magekillr

I've seen the video. What's your point? I hardly think that being armed as well as the local 2nd grade class could constitute justifiable defense in the case of military soldiers illegally boarding an aid ship in international waters. What would you do if someone tried to illegally board your boat, knowing full well what would happen once the items I listed were found? Without those tunnels, the Palestinians might have already been successfully fully cleansed from the region. Those tunnels are their lifeblood. I know how much of a staunch supporter of Israel that you are, romy, but this is completely unsubstantiated. Define "attacking" for me. If you mean by attacking "thwacking and throwing IDF soldiers overboard once they illegally boarded their ship," I would agree, but I wouldn't call that attacking. Yes, they did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGiSpXmnQ0

If they had nothing to hide, which they claim, why would they object to being searched? Given the fact stun grenades were used by the "activists" I think it isn't that far fetched to claim weapons might have been on board. I agree with your claim about where it occurred, Israel had no right to check the ships while in international waters. Well, do you even know what items Israel prevents from getting through their blockade? Many materials were on board the ship; things such as chocolate, biscuits, potato chips, fresh meat, coriander, industrial margarine are the food items prevented. Other banned goods include musical instruments, pens, notebooks, toys, cars, fridges and computers, as well as building materials like cement, iron, gravel, marble and some wood. Of course they didn't want the IDF to search their ship. Anyone with half of a brain knows that the ship would be towed back to an Israeli port, where all of the listed items would be removed from their ship. Give me a break. The Free Gaza Movement might irk some in their beliefs, but anyone familiar with them knows they are non-violent, and quite serious about that. Theyre also not stupid, which any group of civilians would have to be to intentionally get into a violent clash with a significant military force. Israel has not only once again demonstrated their arrogance in thinking they're above all law, but they have quite possibly ruined any peace agreements that they had with Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan. All this, and for what? To keep construction materials from the Gazan people? They have actually provoked Turkey to the point that they may start a war over this massacre. You know what that means? Article 5. The US will be forced to choose: NATO, or Israel.

This is Zionism, my friends. Its true ugly face has once again reared its head. If it wasn't for Israel's blockade, these ships wouldn't have needed to travel there in the first place. To recap what the blockade has done: * since the intensification of the siege in June 2007, "the formal economy in Gaza has collapsed" (More than 80 UN and aid agencies [.pdf]) * "61% of people in the Gaza Strip are food insecure," of which "65% are children under 18 years" (UN FAO) * since June 2007, "the number of Palestine refugees unable to access food and lacking the means to purchase even the most basic items, such as soap, school stationery and safe drinking water, has tripled" (UNRWA) * "in February 2009, the level of anemia in babies (9-12 months) was as high as 65.5%" (UN FAO) Sources: (1) (2) (3) (4) To recap what seems thus far to be the central claim of Israel apologists: Israel is the official Owner of international waters (which is where the flotilla was when it was attacked). As such, they have the right to issue orders to ships in international waters, and everyone on board those ships is required to obey and submit. Anyone who fails to do so, or anyone in the vicinity of those who fail to do so, can be shot and killed and get what they deserve. What's so odd about that is that the U.S. has been spending a fair amount of time recently condemning exactly such acts as "piracy" and demanding "that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes." When exactly did Isarel acquire the right not only to rule over Gaza and the West Bank, but international waters as well?

I'm a pacifist, against the death penalty, and against abortion under any circumstance but the below. In the event that a mother or fetus would die, the mother has the choice to either abort the fetus or carry the child to term and die herself. So you were against waging war against Nazi-Germany and Imperial-Japan? Were you against the Korean War? Were you against the Iraq War? A pacifist is against war under any circumstance, even in cases of self-defense. Do you still operate under the notion of being a pacifist? Only the naive in this world do. So you're not pro-life, as you've demonstrated in your last sentence; I also do not believe that you are a pacifist.

In order to be "pro-life," you'd have to be a pacifist, against the death penalty, and against abortion under any circumstance. Still, you'd come to a form of cognitive dissonance somewhere along the line, probably when you have to choose who lives: the mother or the fetus. You can't save both, ya know. And if you choose to "let nature run its course," chances are both will die.

