to manufacture, sell, or transport intoxicating liquors.
The 22nd amendment took away the right of an individual to serve more than 2 terms as President |
None of the examples you just gave Ron are a discrimination against a person because of the way they were born. |
Pure CalvinBall! |
|
|
|
11/22/2004 11:24:38 PM · #343 |
|
|
|
11/22/2004 11:36:07 PM · #344 |
"Ranked No. 2 was actress Halle Berry"
Whats up with that?
I agree with the huge of flab of flub being #1 though. |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 12:08:57 AM · #345 |
If you'd like to do something about Mr. DeLay and the House Republicans' latest outrages:
//www.citizen.org/congress/delay/ |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:11:10 PM EDT.
