timesjoke

Now the big man starts to backpeddle, how about how some schools had to show disclaimers before letting the kids see the movie? Why is it facts that prove you worng are a conspiracy? Your losing credibility fast. Now who is spouting assumptions? Your wrong of course but it is very interesting to watch the hoops of wacko logic you guys try to go through in your attacks on religion. We can know what God wants, he speaks to us all the time, when we do wrong we feel it, even hardoned criminals have spoken about the drive to confess, the feelings of depression and guilt associated with their actions. It gets more complicated than that but trying to keep it simple for you, this goes back to good and bad being standards, you don't have to call it God, but there is a flow to our existance that cannot be explained with science. To a certain extent I will agree with you, God made man, man made the many religions in his attempt to define and worship God, but man has never done anything in a perfect way, we mess up everything. Your own attempts to describe God as having better things to do than worry about us is your attempt to come to grips with the concept of God, but he still exists despite our failures to understand or define him. So your not a religion hater but then you say religion promotes ignorance and narrow-mindedness, right. Your a religion hater to be sure, in action if not by admission but your feble attempt to dodge my point about much greater killings done by Athiests will not work. Athiests have killed many more in their attempts to subject their beliefs on others then religious followers have. The salem witch hunts, the crusades, all the supposed "religious" wars account for less then a million people, while athiests have credit for over 100 million. As I said, selfish. Empty claim. There is not one athiest group doing anything but selfish religion bashing in the world. The ACLU is a prime example, spending all that time chasing down prayer in schools but not one guy willing to bring a hot meal to the needy. I live the life of helping people, our church runs two orphanages in poor Countries, I have never seen one athiest help anyone in my life, I have never heard of one group of athiests going to Darfur to assist those that need help, but I always hear about religious people doing these things. This is the third time I will point out that while you try to point out bad things about religion, you refuse to give credit to the good things religion does that nobody else will do. America was founded and made great on religious principles, every law has it's base in religion. Every successful society has a standard of a common belief structure at it's core and many of the failures such as the fall of Rome is clearly connceted to their attempted change in the common belief structure that held that society together. Even Richard Dawkins (the current "pope" of the athiest movement) grudgingly admits that religion is a moderating factor for society. I have no problem with Athiests, I am just wondering why everyone else must change to make them happy? Why not forge your own society, create your own structure instead of tearing down ours.

