raven_gaurd0
-
Posts
363 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by raven_gaurd0
-
-
P.S. I am, in fact, Communist.
Wouldn't this make your original post written from a biased view?
Yes. But how does Communism affect my standpoint on this bill? I would logically want it ALL the way in. All in, chips on the table, SHOW ME THE MONEY. But that isn't practical, so I'm arguing practically.
-
P.P.S. Guantanamo Bay was necessary for the same reason the internment of the Japanese was necessary - and legal.
For the first time in a very long time, I am COMPLETELY speechless.
Did you read the rest of it? I like it just as much as you do, but it was something that had to be done.
-
Guys, this isn't a Bush v. Obama thread.
As for the guy...above...I defenitely made another careless typo. I mean that a SINGLE cow produces as much as 20 trucks do a day. Source; http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/8/2483
I feel like I should re-read what I write, but I honestly don't have that kind of time.
P.S. I am, in fact, Communist.
P.P.S. Guantanamo Bay was necessary for the same reason the internment of the Japanese was necessary - and legal. Sip your Kool-Aid in your corner, but there are people who want to [bleep]ing KILL you. I disapprove of the act of it, myself, but I recognize that it's not a crime to do it, especially when it's necessary as thus.
EDIT: We haven't been out of debt since the damn Revolutionary War. No, we are NEVER going to pay it back.
-
No, you don't like me because of my other political views.
Assassination is a political crime that bears a difference of sentencing depending on the potential of the person. That's not an assumption, that's a fact. President-Elect has the 100% potential and will become the president, so if I kill him, it will count as me killing the president. Apply the same logic to fetuses and humans.
So you dont get punished for murder unless its the president, I wasnt aware it worked that way.
...I'm going to break code and tell you that you are, in fact, a moron. Yes, man. I was insinuating that you are only tried for murder if you assassinate the president. That's EXACTLY what I was saying with that analogy.
And I don't know. It's your body, yes, but that logic is rather...misleading. It is ALIVE in your body. So...if I ate somebody without killing them, or somehow managed to infuse them to myself, it would be legal to kill them? It doesn't seem right.
And I know, my signature is...not the most mature thing...but hey, I got to have a light-hearted something for all the heavy duty fighting I do.
-
You are aware that cows provide as much environment-stabbing gas a day as a truck driving like, 20,000 miles? Why aren't we mandating that we should kill cows or...at least ship them into space so we don't have to put up with their atomic flatulence?
For the same reason we're not banning cars. In today's society, they're basically a necessity. But people are working on ways of reducing cow's impact, just as there are people trying to make cars more efficient.
Cutting carbon emissions is great, but not [snip] in the middle of a global meltdown.Couldn't a global meltdown be, say, the ice caps melting?
I expected Obama to try to be a mediator, but he's only gone with what I expected...
EDIT: As for you being centrist, I have yet to see one liberal view you have had, in any of your posts on these forums. I might have missed something, but...
Oooh, I did word that last part badly. I guess I mean to say, I hoped him to be a mediator, but I didn't expect it of him. As has been said, 'Hope is just the first step on the road of disappointment.'
And you want to know my left-wing policies? Well, for one I'm 100% gun control, I think the government needs a degree of control over it's population, and, if at all possible, should in fact have ALL control over their population. But I know that doesn't work, 'cept on paper. I do think that cutting global emission is good, but especially not now. (Call me back when the icebergs are actually, like, a tangible threat during this pressing economic crisis.) I'd like to spread the money around so that rich people don't get richer and poor people don't keep getting poorer. Unfortunately, we hardly ever argue the semantics of communism and socialism here, so I don't get much say....and finally, I am pro-drugs. Hell, it's your choice, and it only directly harms you.
And cows aren't necessary; far from it. They're just too tasty.
-
Oh no! Providing a fleet of hybrid vehicles for our federal employs would be AWFUL!
It would bring down our carbon emissions, buy cars that people cannot afford right now because banks aren't loaning money, bring up demand for an industry that's currently dying and laying off employees, and be some of the first steps towards green energy! How DARE they spend this on these "pork" projects! I mean, it's not like the Postal Service is the largest federal employer in America...oh, nvm.
