fakeitormakeit2

Same here in [New] Jersey. It's a Jersey thing.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/13/funding-illegal-israeli-settlements-priceless/ edit: THANKS, BLOODSTAIN for that post. Prison-rape jokes need to stop. It's a serious issue and a serious problem in America. Interesting article Magekillr. It puts things into perspective when the US government condemns a matter on the grounds of its "legality".

Yep Chinese President Hu Jintao. He's also bowed to Emperor Akihito of Japan and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He likes to show his head in submission to all these foreign leaders. Clinton taking over his press conference should be no surprise. Are seriously this stupid or what? Bowing is a sign of honour in those cultures. He did exactly what he was supposed to. EDIT: There is plenty, plenty of stuff to get angry at him about. This was just one of those idiotic things that all the haters latched on to because it is an easy talking point when in fact he did exactly what he was supposed to. Are you seriously this stupid? First of all, you don't have a subject in your first sentence. Secondly, you're very ignorant by assuming a bow just means respect anywhere that is east of the US. I specifically mentioned King Abdullah as an example. In Arab culture, when you perform a profound bow it is the equivalent of a kowtow. If he was ignorant of what to do, he should have represented his own country's culture by politely shaking hands. The entire notion is more important then just the physical action itself. A sovereign is to act like a sovereign.

Yep Chinese President Hu Jintao. He's also bowed to Emperor Akihito of Japan and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He likes to show his head in submission to all these foreign leaders. Clinton taking over his press conference should be no surprise.

I planned and promoted an annual outwear drive for the homeless I do for this Saturday and this year I'm estimating a couple thousand jackets.

Christians did behave in a similar manner at one point, during the crusades. That was also when you couldn't get your hands on a Bible and the Catechism wasn't widely available... Whats nice about technology is we've all got access to the Bible, the Catechism, the Qu'ran, and Hadith. One set says "turn the other cheek", the other set says Jihad... Another Western misconception. Then context you used them in could make them synonymous. The supposed widespread nature of Islamic terrorism is probably due to accusations through misunderstanding, leading to Western invasions and ignorance which lead to terrorism in response to being discriminated against.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm193/krexuzeitor/implied-facepalm.jpg[/mg] I will just take that as a *no reply* The problem with this point of view, this blind zealotry without even stopping to question why you believe something is the real cause of terrorism. If the Catholic Church had their own jihad section that ALL catholics must follow to get to heaven, I am certain we would have many christians who would be strapping themselves with bombs to gain control of planes to aim them towards Saudi Arabian buildings. Edit: an extremist branch of Islam did make that interpretation to justify their actions Christian terrorism? Quit trolling. More specifically Catholic terrorism [don't use terms that are so general they detract from accuracy]. They also had campaigns against other Christians, which the Crusades were opposed by ;).

Someone who's name will not be known, once said that the fact that God said in one chapter "And he was pleased with his works," and then in a different chapter "he was not pleased with his works." as proof that not only is the Bible full of contradictions, but God is a temperamental pouty little girl. Silly atheist, if you're going to mock Christians, do it right. There's this thing called biblical criticism were the sources of biblical stories were dissected. There are not inherent contradictions in the Bible because it is the same writer, there are redundancies and such because there were several different sources (principally J and P) which represent God differently and one guy came along and fused all the different accounts leaving elements from each source to retain something from each version. If you read other than verses out of context like most atheists who like to argue, you can see that God is shown as an anthropomorphic being while other times he is not able to be seen directly. As for that flawed argument of Christians HAVING to believe in the OT, lulz no. Jesus said not a letter was to be changed, but he also said he fulfilled it. Thus we entered into a new covenant based around the NT. The OT remains for use of wisdom that can be salvaged from its texts which show an overt expression of Jewish thought [and not surprisingly, as it was written by Jews]. I understand people have a right to not like religion, but please peeps, know what you speak of. By the way, please quote those verses. You can't quote without saying we're they're from, that's called plagiarism, you might as well not have used quotation marks. Now the above which I have responded to is an example of religious ignorance. It is like how America panics about all Muslims being extremists yet they can't even pronounce the name of their holy book, let alone know any of the content.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-plant-banned-by-mosque-ndash-because-he-was-too-extreme-2153057.html lulz I find this to be a summation of American understanding and interaction with Islam.