Erm, what? While I agree that both are political labels, this is ridiculous. I am pro-choice because I think a woman should have the CHOICE and control over her body. If she gets pregnant and wants to keep it, that's fine by me. I prefer anti-woman and pro-equal-rights, personally.

Cool beans, you stuck me on a definition. But that's completely ignoring the context that we're discussing this in. If that's what he really wanted to talk about, then his fault for not being clearer. From now on I'll refer to it as "induced abortion" because you guys refuse to stick to the topic on hand. [/hide] I'm sorry, but what? Your whole post in which I was aiming that at was just you claiming that a removing a dead fetus is not an abortion, when by definition it is, and you saying you're just going to ignore a user. So how is that ignoring a context, when I reply to a relevant part? Or do you just dislike being corrected? Also, you claimed to have looked extremely deeply into the pro-life side, have you actually looked as hard into pro-choice? Or is your opinion based on a lack of information? What? It's common sense. Assuming the fetus died naturally, of course you'd remove it. That isn't abortion, and it's merely a glitch in the definition. If what you said was true, then women in America wouldn't be forced to give stillbirths due to the ban on the IDX procedure. Of course, men never take these moments into account because, you know, they don't have uteri. This is why even though you can claim there are women who are "pro-life" that most of these pro-life women still empathize far more. Azvareth, well said.

I wish you could understand how stupid your logic is. Their child will die if they don't abort... so instead of letting something natural happen, they intervene and kill it quicker? Wha? NO! It's going to die, so rather than be put through the torment of giving a still birth, or having a dead fetus flushed out, they remove it before that happens. My logic is stupid? Listen, son, you're the one forcing a woman to carry a parasite that she may or may not want, which is bad enough. Now you're saying that she doesn't have the freedom to remove the fetus that's already dead? She must be forced to look at the ultrasound? That's sadism. Removing a dead baby isn't an abortion. If you think it is, you're sadly mistaken. You've really shown your ignorance. Yes, it is an abortion. I already went over this in one of my first responses to this thread. What you pro-lifers call "partial birth abortion," medical people call "intact dilation and extraction" or IDX. In 2003, Bush passed his Partial-Borth Abortion Ban Act. Thus, mothers whose fetuses have already died (or WILL inevitably die) cannot be removed, and they're forced to give birth to a stillborn. Thanks for putting your ignorance on full display. And I will continue to call a spade a spade, in which I believe that anyone who thinks that women's bodies should be controlled are indeed misogynistic [wagon].

I wish you could understand how stupid your logic is. Their child will die if they don't abort... so instead of letting something natural happen, they intervene and kill it quicker? Wha? NO! It's going to die, so rather than be put through the torment of giving a still birth, or having a dead fetus flushed out, they remove it before that happens. My logic is stupid? Listen, son, you're the one forcing a woman to carry a parasite that she may or may not want, which is bad enough. Now you're saying that she doesn't have the freedom to remove the fetus that's already dead? She must be forced to look at the ultrasound? That's sadism. Have you read half of anything that I've said? Do you understand it? Yes, and I understand that you're a misogynist. Lemme know what I missed.

Has anyone who wants to force women to watch an ultrasound of their fetus before they abort ever thought of the women who's child WILL die if they don't abort? Getting rid of a dead fetus from her uterus is an abortion. You want to make a woman (and her spouse, for that matter) be forced to go through more psychological pain? You want them to watch their fetus, that will die, that they know they will lose, before they lose it? No, of course you haven't. They only think of women who are [bleep]s, and should have just kept their legs closed. That's what this abortion debate has ALWAYS been about. That's just sick. You're a disgusting misogynist, sees_all1. edit: here's an interesting link about how a lot of people who are against abortion eventually get one when the table's are turned. Their abortion is different; it always is: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html One of my favorites:

Well normally you wouldn't need to ask me this because I like things regulated. However, this doesn't need to be, nor should it be. It is a decision for the doctor and the woman to make (assuming the woman is in good mental-health). If a doctor feels comfortable performing one at 8 months and the woman, for whatever reason, wants it, then that's her choice. a.) The mental health of the mother would be in question of the highest order if she wanted to abort at that late in the game if her health wasn't in danger, and neither was the fetus's. I put that qualifier there for a reason. b.) Some people say "only if the health of the mother is at risk!" According to these people, a woman should be forced to give birth to dead fetuses and fetuses with severe birth defects. That's wrong Why is that wrong? Really? You don't see anything wrong with forcing a woman to give birth to a dead fetus? The emotional trauma that she's already forced to bear knowing that her child will be dead isn't enough for you? You need to punish her further? This is exactly why abortion is never about "life," but about punishing women. Do you also make special exceptions for rape and incest, too? The misogyny is overwhelming. I don't understand what you're saying here? I'm saying that a lot of people argue that abortion should only be legal if it threatens the mother's life, when I'm saying that this doesn't account for the fetus's well-being, either. Removing a dead fetus is an abortion. I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person. It's not murder, it's a clump of cells, or a zygote, or a fetus, depending on the stage of development. It can't be murder by the mere definition! Murder is a legal term, it doesn't mean killing. It is the unlawful killing of another person, and even then there are distinctions (manslaughter, 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc). Abortion is legal, and can't be murder by that reason alone. If you really think that, tell me this: There's 5 petri dishes on my counter. I also have 5 individuals standing there with a shotgun collar similar to that used in the Saw films. Whose lives do you save, and why? Anyone telling me the petri dishes is a liar. Why do you make this distinction? You don't need to answer, as I already know the answer: women are too stupid to control their bodies, and men need to do it for them. Only when their own lives are threatened should they have control over their own uterus! and I don't like my tax dollars being given to religious organizations through faith based initiatives. I don't like my tax dollars going to jails and prisons, forcing people there who in my opinion have no business being there (drug offenders, especially). I don't like my tax dollars going to corn and wheat farmers, subsidizing their products and inflating their value, giving them unfair competition with smaller farmers around the world and making unhealthy food cheaper. I don't like my tax dollars going to the War in Iraq. I don't like my tax dollars funding oil and gas companies like BP. There's a million things I don't want my tax dollars going towards. What makes your issue so special? edit: Oh, and I see you're against contraception? Do you know how many millions people like you have killed, indirectly? The Pope has arguably killed more people than all of the cult leaders put together. I hope that you don't have sex, ever, even if you're married. Otherwise, unless your spouse is very infertile, you're going to be having a lot of children.

His point was that you're just using semantics to get around the fact that Europe is exactly like the US in terms of region and federalism. It's akin to the US because in the US, there are 50 states with one single entity joining them all together. That's what the EU is; a swath of nations joined under one flag. He used India because it's certainly not a monolithic country, but they still have one single entity representing them; the argument that Europe is too diverse doesn't cut it. So why is it different?

Well normally you wouldn't need to ask me this because I like things regulated. However, this doesn't need to be, nor should it be. It is a decision for the doctor and the woman to make (assuming the woman is in good mental-health). If a doctor feels comfortable performing one at 8 months and the woman, for whatever reason, wants it, then that's her choice. a.) The mental health of the mother would be in question of the highest order if she wanted to abort at that late in the game if her health wasn't in danger, and neither was the fetus's. I put that qualifier there for a reason. b.) Some people say "only if the health of the mother is at risk!" According to these people, a woman should be forced to give birth to dead fetuses and fetuses with severe birth defects. That's wrong The exception in America is ONLY a threat to a woman's life in the third trimester. So if a dead fetus is more of an inconvenience (rather emotionally painful at that) than a direct threat, you are forced to give birth. In fact, this is THE biggest problem with the ban on IDX. So it comes down to this: a woman should be able to have an abortion in the first and second trimester for whatever reason that she wants. Ideally you could put a restriction on the third trimester for "only if the health of the fetus or mother is in danger," but there's no reason for that because of the reasons I laid out above. I see restrictions creep with chauvinists wanting to take away a woman's freedom, and I stand by my convictions that I do not trust the right-wing to settle for "late term only if..." They will continue to march, taking every last inch of that rope. Don't believe me? Look in America with states like Oklahoma, forcing women to get an ultrasound and have the doctor describe the fetus in great detail before she has the abortion. Canada has no restriction on their abortion rights, none whatsoever. They're doing fine. No woman would ever do that when it's perfectly legal to have it done professionally and medical expenses are covered by the government. This is why banning abortion doesn't work in the first place; what you said above will happen all of the time.