By the way, what constitutes "pork", raven? By the GOP's standards, it's anything that isn't tax cuts (which do cost money, by the way).
Here's what pork really is:
Many Republicans have been decrying the stimulus package as "pork barrel spending" and criticizing it for having too much "pork" (i.e. any line item in the bill that doesn't contain the phrase, "tax cuts," is considered pork by them). As a result, a lot of stuff had to be cut from the bill in order to get the bipartisan support needed to pass it.But in actuality, a lot of the programs in the stimuuls bill aren't pork, because they AREN'T just benefiting a special constituency in exchange for political support. Increasing funding for schools, energy efficient infrastructure, and scientific research provides a net benefit to our society as a WHOLE.
In contrast, a lot of tax cuts that Republicans tout could easily classify as "pork" mroe than direct spending. For example, tax cuts to oil corporations are definitely pork, as they only benefit a certain constituent (the oil cos.) and usually these are given in exchange for their political support or campaign contributions.
So yeah, ironic that Repubilcans oppose "pork" that isn't really pork, while supporting provisions (specifically tax cuts) that could classify as "pork." Just thought I would point this out. :)
My friend, Evan.
You are aware that cows provide as much environment-stabbing gas a day as a truck driving like, 20,000 miles? Why aren't we mandating that we should kill cows or...at least ship them into space so we don't have to put up with their atomic flatulence?
Cutting carbon emissions is great, but not in a stimulus package, and not in the middle of a global meltdown.
As for the rest of the 'pork', it doesn't matter if we move towards those 'great' things in society, if it comes away from the economy and the finances of those people being benefited, then it's not as good.
I guess I'm disappointed 'cause I expected Obama to try to be a mediator, but he's only gone with what I expected - left wing policies. Which is, you know, his choice, but against his campaign promises of bipartisanship.
And for the LAST damn time, I am NOT right-winged. I am CENTRIST. I frown upon the Republicans being pouting little [puncture]s just as much as the next guy.
-
No, you don't like me because of my other political views.
Assassination is a political crime that bears a difference of sentencing depending on the potential of the person. That's not an assumption, that's a fact. President-Elect has the 100% potential and will become the president, so if I kill him, it will count as me killing the president. Apply the same logic to fetuses and humans.
-
Is this fat stimulus package supposed to include spending for pandemic flu research and the purchase of green, fuel-efficient government vehicles, with between $300 million to $600 million earmarked for this? Im all for supporting those goals, but do these belong in a STIMULUS plan?
That's the vehicles part. As for the rest, I don't really want to post it all...but I did find some nice Congressional Pie charts posted by CNN that details the percentiles of the spending. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/12/stimulus/?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCOther1
And I wish I wasn't American. I wish I was back in dear ol' Dublin...
-
Fetuses are known to squirm, react when poked, they even get erections if they're male while they're in the womb, and they try to claw away from the vacuum that sucks them out of their mothers womb, and you insist that they aren't living?
As for zygotes, why inhibit their potential?
Here's an analogy that might strike close to your liberal heart.
Wind back time two months. President-Elect Obama hasn't DONE anything in office, but if I killed him I would be prosecuted as if he were the best president EVAR, even though he hasn't done anything yet. That is punishment of potential.
Killing a baby has the same sentence as killing an adult, and why is that? Babies are easier to kill and they're much smaller, and they haven't done anything. But they had the potential to be an adult.
See the logic here?
-
Facts are from the latest issue of the Week.
I can't respond to all this, that'd be impossible since I actually have to work tonight. I will say it's kind of funny that if I insult Obama the Tip.It police come and smack me on the head. Don't get me wrong; I hate Obama and McCain and Bush and...Republicans and Democrats and everybody.
At any rate, I have studied economics, if but briefly. I will say that taking money out of the taxpayers hands will do nothing for the economy.
I don't quite understand the Hamiltonian idea of debt. It doesn't seem to work 300 years after-de-fact.
And when I said majority, I meant what I said, but when I said, I meant to say 'ideals.' I guess I've been out of it.