First you say how your so much smarter then everyone here then you cannot understand something as simple as this, I am startying to think your just looking for attention. My question was very simple, let me ask it again: Was the woman's choice to have risky sex a choice? This was a one sentence question, very easy, direct, and without complicated words. A woman deciding to have risky sex combined with a topic discussing abortions is a very easy concept to grasp even for the very dim witted and being as you claim superior intellect, I'm sure you can understand risky sex in this context is about unprotected sex that leads to an unwanted pregnance (risky is also very good to describe that not only is she risking an unwanted pregnancy but also several STD's as a result of her "choice". So, my question is clearly if you see her decision to partisipate in sex that could cause an unwanted pregnancy as her choice or if she did not have a choice. If I have to explain everything like I'm talking to a three year old these debates could eat up a lot of time. More insults? Thanks for admitting you are losing the debate. My terminology is life, in all it's wonderful stages. So, you say she should be willing to take responsibility for her decisions afterward right? Like the decision to have unprotected sex? Like taking responsibility for her decision and not kill the result of her decision? It's not, so why do we have juries? Even beauty contests have judges, wow, I guess making judgements are part of the real world you try to speak about. I think you need some more medication. You believe killing a life is setting it free? How about if someone kills you, is that setting you free? No, it is about ending life. Words like fetus, embryo, all the "stages" of life you are talking about are just descriptions of hurdles life must pass to the next stage of it's existance but it is all life. I don't have any proof? Where would you get such a silly idea from? There is only one group that maintains large studies on abortion statistics in America, that is the Guttmacher Institute. I will admit that I misspoke about the protection though, most unwanted pregnancies are from either no protection, or inconsistant protection and as we all know, things like failing to take the pill every day is not going to work: -Half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women at risk who were not using a contraception method during the month they became pregnant. -Forty-eight percent of women who have unintended pregnancies were using a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant, although often not correctly every time. So combine the two groups, 50% of untended pregnancies are from no protection, 48% are from inconsistant or incorrect use of protection. So, we add 50% to 48% and come up with 98% of all untended pregnancies being from lack of protection, either completely or partly. Some other interesting facts: -Most women who decide to have an abortion understand the responsibilities of parenthood; a majority already have children. So their not ignorant of what causes pregnancy if most of them already have children. -Each year, about 10,000–15,000 abortions occur among women whose pregnancies resulted from rape or incest. So rape accounts for at most, 15,000 abortions, compared to the 1.2 million abortions conducted every year, this is not even a big enough percentage to truly give it any real consideration in the real discussion about abortions in America. There is a lot of information available if your wanting to give it some consideration, here is the pdf of the most recent report: http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf This is their home page: Guttmacher Institute: Home Page A better comparison for abortion trends can be made looking at their long term comparisons on their site. Just unbiased observation, anyone who wants to defend abortions always turn to the tiny percentages and ignore the vast majority of the abortions. More insults? I am uneducated if I do not replace life with your desired description? As already stated, your trying to narrow down to a small stage of life while I am talking about all life being just that, life, no matter what stage it is at in the natural development. Being as your so fast to ask for proof, I'll ask for the same to back up your claim that a massive number of womwn are being killed by the fathers of their children and that it is only unwanted pregnancies that cause heart problems in women. You see, this is your problem, you try to dilute things with no proof and try to claim total heart problems for ll pregnancies are a factor in abortions but the facts don't match up to your claims. Yes, there are medical problems with getting pregnant but it still goes back to the sme choice the woman made to have unprotected sex. That was her choice. While your making up false information about the complications to women who have babies, let's consider provable facts about one of the big issues getting an abortion can bring to the woman, increased mortality rates, increased depression rates, and even though complications have been severely reduced, there is still a risk for complications: Abortion Facts and Your Concerns The risk to the woman is minimal, especially compared to the risk to the life being killed. Otherwise know as an allograft, it is simply a scientific/medical term used to describe the fetal/host relationship to fellow scientists/doctors. The same method is used in other professions to describe in a complex way what normal people use simple terms to describe, Corpus delicti- dead body, or more correctly body of evidence, but most know it as simply, dead body. So, now you tossed around a technical medical term and I simplified it but what does complicated word games mean to the discussion if it is right to kill a life? All you do is try and dilute or confuse the issue. What is at issue is why can it be considered killing a life if the man causes the abortion, but it is not killing a life if the woman causes the abortion? Do you have a fancy medical term to say double standard?

What was that garbage? I'm sorry but your comparing apples and hand grendes and calling them both pickles. You started out talking about one thing and when your given an answer that blows you away, you try to change gears like you were not talking about that and claim victory, what kind of wacko medications are you on anyway?

Nope, fact, and so many ways, but let's start with this one and if you still have difficulty with that, I can offer many, many more: JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts Well first of all, you completely missed the point I was making so let me try again. If I put a dress on a pig and call it the prom queen, does that make it so? People who do bad things and "claim" to be doing the act of God are not doing Gods work in reality. In reality, there is very little seperating the many religions, sure there are fine points but many things like murder are considered a sin by most of them. Not much ambiguity there. Actually your not original, this lame arguement has been touted with the religion haters for over 40 years, too bad they are not well educated in the reality of death caused by Athiest leaders like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong who are responsible for over 100 million deaths and both were clear athiests. Nice try but no cigar. And there is the sideways insults again implying my posts are not educated, why do you feel you must ter down your opposition? Is your faith in your abilities so low that you feel you cnnot elevate yourself so you must lower others? And yet you still have difficulty understanding the concept that man pretending to be acting in Gods name is not the fault of God. I noticed you completely dodged my point about how the athiests drag every scrap of possible bad done in the name of religion but completely ignore the good done by it. As I pointed out, there is not one athiest based group doing good for communities out there. Why? Because the very notion of being an athiest is the self. The most important thing to an athiest is themselves, they cannot see the value of running soup kitchens or doing missionary work to help poor nations. Well, maybe they can understand the concept, but they cannot bring themselves to do it themselves, there are other more important things to do like fight for the removal of a manger scene from an obsure lot that just happens to be owned by the government, now that is important to society.