Ok, WAY worse than Exxon Valdez. Estimates of 5,000 barrels per day are obviously wrong, and now estimates are approaching 56-84,000 barrels per day. That's an Exxon Valdez every 4 days. To make matters worse, the chemicals that BP put in the water is causing the oil to clump, underwater: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil.html?hp Drill, baby, drill. Right, Sarah Palin?

I love Canada's approach to abortion :) Every country should follow: no government regulations or interference, whatsoever.

I'm not much of a cellphone guy. A lot of my friends think I'm screening their calls when I don't answer, when in fact my phone is just sitting on my desk charging or something and I'm not home. I've been using it more lately, but compared to everyone else around me, I barely use it at all.

Where are the cuts being made? On the poor whilst the rich receive tax cuts? That's the problem with these deficits in the first place. They don't happen from overspending, they usually almost always happen because tax cuts are given out. Nacho mentioned Norway, but it's pretty well documented that Norway's taxes are too high and should be cut. There's no magical number, but eventually it does squeeze the rich too much to the point of them leaving and/or evading. Luckily Switzerland is being squeezed, as are the Cayman Islands, to cut down tax evaders and work with foreign governments. Either way, Britain does have a deficit problem, but I don't know their budget well enough to know where the cuts should be made. In a recession, cuts shouldn't be made to begin with. That's why you have low deficits and/or surpluses during booms; it's basic econ 101.

If anyone believes this, they're quite gullible. I suspect that he has an accomplice.

The thing with the white russian is that their recipes vary, unlike most other cocktails. Some prefer to have the cream floating on top (4 counts vodka, 2 counts coffee liqueur, garnished with cream), others prefer a lot more cream than a garnish (as seen above), and then others prefer it mixed. To each his own :)

Sarcasm or not you talk a lot of sense. There are a great number of people in this country who think that the world owes them a living. Why should people who work hard and save their money be penalised in old age, whilst those scroungers and layabouts get looked after by the state. Because it's simply not true. "Hard work" does not amount to success, and that's something the right-wing will never ever understand. In fact, the working poor work just as hard as anyone else, possibly more so. Poverty is cyclical. The rich have the most to gain from the government, they should have to pay the most in taxes. It pisses me off to no end when I hear people say that the poor are where they are because they didn't try hard enough. You'll find some outliers, but in general, people do not want to be coddled. The people who are shielded from hard work are the oligarchs who have known nothing about the plight of the worker, and care only for their class. Take George Bush. The guy didn't even know how much a gallon of gas was. You tell me that he worked hard, and your average poor person didn't, and I'd show you a liar. ~Barry Switzer

Guys, don't be silly! It's not pro-rich, it's just rewarding the hard work that these people did to get to where they are. What right do you have to their money? They earned it, they should keep it. I mean, it's not like families of years past have just continued to hand down their money from generation to generation, mixed with the fact that it's damned near impossible to join the wealth club, effectively creating a feudal system... They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Poor people are just lazy, trying to suckle on the government teet and leach off of the rich. [hide]Yes, that was sarcasm.[/hide]

Heh, sounds like our Republicans. They might take a majority of the House this 2010 election, and they have done it just by nitpicking and opposing everything the Democrats have done. Some of their candidates are polling at like 25% approve, 40% disapprove, but they'll win because "they're not in office." It's a throw the bums out mentality. They don't let the Democrats accomplish anything, so the voters just suffer from a do-nothing government in a perilous time where we need a lot of change. I suspect that's why Cameron has been so successful. And about PR making your country dysfunctional, I don't think that's the case at all. In fact, plurality voting systems make countries dysfunctional, because they allow politics to supersede any form of honest government. Look at what I said about the GOP: they've opposed anything the Democrats have done just because they're the opposition party. They have yet to vote for anything our party has put forth, at least nothing major. Health care reform? That passed without one single Republican, even though the plan itself was a Republican plan (it was nearly identical to something they proposed 15 years ago). Most Americans don't know how the GOP has been able to oppose everything they do, they just know the Democrats are in power and nothing's getting done. Thus, it shields people from accountability when they're not in power, and allows them to play politics. Compare this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system#Where_plurality_voting_is_used To this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation and then tell me, which one is more dysfunctional than the other?

~friend of mine on FaceBook ~Tenzin Gyatso ~MLK, Jr.

These^ If marijuana was legal, or shrooms, I'd likely never drink to get drunk again.