P.S. No, I'm about the only not-democratic person here, but I'm also not a republican, so what are you gonna do?
Centrists for the win!
And don't beat on me on the whole monarchy definition. I can't remember the name of the government type that has a large group beat on a smaller group, ignoring them completely.
Unless that's called democracy.
Oh well.
-
Rapid mutations won't just target the HIV virus, though. A virus looks like this:
Now, inside there is but a DNA strand. The drug cannot leech onto the protein coating (the pink) but will instead proceed to go inside and encourage the RNA and enzymes inside to change and clone very rapidly WHEN IT ENTERS A CELL. HIV cannot mutate on it's own; it cannot create more DNA as that defies the law of the conservation of matter (viruses cannot take in any sustenance with which to replicate DNA which, is, at least, something of new matter.)
Therefore, when the HIV virus with mutation-encouraging drugs in it enters the cell (ie, the host) the host will do it's function, producing rapidly mutated HIV viruses, but the drugs which are now INSIDE the cell will also serve to mutate the cell.
This wouldn't be a problem, but the drug is now loose, uncontained, inside this infected cell. Well, no big deal, right? The cell will just die?
Not exactly. The cell will explode, literally, and the viruses, along with the remnants of the drugs, will escape.
Here is a diagram of an animal cell (ie, the ones in you and me)
The cell membrane is not a very thick or withstanding structure. It can stop attacks from huge proportional structures without bursting, but it itself, on a molecular level, is more important to retain the shape and structure of the cell. The drug, which is now loose in the cytoplasm of your body, will spread to the outside of the membrane, at which point it will be diffused. (See image below.)
With the diffusion, the drug will be released into the cytoplasm of the cell, proceed to the nucleus, and rapidly mutate the enzymes of the RNA, so that when the cell replicates through mitosis, it will be 100% surefire different and mutated.
On the scale that the drug would be attacking, the HIV virus may or may not be mutated into oblivion, but I think that your cells would be badly mutated to the point that HIV isn't your primary concern.
...and it's also how the zombie apocalypse is going to start.
I AM OMEGA MAN!
P.S. I did all this logic on my own, tell me if it's wrong. :wall:
-
What did the ball of cells ever do to you?
And aren't you just a larger ball of cells?
That means I can kill you when you become an inconvenience to me?
-
Don't get angry at me.
After just three (Four?) weeks in office, Obama has already proven himself as partisan as any president, and completely unable to deal with the rapid disappointment of his stimulus plan. The stimulus bill, which, miraculously, actually got through Congress in only a week or so (if pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of progress...?) and is now to be signed. This trillion-dollar plan is filled with pork barreled spending, unnecessary luxuries, and partisan fundings.
And he puts a 500,000 dollar cap on CEO salaries, when he's delivering millions for vehicles for Washington execs of the Democratic party?
Are you kidding me?
Obama's plan, while ambitious in it's attempts to attack the economic problem, is throwing far too much money away that tax-payer would have actually, like, spent, which, guess what, ACTUALLY would have helped the economy. If taxpayers didn't have to pay that money, they would go out and spend it and the economy would be happier. This is all the banker's fault; let's not drop it on the heads of us, the people.
Bush's administration spent 3.8 trillion dollars, including the $800 billion bailout that half-of America was livid about, and in the first THREE WEEKS of Obama's administration he has already passed a trillion dollars! And he hasn't even accomplished half the things he wants; free health for all, anybody?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is largely responsible for the excess pork-belly funding, however Obama is passing the bill without even vetoing it in order to send a clear message to Congress that this is too much. Not only that, but this is turning into a blunt monarchy. Of all the Republicans in the Senate and the House, only 3 votes for this package, and among those all of whom are known to be rather centrist.
To me, I think Obama has already bitterly defaulted on his promises on compromise, bipartisanship, and curing Congress of unnecessary spending and corruption. Instead, in the first 3 weeks of his administration, he has already matched 27% or so of Bush's debt, showed himself to cater to the majority, and not his own promises and ideals, and has already shunned Republicans from anything that actually matters. (Don't feed me that 'invite the Republicans to the White House' [cabbage]. That was for the cameras, nothing more.)