I see even better made movies of how Bush planned and executed 9/11 too, I guess any idiot can make anything sound good with a movie, look at Al Gore, his movie was proven to be full of crap but some idiots still believe it. The real point is man can mess up even the best things this world can offer. Corruption is at our core in so many ways that we see it every day, in fact, it colors out perceptions and we start seeing it where it is not just because we have convinced ourselves that the corruption is the rule, not the exception. If I pretend to work for the march of dimes, and I go out and scam all kinds of people to donate money to me for the march of dimes but keep that money, does that mean my actions were for the march of dimes or for me? The same is true for anyone who does something wrong or immoral. If they use religion or anything else as their vehicle for self-serving actions, that vehicle was not the basis of the deed, it is blameless. Just because religion is used for bad things, that does not erase the good religion does. Look around the world at every hot spot and you see religious based groupd trying to make a difference. You don't see the athiest religion haters helping anyone but themselves. In my own town we have several religious based social programs completely run by donations, not one athiest based social program. The FBI would call that a clue. I myself deliver hot meals to those who need it once every other week. We all take turns in our group so we are delivering meals every day. You don't have to call it God if you don't want to, but there is such a thing as good and bad. Trying to do good most of the time is not easy. In fact, the most good always seems to be very difficult. The opposite also tends to be true, the easiest thing to do is most likely bad. I believe in God, but I also believe that God is not definable by man, we are not truly capable of accpeting the notion of God so we either try to reduce "him" to something our minds can digest, or we reject him and avoid the problem completely.

Like you just did with me and several other people? Your bouncing from one direction to another and making derogatory remarks is being honest and answering direct questions? More insults? Anyone who does not believe what you believe is not in the "real" world? You have a very bad attitude. If you already know everything and believe everyone with a different opinion is not living in the "real" world, why are you here? To preach? But to blow away your assumption, answer this direct question: Was the woman's choice to have risky sex a choice? What your describing is the baby being the slave to the whims of an irresponsible woman. Why are you not concerned with that slave? Like that opinion you just spouted? So in your opinion, I can only judge a child molester if I am a child molester? I cannot judge him or impose rules against his wrong actions to protect the innocent lives he harms? I can and will hold any opinion about proper morals and behavoir I darn well please without your permission thank you. Every law on the books from speeding to murder is based on society creating guidelines for behavoir, so stop the preaching about imposing things on others, society is not possible without rules and guidelines. Again, so it is okay for the mother to enslave the life she created, and even kill that life, why is slavery only a reasonable action if it is woman imposing it? Anyway, your entire concept is completely flawed. We as a society impose restrictions on behavoirs all the time. We put people in prison for failing to pay their taxes, why not for something more severe like killing a child? Being as most abortions are with women who never used protection of any kind, your point is meaningless. Why is it you guys always concentrate on 5% of the problem and ignore 95% of the problem that is irresponsible actions? By the way, all the interesting names people have invented to describe the different stages of life mean nothing, it is still life. Life stopped at any point of it's natural progression is still killing that life. A person with tetraplegia fits the same definition, so we kill them too? Only life that can completely care for itself is valuable? How about welfare recepients? They are a parasite on society right? They deserve to die? They have no right to live? If your half as smart as your pretending to be you should start to see some huge gaps in your logic by now. Okay, first of all, your outlandish claim of deaths is from "world" statistics, not America, in America there are very few deaths from complications during pregnancy so there goes that claim. Second, yes the baby can cause some harm to the woman, but again, you still keep dodging the fact that almost all abortions are due to irresponsible sexual practices and abortion is used as a means to escape the responsibility of their "choice" already made. Third, what is it with your constant attitude of talking down your nose to people? I don't believe what you believe so you "assume" I don't understand what happens to a woman's body? I have three kids and know more about a woman's body than the average woman. You need to leave your assumptions and personal attacks at the door if your truly interested in honest discussion. You keep dodging the fact that once a person is conceived, life starts, it is a journey, that journey starts in the womb and if lucky, will end with along life and lots of love from friends and family that value them. If unlucky, they will start life in the womb, and the mother will kill it before it ever gets a chance to see the world.

