Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Goober5000 on April 28, 2004, 12:46:18 am
-
It appears that Arlen Specter eked out a narrow win over Pat Toomey in the Pennsylvania Senate primary.
Discuss.
-
what about libertarian/independent/centrists ?
hmmm I recognise specter, but I can't for the life of me remember what ether of them was important for.
-
Arbortion is a key issue for me. He must really have a lot of support in D.C. for Dubya to support him over Toomey.
-
*Is voting Labour*
:p
-
*is voting purple*
(Yes, in Holand we give our governments a color :D Each party represents a color, and the two or three elected parties form a mixed color :D
I know... The one that invented this system was probably smoking weed while doing it :p)
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
*Is voting Labour*
:p
Go Latham! :D *also voting Labour*
-
Arlen Spector came up with the magic bullet theory IIRC
-
As I stated before arlen spector is a moron. Most wishy washy person ever.
-
Toomey came so close to winning. If Bush had stayed out of the race, he probably would have gotten the nomination. :(
-
*Is voting....*
Wait, forgot, too young to vote by six months.
-
Jeez I was about to start another topic with this title! But then I decided to look harder for one.
Anyway I'll be voting for B ush this Nov.
*starts chanting "B ush, B ush, B ush" while making a 'W' with middle three fingers.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
*is voting purple*
GREEN!
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
middle three fingers.
Freak
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Anyway I'll be voting for Bush this Nov.
*starts chanting "Bush, Bush, Bush" while making a 'W' with middle three fingers.
Actually I think Bush has gotten way too liberal. Between the prescription drug bill, the campain finance bill, the farm bill, the education bill, etc., the fact that he's treating the Iraq conflict as more of a combat exercise than an actual war, and the fact that he has yet to veto anything... I'm thinking of voting Libertarian or Constitutionalist this November. If the Republicans see a substantial portion of their conservative base defect, hopefully they'll wise up and stop sliding left.
-
**** is _NOT_ A liberal - he's a NeoConservative
they've infected your party like the plague, and most of our have fallen victim to their brainwashing
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Arbortion is a key issue for me. He must really have a lot of support in D.C. for Dubya to support him over Toomey.
"Pro Life, that's a lie! You Don't care if women die!"
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Actually I think Bush has gotten way too liberal. Between the prescription drug bill, the campain finance bill, the farm bill, the education bill, etc., the fact that he's treating the Iraq conflict as more of a combat exercise than an actual war, and the fact that he has yet to veto anything... I'm thinking of voting Libertarian or Constitutionalist this November. If the Republicans see a substantial portion of their conservative base defect, hopefully they'll wise up and stop sliding left.
Excuse me? **** is the definition of a hardcore, Bible-thumping, cowboy hat-wearing Republican. If anything, its the Left thats sliding rightwards, not the other way around.
And the Libertarians are a different sotry all together. One of my favourite columnists, is a Libertarian and also anti-war. Read part 2 of his speech to the Libertarian Party in New York here (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/). Its quite a bit longer than his usual columns, but its 15 minutes well spent.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
"Pro Life, that's a lie! You Don't care if women die!"
That's one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Excuse me? Bush is the definition of a hardcore, Bible-thumping, cowboy hat-wearing Republican. If anything, its the Left thats sliding rightwards, not the other way around.
No; about the only conservative things Bush has done are 1) the tax bill and 2) the abortion bill. The Iraq "war" isn't.And the Libertarians are a different story all together.