I call myself disappointed in this epic fail of a president.
-
I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE.
AND I DOES NOT LIKE IT.
Seriously, kids at 13? This is why we must neuter all our children. They're like horny pets; they can't be trusted.
I call for the return of eugenics! But please, Hoover, stay away from my Irish genitelia! I like them too much.
-
Comparing a fetus to an animal seems valid to a point. Here; let me settle on this medium. Let us say that a fetus IS worth an animal.
So you have a dog. It's a very beautiful, unique, and loveable dog, but you're afraid you can't care for it financially (because it's pedigree demands very expensive food) or you don't have time to pay attention to it. What do you do with it? You can either keep it for 18 years and then it's dead, or off doing it's own thing, or you can put it up for adoption...or you can kill it before it really even has a chance for life. Here you are, killing this dog for no other reason than you didn't want to go through the effort of giving it a loving life, when it was a fantastic dog, and it's your idea in the first place to get him.
That, my friend, is not justice.
-
Ahh, bananas are machines eh? They do have two parts: peel and the fruit inside. Together, they can also perform work by helping you slide across the floor faster.
Inevitably leading to your inexorable death.
As for Mr. Canniball...I have no idea where that came from. o.O
-
Nope!
Bananas are actually machines.
Machines designed to KILL YOU.
-
Stupid 4chan doesn't keep it's gif's up for very long.
Thread is dying. :o
-
I would like to make a motion.
-
Yes...tube-tying and testi-snipping. Most unpleasent.
But it was an honest question. I, seriously, didn't know. :|
-
Yeah, well, not everybody is as open-minded, but at least I acknowledge that 'God said so' isn't a legit argument. It's enough for me to believe in the case, but it certainly isn't enough for anybody I'd be trying to convince.
-
Comrades, I feel the good debate flowing through this thread.
Goddess, any doctor who tells you that you are 100% from getting pregnant while engaging in intercourse is lying to you, and if that is what they said, than you were given the wrong information, but you yourself really should have known the risks for yourself by going to more than just a few sources (and using common sense. There's always risk factors in pretty much everything.)
As for...abstinence-only sex-ed? You're right. It's totally wrong. We need to teach more outside of abstinence, but it's also ridiculous to drop the idea of abstinence from sex ed. Encourage abstinence, teach alternatives. I mean, they are just children, but children can be brash and think that they know it all and go ahead and have sex anyway. It's their fault for ignoring their 'vows', and taking the risks, but they should at least know how to reduce the risks. I, of course, would hope that these people simply don't get pregnant, but aye, Comrade Warrior, that is a utopia we will never achieve.
Also, yes, the zygote contains plenty of cells that preform mitosis, all of them with the proper 46-chromosome nuclei, which makes them biologically human. It's just duplication of cells from that point, and the introduction of meiosis in which gametes (23-chromosome nuclei cells) are produces, and eventually determine the gender of the now-fetus. Life, no doubt, begins the second gamete and gamete meet (sperm and egg.)
Also, tangent, wouldn't an effective contraceptive be a device that sucks the egg out of the uterus before intercourse? Condoms, of course, break sometimes, but there is only one egg in the question. Is it still too far up the uterus when fertilization occurs?
Also, double-tangent, why can't the girls just say; 'I'm near or on my period, I don't think sex is safe now.' It's like, seriously, sperm die within 24 or so hours (or so I understand, please correct me if I'm wrong.) so if a woman has her period around the 12th each month, have sex on the 25th or so.
-
My.
At any rate, I'm going to bed. Goodnight, Comrades.
P.S. Cooooommuniiiism....spectre of Eeeeeuroooope.... \
-
Well, Comrade Warrior, a utopia is the ultimate goal of a society, therefore the society should try to aim towards those utopian ideals, rather than devolving into coddling for the people who only serve to muck up society.
Well whoa darn! Obama has failed - already?
in Off-Topic
Posted
*Clears throat.*
Both after 9/11 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor this became completely justified and legal.
There were no civil liberties to them. Not even the UN's list of Human Rights retain habeas corpus.