And yet he still refuses to talk about life and the ending of that life. A person does not just appear from thin air. Life is a series of steps in development, an embryo is just as much a part of our existance as old age. Trying to say that stage of life is not life does not connect with logic. Life is life, the stage your in at the time does not diminish the reality your alive. If someone is very old and needing care to do even the most basic things, does that mean they are not alive? Some say we enter and leave life in the same state of helplessness, I believe this is true, and it is how we treat the helpless that define our society. An unborn baby in the womb is as helpless as it gets, it had no decision in it's creation and no decision if it will get the chance to survive.

What was that guys name? Kinison? He screamed a lot during his standup, I saw him live once many long years ago. I think he died from an overdose or something.

I am sorry buddy but where are you trying to go with the topic? Your all over the road like a drunk driver, no direction or clue as to where your going. Potential seems to be most of our points on life. The potential of a tooth will always be a tooth. It can never be anything else, there is no potential for unique existence. The same is true for a tumor or a finger. A better question is if your fingers are removed, or your teeth, do you stop being a person? If your answer is no, then you may start to understand how rediclious your comment is. An embryo, fetus, growing baby is something else. It is unique from the moment of it's creation and has it's own set of DNA. If given a chance to continue down the normal cycle of life, it will be a person. Actively stopping that cycle of life is killing that life. So, the next question is when is there good reason to end life, under what circumstances are we willing as a society to condone the ending of life? I find it interesting that we have protesters defending murders and trying to defend their lives but so many pollitically correct people refuse to defend innocent life. Life that has never harmed anyone is helpless, completely at the mercy of women who did not bother to care about the responsibility unprotected sex brings to them. My stand on the public is different then my personal stands for my own life. While my religious beliefs would never allow me to kill an innocent life for convience, I understand that society as a whole cannot live up to my standards. So, for society in general, I believe we should still have standards that reflect responsibility. If a woman has risky sex, the result of that choice she made could possibly be the care of a child produced from her irresponsible behavoir. The man being just as irresponsible must provide support for that baby as well. Here is where I allow the 5% factor I spoke about. A very small number of abortions done in America is the result of rape, incest, and severe medical need for the mother. In cases of medical need, rape, and incest, the woman/girl had no responsibility for the act. Her actions are without blame and as such, I can see where an exception for her lack of responsibility can be allowed. Again, this is my view on society on the whole and based on the concept of responsibility and accountability in society. My own beliefs are completely seperate and my ability of seeing that defined seperation is the result of my age and experience in the world. Everyone cannot be expected to meet the high moral standards some of us follow, but all of society can be expected to meet their responsibility in life and not try to escape it by killing an innocent life.

I am glad he cannot see my reply to this so nobody can claim I am attacking him, what I have issue is the mentality this line of arguement represents. The "what if" sybdrome where reality is suspended and the most rediclious and unrealistic garbage is inserted into it's place to try and derail discussing the real problems. The vast majority of abortions are because of a lck of being responsible. But, we cannot discuss the reality of what most abortions are, the only arguement the pro-choice crowd can come up with only covers a tiny percentage of the abortion cases. I say if we can deal rith the 95% that is pure irresponsibility, then I believe most people could agree that the tiny 5% can be justified in some way to accomodate these very rare circumstances.

I have to agree with Shiek on this one. Many people believe that once a man and woman have created the unique life growing inside the woman's womb, it is on a journey that will result in a person. Any itrerruption of that process is stopping life. The life had no choice in being created, that choice was in the hands of the mother at the time she decided to have risky sex. Ending a life should be more serious than getting a mole removed from your behind but modern society has almost completely removed the vale of life to the point we kill over a million lives each year with abortions. Abortions are now 95% birth control, 5% real need. I would be reluctant, but still supportive of the 5%, but the 95% irresponsible and selfish abortions should not be legal in my opinion.