Well, the Libertarians are on a perpendicular axis to the traditional right-left spectrum, so you can find them on either side of the issue.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
That's one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard.
haha.. hold on one second
here is something right from your beloved pro-life organizations - you probably ignored it in the other thread
Originally posted by Kazan
Marjorie Bell Chambers "argued that in the conflict between saving the fetus or the life of the woman, the phrase, 'cannot be infringed' meant 'that men and fetuses have a right to life at all timse, but women lose that right when they become pregnant'"
PG 108 The Fundamentals of Extremism
Pro-life isn't about saving babies - it's about MISOGYNY under the guise of saving babies - you could just be one of the victims of the brainwashing that don't realize it
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
No; about the only conservative things Bush has done are 1) the tax bill and 2) the abortion bill. The Iraq "war" isn't.Well, the Libertarians are on a perpendicular axis to the traditional right-left spectrum, so you can find them on either side of the issue.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Thats right, cause we all know that liberals are hardcore warmongers. What about the anti-gay marriage crap spewing from the White House, or the environmental laws, or more importantly, foreign policy.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Pro-life isn't about saving babies - it's about MISOGYNY under the guise of saving babies - you could just be one of the victims of the brainwashing that don't realize it
As opposed to the brainwashing of the pro-choice wing - namely the myth that somehow women have to choose between an abortion or death by childbirth.
EDIT: Back on topic, I'd like to see **** gone. His presence at the head of the US does not bode well for global conservatism IMO - the whole Iraq thing was based on what becomes more and more certain every day the myth of WMDs.
-
oooops, hit reply in wrong thread, ignore me :D
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
EDIT: Back on topic, I'd like to see **** gone. His presence at the head of the US does not bode well for global conservatism IMO - the whole Iraq thing was based on what becomes more and more certain every day the myth of WMDs.
WMDs were not the reason we went into Iraq. Violation of resolution 668 is one of them.
The only reason the Security Council wasn't all for it was because France and Russia were getting kickbacks from the Oil for Food program.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
As opposed to the brainwashing of the pro-choice wing - namely the myth that somehow women have to choose between an abortion or death by childbirth.
If you think women cannot die in childbirth than you're A) denying history B) denying medical science
therefore you are C) a moron for denying reality of your own petulant volition
-
Originally posted by heretic
WMDs were not the reason we went into Iraq. Violation of resolution 668 is one of them.
:wtf:
Sorry mate, you cant rewrite history just because you were wrong.
-
Sorry heretic - it's well documented by every media sources how many different excuses schrubya gave, all of which were bull****
-
It's an undisputed fact that the WMDs were there at some point. I'm far more worried about the fact that we can't find them... who knows whose hands they ended up with.
-
Goober5000: the last documented case of him having WMDs was during the clinton administration -- I think he got rid of them (destroyed hopefully) soon as he thought **** could get into office
-
You give Saddam Hussein too much credit. It's possible but it's far more likely he sold them to terrorist groups.
-
it is possible that he sold them to terrorists groups - but i think he's just a despot, not insane though
be careful not to underestimate him, he is very good at manipulating people and that does take intelligence
-
Originally posted by Kazan
If you think women cannot die in childbirth than you're A) denying history B) denying medical science
therefore you are C) a moron for denying reality of your own petulant volition
Predictable; you keep on rattling off that nonsense like a good boy.
And think about this - women can die or be permanently damaged as a result of abortions too - as such a more han adequate counter to the abortion-or-die garbage you've immersed yourself in
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
And think about this - women can die or be permanently damaged as a result of abortions too - as such a more han adequate counter to the abortion-or-die garbage you've immersed yourself in
:lol: That's funny... Not really but meh...
-
SadisticSid: at an extremely low rate from CLINICAL abortions - banning abortion increases the death rate because "back street abortions" are the dangerous ones
You simply don't know the facts, exactly the reason why you don't have any business telling women how to make their medical decisions
I bet you think women should be submissive to their husbands too, I bet you think it's their place to be in the home raising children instead of having jobs
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I bet you think women should be submissive to their husbands too, I bet you think it's their place to be in the home raising children instead of having jobs
It's actually better for society if one parent stays home while the other works (it doesn't matter which one). Look at the aggregate numbers. If you double the workforce while the number of work to do remains constant, you double the unemployment or halve the wages. (Or a combination of the two, with the ratios depending on which is more elastic.) For society as a whole, one parent working and one staying home provides more time and less stress for the same amount of income.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
You give Saddam Hussein too much credit. It's possible but it's far more likely he sold them to terrorist groups.