I think people have an inclination to select the response that reflects their ideal self rather then an actual one. Just speculation.

I hate the establishment as much as the next guy, but I can't recall the US shutting down any media outlets. Why would they? The U.S. media might as well be state-run media. They never report, they just repeat what the government says, uncritically passing on one government claim after the next -- without any contradiction, challenge, or scrutiny. When the NY Times is the best major newspaper, it says something awful about the state of print journalism in the U.S. Let's not even bother with cable news with people like Wolf Blitzer. Also, lol: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/TPZ0XLk8uBI/AAAAAAAACvU/74XE8-R69BA/s1600/cartoon.png[/img Agreed and I enjoy that comic very much.

The editor is acting in a treasonous way, no doubt. That aside, personnel such as diplomats who are assigned to represent our national interests should never say something relating to their job/our country that they would be uncomfortable with everyone hearing. One should always watch what they say, *cough* King Abdullah.

The Youtube video was a Wikileaks video first of all which was a visual supplement, so there people go again assuming without seeing. I know that in excess of 500,000 means more than 500,000 but if you were to mention 500,000 that would mean an estimate of around 500,000, plus that is comparing a three decade [24yrs I think] long dictatorship to 7 years of American occupation. And it doesn't matter if America didn't directly cause the deaths of the 800,000 estimated deaths associated with the invasion. If the invasion provoked such violence then it was an effect of the invasion and therefore should be accounted for. If an army kills two people to stop a dictator but provokes infighting that kills a million than a result of that coup was a million and two lives. It doesn't matter how many people are directly killed, the instigation of murder and the inability to prevent it still falls under the duty of an invader who is supposedly bringing freedom and paradise. *By the way, you're pretty mistaken if you think Saddam was part of the Taliban or the Taliban has anything to do with Iraq [you're about 1,000 miles off ], Taliban isn't even an Arabic word. This is specifically what I'm referring to by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about and yet they feel the need to invade other people's countries because they think they have even a general idea of what's going on.

I think I have something wrong with my eyes because whenever I'm in an open space I sometimes see something running at me from the corner of my eye and I instinctively turn or duck from it in fright, but I realize nothing is there. My friend was sooo confused when I just like dropped flat in her driveway and then looked around and got up haha. And when there's something I want to say but I don't have the opportunity I involuntarily scratch the corners of my mouth.