Oh the poor man, wow I feel sorry for him, lol. Seriously, this is exactly what IWS is tlking about. The first knee jerk reaction is to make excuses for him while the first reaction by the press against a conservative is to attack them. I think his appearances for his wife is getting in the way of his woman chasing, that can take a toll on the sleep time. Where is Monice when Bill needs her?

History of the US Income Tax (Business Reference Services, Library of Congress)

But you are ignoring that the same Metodo 3 claimed they would have maddy home by Christmas and knew where she was. At what point do we start to distrust what these guys are saying? Also consider how convient it is to have a "similar" abduction in the area, maybe too convient? Possibly staged to have similarities? These days, there is no limit what you can do with a lot of money behind you.

Thje part your missing is that the same is true every year, not just one year. The kids who are honest or dishonest while taking the survey will stay about the same so the drop in those who respond to being drug users is a real and measurable thing. In fact, back when the surveys were first started, there was a higher pressure against drug use on a moral level so the likelyhood of honesty was much lower compared to the modern times. Think about it, if what your saying is true, then nobody would say they used drugs so the result should have been zero if all stoners thought the way you do. No, considering the greater likelyhood of honestly due to less social pressures, I would say the success of the war on drugs is greater than we can see on paper. As far as the access of drugs to children, well that would be due to adults selling to children, not the government. Any scum who would sell drugs to children is a stain on society and needs to be removed. We will always have scum like that, not much we can do about that. I don't believe we should lower standards just because we feel the scum have beat us. We can use your same arguement of accessability to cocain, crack, heroin, any drug can be easily purchased without the need of an ID, so make everything legal because of that fact right????????? I know your arguement is the pot has a lower harm but I do not agree. I see any recreational drug as bad on the mental if not physical level. Escaping our problems in a haze of smoke is no better than escaping with a needle or a crack pipe. Our problems do not dissapear just because we can scramble our minds with chemicals. In most cases, trying to avoid facing our problems only makes them worse. Remember, I am talking about the average man, you even admitted your friends always have drugs on them so you will not allow them around your kid, clearly the average person cannot be as responsible with their drug use as you are.

Radical Islam existed long before American involvement in the middle east. Case in point: Iraq prior to the war with Iran had some of the most modern and free attitudes ever seen for Muslims. The difficult war had a populace unhappy and even angry. Control was slipping and the "return" to more fundamental Muslim beliefs was implimented. Prior to this "return" women had more rights in Iraq than any other Muslim controled Nation. Islam from it's beginning has always been a very agressive religion designed for strict control over it's people. America cannot increase or decrese the basic trend of their religion, sure, many people can twist things and "claim" their acting certain ways because of things like troops being on their soil, but no matter what they have to say, I as a reasonable person ( at least in my own mind ) cannot justify any reason to exclusively target children or other innocents in my persuit of any agenda. To me, this is a defining factor, sure, all war includes the unfortunate deaths of innocents, but when the innocents become your target of choice, that is when I call you a monster to the highest degree.

But is that not the real dissapointment? Why are things with them always about outward appearances instead of inward ability?

I saw some study group results last year where college students were asked who they would most likely support for President, and there was a heavy support for Hillary from young women so on a follow up, these women were asked about what specific things Hillary stood for and they they liked the most, and they didn't really have an answer. Yes, some people will vote for Hillary just because she is female and many that will vote for Obama due to his bering part black, in the absence of knowing the issues, all that anyone can do is support your own I guess.

Has anyone noticed this is the third time Metodo 3 has made press releases with theories to take attention away from the parents but still no real evidence, no solid proof and their original claim to have maddy home by Christmas is not getting any time from the news to show how unreliable they are?