You seem to be ignorant about the nature of chemical and biological weapons. They have a limited shelf life, particularly so for the crude ww1 types saddam had. If there were no facilitys producing more, and all the experts including the US's own team say there wasnt, then what he had would be out of date and useless. Every bit of evidence and intelligence that he had an active program the US presented has been proven to be ****e, no evidence of a program has been found after a year of searching the country, all saddams scientists have said there was no programs, and you still cant accept the fact that there was none. :rolleyes:
-
Goober5000: that's a poor excuse for gender roles and misogyny - and infact your analysis is incorrect
halving the workforce halves productivity, which is vastly damaging to the economy. A country were half the workforce cannot work because their female is never going to be economically as strong as a country where both the men and women work. Furthermore the psychological affects of being treated like a second class citizen (being forced to be submissive, brainwashed to be) are profound and entirely negative.
You knwo the divorce rate is _HIGHER_ ammong fundamentalist homes, and the spousal abuse rate is well over twice as high amoung fundamentalist homes.
However having a parent around is good while the child is very young - that's why germany offers workers "Parents Pay" till the child is a certain age - both MEN and WOMEN are eligible, and only one of the two people in a family can take it - and yes men do take it.
If you CHOOSE to stay home while they're young, that's good - don't expect it of women just because they're women. If you think it's so great and your wife wants to work, why don't you be a father and stay home.
-
Originally posted by heretic
WMDs were not the reason we went into Iraq. Violation of resolution 668 is one of them.
The only reason the Security Council wasn't all for it was because France and Russia were getting kickbacks from the Oil for Food program.
If the US makes decisions based on who breaks Un resolutions and who doesn't, then why the hell are we still funding Israel?
-
Both the US and Israel are in violation of more UN resolutions than Saddam ever was.
-
Originally posted by Gank
... all saddams scientists have said there was no programs, and you still cant accept the fact that there was none. :rolleyes:
Didn't Saddam like reject peacekeeper guys (no idea what they're actually called, but anyway), they were guys that would go in and check to see if there were WMDs or something? He'd tell 'em "Oh sure, come on over this date..." but then they'd get ready to go over and he'd say "Nah, I changed my mind.. maybe later...". If there were no WMDs, why would he do that? Or maybe that was someone else in Afghanistan or something... but I thought it was Saddam? Sorry if I'm mistaken, but if not, I thought it was a reasonably valid point.
On the abortion issue, don't parents usually choose the life of their children over their own? Mothers can choose the life of their baby over their own.. and besides, as medical science and technology or whatever improves, the death rate in childbirth will decrease. The "back alley" abortions or whatever term was used that Kazan mentioned.. well that's the woman's choice/risk.
-
He kicked them out because they were spying for the CIA, iirc thats been confirmed by one of the inspectors themselves. And I dont think the way you describe it is exactly how it happened, they were supposed to have the power to visit anywhere anytime without warning, though I imagine it would have been hard to keep things secret driving around in bright white jeeps with UN painted on the side.
-
Saddam was incredibly charismatic, and probably pretty smart. Probably suffered from a bit of "Stalin syndrome". Paranoia that comes true.
-
So you still maintain that there are WMD, but the fcact that you're never ever going to find them (barring someone planting them) is just a testament to Saddam's willieness. Riiiight.
-
Kaz, I think you have misunderstood the definition of the word "misogyny".
You are acusing Goober and others of us of an actual hatred of women, simply because we believe that while women are capable of almost anything a man is, their traditional role as a mother and caregiver is what they are best at.
How is it hatred to restrict access to a dangerous medical procedure?
You'll notice that the moral decay of this country became noticable only when the threat of pregnancy was taken away as a cogent risk of promiscuity. When people were able to stop analyzing their potential partners as potential lifemates and instead thought of them as a quick lay, the relationship that is required for lifelong commitment is damaged.
Why is the divorce rate so high? People are too busy having sex to talk about their problems.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Kaz, I think you have misunderstood the definition of the word "misogyny".