Since what I say isn't read and than regarded as propaganda, I say to this post :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Actually, no we didn't. Suddam was committing mass genocide over on his own people. I'd like to see where you got your numbers from, as we're not allowed to shoot unless our life is in danger. Sure, there are some soldiers who probably wouldn't care, but I can guarantee there's at least one soldier in every platoon who would have brought it up to his chain of command. The US government doesn't want to harm the innocent, as that's unnecessary blood on our hands, we want to take care of the insurgents, and try to curb the terrorism, granted that's impossible to do. The death toll of Saddam's murders are usually claimed to be "in excess of 500,000", which occurred over the course of two and a half decades. The official report by the US government as to how many Iraqis were killed is around 110,000, plus the 4,000 Americans dead. This is in a 6 year time span and does not account for the displacement of minorities I mentioned [Assyrians, Armenians, Mandaeans] by insurgents Post-Saddam. Since the American occupation, violence related deaths have been estimated from 650,000 to 1,000,000, not a very good job on the part of the emancipating Americans. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://www.timesonli...icle1469636.ece http://www.medialens..._body_count.php www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaQkb5FlA9Y America does not care about the Middle Eastern civilians. Most Americans couldn't even point to where Iraq was on a map, but for some reason they wanted it bombed following 9/11 through their own delusional understandings. I have received so many racial slurs since 9/11 out of ignorance because I'm Middle Eastern, even though I'm Syrian. The valedictorian of my high school class [mind you, I went to a private high school, one of the best in the state] said that the "conflict" in the Middle East is because Al Qaeda attacked Israel from Iraq. A populace cannot be mindful of other people if they have no clue what the hell they're talking about. There was also no existence of Al Qaeda in Iraq pre-invasion, which means that's another source of US provoked suffering. Anyone who tries to sell American Interventionism as concern for the good of others is either delusional or lying to themselves. Just like Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, Korea and many "banana republics", they are a result of American foreign interests. I suggest anyone interested in American foreign policy read the book The Ugly American as it clearly portrays the arrogance and ignorance of the ugly American interventionists while the true hero is the simple [physically ugly] American who is sincere. seriously dude, you need to relax. you don't need to bring middle east propaganda in every political thread. you're just as bad as the americans you're insulting I do not post propaganda. I was stating the apparent flaws in the US government's need to insert itself into every situation. The conflict of Korea is only another example in a group of many. And I'm not insulting Americans as a whole if you read my entire post. I'm specifically referencing "Ugly Americans" which are the type of people portrayed in EuroTrip and the book itself, written by an American. So I don't know where you get Middle Eastern propaganda from. Edit: And you're assuming the contents of a book by its title... The Ugly American inspired Pres. Eisenhower[oh hey look, a use better then firewood] to reform foreign policy & strategy and is a criticism on bureaucrats and praises the underdog of the story, who is an American but he makes a difference by using his common skills instead of being stuck up and relying on ineffective policies of inefficient force and logistics of unnecessary materials. So it is you who should relax, assuming things without knowing of a matter is specifically what I'm talking about. The main idea of the book is that America is so entrenched with the politics of one southeast Asian country providing unneeded things such as dams and military preparation when they overlook the basic needs of the people which eventually leads to the Communist takeover of a hypothetical country. The person who is making the most headway is a nobody simple engineer who lacks the funding and finesse of the diplomats and hence is externally ugly [while the diplomats are internally ugly].The most American involvement in Korea should be humanitarian aid and explanation of democracy. The rest should be up to the people of Korea to decide if they wish to overthrow Kim Jong Il.

Actually, no we didn't. Suddam was committing mass genocide over on his own people. I'd like to see where you got your numbers from, as we're not allowed to shoot unless our life is in danger. Sure, there are some soldiers who probably wouldn't care, but I can guarantee there's at least one soldier in every platoon who would have brought it up to his chain of command. The US government doesn't want to harm the innocent, as that's unnecessary blood on our hands, we want to take care of the insurgents, and try to curb the terrorism, granted that's impossible to do. The death toll of Saddam's murders are usually claimed to be "in excess of 500,000", which occurred over the course of two and a half decades. The official report by the US government as to how many Iraqis were killed is around 110,000, plus the 4,000 Americans dead. This is in a 6 year time span and does not account for the displacement of minorities I mentioned [Assyrians, Armenians, Mandaeans] by insurgents Post-Saddam. Since the American occupation, violence related deaths have been estimated from 650,000 to 1,000,000, not a very good job on the part of the emancipating Americans. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/071003_iraq_body_count.php www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaQkb5FlA9Y America does not care about the Middle Eastern civilians. Most Americans couldn't even point to where Iraq was on a map, but for some reason they wanted it bombed following 9/11 through their own delusional understandings. I have received so many racial slurs since 9/11 out of ignorance because I'm Middle Eastern, even though I'm Syrian. The valedictorian of my high school class [mind you, I went to a private high school, one of the best in the state] said that the "conflict" in the Middle East is because Al Qaeda attacked Israel from Iraq. A populace cannot be mindful of other people if they have no clue what the hell they're talking about. There was also no existence of Al Qaeda in Iraq pre-invasion, which means that's another source of US provoked suffering. Anyone who tries to sell American Interventionism as concern for the good of others is either delusional or lying to themselves. Just like Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, Korea and many "banana republics", they are a result of American foreign interests. I suggest anyone interested in American foreign policy read the book The Ugly American as it clearly portrays the arrogance and ignorance of the ugly American interventionists while the true hero is the simple [physically ugly] American who is sincere.