I am not sure of your point, liberals have given more to building a bigger government than the conservatives. Social welfare is definately a liberal agenda, and needs big brother to make it possible. But I will say both parties have distanced themselves from the things that they used to make a priority. I see part of that being due to the average person not fitting one description. I am heavy conservative in most of my views but I believe many liberal beliefs are very good for the nation. Legal recreational drugs is not something I believe to be a reasonable goal for society. We have enough people escaping reality and running from responsibility without adding another several layers of irresponsibility. People on the whole are weak, the masses cannot resist the existing dangers now, no point in adding more hurdles until the existing ones can be handled successfully.

I complain about bad lawsuits, so I must give equal time to good ones: FOXNews.com - 'Please Don't Do That': Man Says Hospital Forced Rectal Exam - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News So let me get this straight. A man is hit in the head, he goes to the hospital and they want to inspect his rectum, he does not want the inspection so they decide to force the exam on him, he resists their force, and they knock him out and do it anyway. I cannot see how the hospital can defend their actions in this case. Even if the exam was a "very good" test to check for spinal damage, it is still this person's body and if they don't want the exam, they don't do the exam. They should have taken the time to fully explain the need for the exam to try and get his approval, not force him to comply with their wishes. Can anyone offer a good reason for the hospitals actions?

FOXNews.com - Woman Sues County for Distributing Nude Photos She Sent to Husband in Jail - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News I cannot understand how our Country was turned into such a greedy place, but these lawsuits are out of control. In my opinion, I think anyone who files these suits should be subject to a penalty of some kind if proven to be without merit. If a woman takes nude pictures of herself and sends them into a prison, she cannot have an expectation of privacy.

Well, we know Bin Laden would never lie about somehting like that right? I mean he kills children, targets women or any other innocent to create the most terror possible. But he is too good and pure to tell lies about his motives right? And some people wonder why I am so impatient with liberals........... Someone tell Wez that trusting the word of a terrorist may not be a smart move.

Ron Paul is a great member of congress, his radical possitions are a balancing point against the radicals on the other end of the spectrum, but he is not someone who should be president. He believes in free trade, but he does not believe there is ever a reason good enough to use military force, or even influence matters with trade, etc..., outside the borders of this country. While I can see where backing off a few things and letting the UN do things without us for awile could possibly wake a few people up, I do not believe there would be much woeld trade if suddenly every bully nation around the world knew that America would "never" try to take action to stop them from doing anything they want. America being here and the world knowing were willing to jump into any fight is a deterrant against bullies. The relative peace we have around the world is because of America's willingness to get involved. When Iraq invaded Kuait, we stepped in to take action, without America, Iraq would have gotten away with it and then another bully Nation would have done the same, over and over. Consider the success of the 6 party talks with North Korea, without these actions, there would be hostilities, and as hostilities spread, industry turns to war needed products, not trade prodicts. The Countries and homes need their money to live and support troops, not spend it on extras and extravances. Trade ships become fair game during wars, either boarded and taken over or just simply sunk. Countries like Iran can follow through with their threat to remove the Jews from their land, nobody to stop them right? Russia has been flexing their muscles lately, nothing like a promise to ignore the world from America to wake that giant up from it's slumber. On the whole, I can find a few of Ron Pauls ideas I like, the UN is useless and he wants to remove them from our soil and never be involved with them anymore. He wants a basic tax system like the flat tax, he wants to put us back on the gold standard, he has lots of good ideas, but hos bad ideas are too radical to be given any real consideration. I look at it this way, when there are more Americans that still believe that Bush planned 9/11 than who support Ron Paul for President, it is difficult to take him seriuously.

Put simply, liberals feel any misrepresentation is perfectly fine, the ends justifies the means. Clearly, telling voters ahead of time that if they vote for them they will get a check is buying votes and giving money "back" to voters after an election is not. Anna is a prime example of how liberals pretend to not know what we are talking about so they don't hve to face the issue, too bad too because consider how much we could accomplish if we stopped hiding behind feigned lack of understanding. Do all politicians play games during elections? They sure do. But, only the liberals are openly, and proudly buying their votes. I think it is funny she attacks me saying I am still messing with Wez (I wasn't, I only made one goodby comment) but she has made several personal attacks on me, two faced?