You are acusing Goober and others of us of an actual hatred of women, simply because we believe that while women are capable of almost anything a man is, their traditional role as a mother and caregiver is what they are best at.
How is it hatred to restrict access to a dangerous medical procedure?
You'll notice that the moral decay of this country became noticable only when the threat of pregnancy was taken away as a cogent risk of promiscuity. When people were able to stop analyzing their potential partners as potential lifemates and instead thought of them as a quick lay, the relationship that is required for lifelong commitment is damaged.
Why is the divorce rate so high? People are too busy having sex to talk about their problems.
...kind of agree with that. Just cause men and women are supposed to be equal, does not mean that they are equally capable of doing certain tasks. Not that it should be restricted, but there are important difference between the teo genders.
And the "moral decay" of which you speak is not nearly so huge an issue nor so simple a one as you make it out to be. And its not just to do with promiscuity or whatever. People being shallow, apathetic, ignorant and intolerant has nothing to do with the loss of Christian value and everything to do with a great many other factors.
-
Libby - just for reference
There are six stages of moral thinking broken into these three categories (listed simplist->most complex - learned in that order, but many adults never achieve Post-C stage due to their dogma and petulance)
Pre-Conventional : Children Think with way
Conventional: People like you think this way - 'black and white'
Post-Conventional: Abstract morality that requires a sharp mind to understand.
Conventional and Post-Conventinal clash very often - because Conventionalists cannot think abstractly, think everything is black and white
that's what the abortion debate comes down to - you think everything is black and white and cannot see the complexities of the situation and refuse to acknolwege that there are severe health risks related to pregnancy (and CLINICAL abortions have almost zero risks)
------------------------------
Fundamentalism practices misogyny, wheter you PERSONALLY go that far is debatable. However indoctrination of gender roles has been universally condemend and shown to be psychologically damaging to BOTH sexes
Originally posted by Liberator
You'll notice that the moral decay of this country
Which only exists in your mind - you're really refering to the decay of "Black and White" thinking because society is maturing past the 'Conventional' stage to the 'Post-Conventional' stage
Thank you for being a glaring example of someone using slanting language stemming from ignorance and lack of understanding of complex issues
became noticable only when the threat of pregnancy was taken away as a cogent risk of promiscuity.
You act as if sex is something evil - it is not. There are TWO species on this planet that have sex for pleasure - Humans and Dolphins. (It's a social behavior in bonobos.. not a 'enjoyment').
Acting like 'sex is is evil', which is what you're doing right now, is highly immature and rests on irrationallity NOT on real knowledge. Sexual relations are the extension of a healthly interpersonal romatic relationship. Acting as if they're something 'evil' outside the definition of your religion's marriage is irrational, immature and PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGING. The studies sit there and glare at you with universal support of the scientific community and you ignore them.
However - having sex TOO readily is just as dangerous as acting as it's evil. Sex is something that should be reserved to certain people, but not forbidden and treated as if it was evil.
Fruthermore - "Threat morality" is PRE-CONVENTIONAL, it's what CHILDREN use
When people were able to stop analyzing their potential partners as potential lifemates and instead thought of them as a quick lay, the relationship that is required for lifelong commitment is damaged.
That is debateable at best: however, no matter what, increased sexual freedom isn't the root cause of problems with relationships
The real problem with relationships is mostly due to parenting. Most of the parenting you advocate has glaringly negative effects - most importantly people don't develop proper interpersonal skills. I highly suggest you actually READ about this subject in a MODERN PSYCHOLOGY book, but I guess learning real knowledge is against your religion by all evidence of the activity of your religions members, and the outright hostility for learning that your religions leaders indoctrinate into you.
Why is the divorce rate so high? People are too busy having sex to talk about their problems.
Wrong, because people are not learning proper interpersonal skills due to poor parenting and being indoctrinated into 'black and white' thinking.
The divorce rate is LOWEST among atheists and HIGHEST amoung fundamentalist catholics.
-
Abstract thinking is going to destroy the species one day, mark my words.
There are some things that are or are not, very few things in real life have a gray area.