Lungs Like Gallows by Senses Fail

Yes, the official estimate for murdering Iraqi civilians by the US government is only 100,000 in 6years of war [some sources claim the death toll is as high as 1million, although that is unlikely]. I'm sure that's a very tight estimate as well. Not to mention minority groups have been decimated in Iraq since the fall of Saddam due to persecution by insurgents [such as Christians in general, Armenians, Assyrians, Mandaeans]. So where are the undeniable results? It is easy for a foreign influence to condemn someone from the outside. I'm not defending Saddam, but America arguably did more harm then help. American interventionism reflects the idea that too many cooks spoil the soup.

Kim spawnlings = Kimlings? :P But yeah, I've heard that as well. Apparently the older Kim's health isn't great....and promoting someone to general is pretty big in NK since head of state is also head of the army if I recall correctly? Correct. And Kim Jong Il is believed to have cancer, heart problems, and failing kidneys, among other things. I guess he's pretty Il.

Sorry if this is a bit late, I've been busy. The previous faults of the Church were because the leaders essentially reflected the actions of the Pharisees. I.e., they followed to the very minimal of the letter of the law but committed to horrible actions. Many of the faithful Catholics, even to today, have a bad problem of not being able to introspect their own faith which led them to sheepishly follow whatever they were told. So things like the Crusades, justified by the Pope as a taking back of the Holy Land from “infidels”, was justified to the common people as the will of God and also anyone who were to fight would be granted indulgences. In actuality, the Crusades caused more harm to Christianity in the East because it led to direct conflict with the Eastern Churches and then the Muslims no longer trusted most of the Eastern Churches as well. There was a saying from Abraham Lincoln I heard and I liked it a lot, ““Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.” I think it’s very appropriate. Catholicism was at fault though, but do not make such a sweeping statement such as the rest of religion did not oppose it. That was simply not the case. It was allowed to take place simply because might makes right. It is a mortal sin. But what you do not seem to realize is mortal sin must be done with full knowledge. If you do not believe in the authority of the Church, it would not be a mortal sin. Furthermore, the concept of dying with a mortal sin and going directly to hell is a bit of an outdated concept. Since people do not know the true intentions of everyone else, plus the time frame between death, purgatory/heaven or hell, God could always forgive the homosexual and they could go to heaven. The Church uses revealed Truth, i.e. that of the New Testament, and infuses it with Tradition and Authority of Apostolic Succession. The only direct unchangeable morals received from God are the ones that Jesus himself said. Keep in mind that [most] Catholics are not fundamentalists; therefore they do not believe God wrote the Bible and dropped it down to earth, meaning even if the things in the Bible that say "Jesus said 'X' " doesn't mean Jesus necessarily said that. The Church is made of humans who pursue the Catholic goal: To learn God’s will, to know God’s will and to serve God’s will. People are people and as such can get things wrong. The Church does not claim they hold across the board moral truth, and moral truth is something that develops. This is a criticism of the catechism because it is seen more as a search for truth rather than a definitive statement of the total need for Catholicism. There is salvation outside the Church if one is in moral behavior, guided by their conscience and their sincere attempt to continually develop their conscience. The Church is a fraternal means of development upon the basis of Tradition and Scripture. I think the largest problem with the Church is not that their beliefs are distasteful to people, rather it is people who make assumptions based on half a fact and make the real teaching askew. Most teachings are not contradictory or problematic, a poor understanding of Catholicism mixed with anti-Catholic sentiment is the source of wishing it is problematic with overall Catholic teaching so that it is a point that can be used against the Church.

The Catholic church has around 1B followers, not 1.7B. I don't recall anyone blaming the followers for the child molestation cases either. The problem is the church. I was wrong, 1.2B. You've missed the point by scrutinizing numbers, 1.2B is still substantial and the molesters are still an extreme minority. And obviously you do not understand the concept of the catholic church if you separate the followers from the church, seeing as how the church IS [i specifically picked 'is' over 'consists of'] the followers.