I never said sex is evil, your misrepresenting me and my view with an ignorance of your own. Christianity hasn't taught that sex is evil in over 150 years. Sex is a beautiful thing. It's also meant to take place between a married man and his wife, exclusively. Not before the marriage ceremony and not with other people before or after the marriage ceremony.
Kazan, I find myself a little worried about you when you post these slightly esoteric responses that consist largely of psycho-babble from whatever college course you happen to be in. If you are persuing a degree in psychology, fine. But I, and most of the rest of us I suspect, are getting very tired of you accusing us of having every single mental disorder on the planet and then try and place yourself above circumspection. There is a name for that, of course you may nor have gotten this far in your psych courses, but it's called a Superiority Complex, and whether you can back it up or not, humble people tend to be better liked that egotistical buggers.
-
Liberator: it's not from "whatever college course I'm in" - it's from BOOKS, I READ, a LOT, it's from SCIENTIFIC BOOKS that CITE SOURCES
I find myself extremely worried that people like YOU even EXIST. Haha, I haven't started accusing you of being schizophrenic, manic depressive, major depressive, munchhausens byproxen or a million other psychologicals. Being that i CAN backup my statements, and the only psychological disorder i've accused you of is a neurochemical addiciton to religion - which is exactly WHY people have religion, anyone who has religion and isn't neurchemically addicted isn't religious after talking to me for a few days.
Being that I CAN backup my statements about what I say you have, and what facts I present, and more importantly I wouldn't be wasting my breath [typing] on someone who I didn't think capable of one day kicking religion out of their life I do not have a Superiority Complex.
If i had a superiority Complex I wouldn't feel the need to justify my actions, qualify my statements and present evidence. If I had a superiority complex I would merely say you're a total ****ing retard with no valid opinions at all. No libby even you have a valid opinion from time to time.
You can try and marginalize my knowledge all you want, but all you do is what you just did argumentum ad hominem - You cannot refute the information i presented in refutation of your ill-formed opinion. Have the guts to admit you're wrong once in a while, I do when someone proves me wrong.
-
wow
Thats some high horse you're on, Kazan. Be careful, its a rather long way down,
You seem to fancy yourself as some intellectual elitist with all this knowledge which no one should dare contest. In my perspective, your attitude ironically reminds me of those subway religious fanatics who scream out at people, telling them that they will go to hell if they refuse to change. Its an attitude replete with disrespect, tactlessness, and especially arrogance.
You can attract more bees with honey than with vinegar you know.
-
Omniscaper: I challenge Liberator to refute it, but I simultaenously know he cannot. I never enter a major argument without having the preponderance of evidence behind me. I choose my battles
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Abstract thinking is going to destroy the species one day, mark my words.
:lol: I think you got that one backwards.
There are some things that are or are not, very few things in real life have a gray area.
Correction. Everything is gray. There is no black and white.
I never said sex is evil, your misrepresenting me and my view with an ignorance of your own. Christianity hasn't taught that sex is evil in over 150 years. Sex is a beautiful thing. It's also meant to take place between a married man and his wife, exclusively. Not before the marriage ceremony and not with other people before or after the marriage ceremony.
That are personal beliefs which I do not share at all. It's freakishly arrogant of you to think this goes for everyone in the entire friggin' world. If you choose to do so, it's fine. But let others do as they please.
Kazan, I find myself a little worried about you when you post these slightly esoteric responses that consist largely of psycho-babble from whatever college course you happen to be in. If you are persuing a degree in psychology, fine. But I, and most of the rest of us I suspect, are getting very tired of you accusing us of having every single mental disorder on the planet and then try and place yourself above circumspection. There is a name for that, of course you may nor have gotten this far in your psych courses, but it's called a Superiority Complex, and whether you can back it up or not, humble people tend to be better liked that egotistical buggers. [/B]
You obviously don't know what a superiority complex is. :rolleyes: Anyway, Kazan is really not the only one to think like this. i agree with him on most points. (Note: Most, not all ;))