You're so ignorant. It is in Catholic teaching to be against the hatred of homosexuals, there is Jesus's statement on judgment of not forcing righteousness on your neighbor because we have our own imperfections (hence take the beam out of your eye before your neighbor]. Also, before you start criticizing Catholics perhaps you should learn that Catholic teachings are based upon Scripture and Tradition, not just Scripture [it is also believed that Scripture is written by man and may not necessarily be exactly what Jesus said, but it still holds authority as it is canonized and written under the "extended authorship"(i.e. from the same "school"/group) of apostles and disciples]. Science is incorporated in the understanding of the Church a lot more than they're given credit. Also I hate how every simpleton cites child molestation when I have never met one Catholic who supports it... And by the way, why the hell should anyone blame all 1.7billon Catholics for the secret actions of an extreme minority? Last and quite frankly I find your last sentence extremely offensive, as I have never tried to force my morality nor has the majority of Catholics I know. I don't care what you believe, as long as you're not running your mouth about how my Faith and I force feed our beliefs to other people. I've expended all my last patience in those last couple of sentences because quite frankly this forum is starting to annoying me because of a few leftist atheists who stereotype religions and preach in the most pretentious self-righteous manner. Edit: It's quite laughable how you included a "tithe" as your example of morality on the last page. Most Catholics don't even know what a tithe is. Even my near-fundamentalist Protestant friend's parish does not morally suggest a tithe, so I suggest you learn a little about Christian theology.

That's what Alfred Nobel said about his invention.

A person in a comatose state does not have the rights over their own body - unless they filled out an advanced directive. If you fall into a comatose state your family can decide after a long enough time to end your life or not. What does it mean to be a person? - to be able to feel pain,pleasure, fear, joy, excitement, and other basic emotions (which both infants and [developmentally delayed] people do feel). A basic interpersonal relationship - even a [developmentally delayed] kid or an infant recognize their mothers as something different from themselves. And I would argue being able to think symbolically, as even [developmentally delayed] people can symbolically think that for example if they point at a paper they get that food. I would say their bodies would need to work without relying directly on another persons blood and organs to survive (by directly I mean by the blood directly delivering food, and oxygen to you - not referring to people with organ failures that need transplants or hemophilia victims or people reliant on the machine to pump their blood during heart surgery). Heres in bullet form if you dont like the wall of text. Requirements to be considered human: (some oddities are included in the wall of text) - Basic sense of emotions - Basic interpersonal relationship - Think symbolically - Not directly reliant on a hosts blood and organs to survive In science something does not exist until it is proven that it does. Therefor unless a scientist comes out and says that they have overwhelming evidence that a week old fetus has a basic sense of emotions, an interpersonal relationship, the ability to think symbolically, (and I will ignore the reliant on the mothers blood to survive part) then I will say well this indeed is a person. Heres another dilemma what would your opinion on a man whom a mad scientist implanted an embryo in his abdomin, science says there are regions in a male body where a baby can survive - of course there is an almost certain chance the man would die. Now who deserves the right to live? Does the babies rights supersede the guys rights who was unfortuantly implanted? *** A fair warning: be very careful on how you answer this, if you are seen as a women hater every previous argument is then invalid (Ive seen people destroyed by this question in a debate offline) *** Good response to my question. I think it's important to establish the characteristics of a person before one can debate if something is a person or not. However wouldn't someone with amnesia [which would remove their previous relationships], a sociopath or someone who is living via machinery not fit under your classification of people? Are they not still people? Now as to your question, if the man did not consent to his implant than the fetus should be removed to save him. Why? Because he did not consent to it and he should not have to pay with his life. The fetus should be removed with the intent to maintain its life as well. If the fetus will most likely die in its removal, the chance still must be taken because if the fetus remains in the man and the man dies, then the fetus will die as well. By removing the fetus, the death total is reduced to a maximum chance of 1 instead of double. Edit: By the way, I'm curious to what you mean when you say "think symbolically".