sleepy jack

Yeah you're ignorant and they're not ignorant. Do you want to know why? Because granting them the same rights under a different name isn't equality. It's just encouraging this sick idea that homosexuals are different. Guess what? They're not, they're living breathing human beings who deserve every right any other human being deserves. This is the civil rights movement all over again. People like you are the reason segregation and slaves were a problem in the first place.

__________________

TheDonald

That is not a fact, it is a statement that you made to try to support your argument. Show me where you read that only poor people and teenagers have abortions. That's utter bullsh*t.

Regardless of age, if you go to a hospital or to the police the WILL give it to you. It can only be purchased over the counter when 18. The police arent going to deny a rape victim the morning after pill just b/c they are under 18, that's more bullsh*t youre spouting.

Okay, you're really starting to piss me off. This is exactly what you're doing, so saying I'm the one doing does not make it so.

There are possibilities of complications with ALL pregnancies, not just ones resulting from abortion. What's worse in your opinion: high blood pressure or death? You think high blood pressure is an issue for the mother, what about the baby? It's getting KILLED. Which is worse in your opinion? (this is a rhetorical question, as I know you're ignorant answer already)

Orphanages? I forgot it was 1923. There is a foster care system in place. The government takes care of the chidren and puts them in homes until they can find parents willing to adopt them. This isnt Annie, theyre not eating grool and getting beaten with broomsticks.

I don't believe that number for one millisecond. Where did you get that figure from? I demand a source for such a fallacious fact.

Letting a fetus live is natural, killing it is not. It's your task to provide a reason for killing it, not mine to provide a reason to let it live.

See above.

Look at my last statement addressing your analogy, it answered this. Read what I type, comprehend it, please try.

That's an entirely stereotypical and offensive statement. You criticize people for not wanting to call a union between homosexuals a marriage, calling them close-minded. It's okay for you to have your opinion, but no one else can? Hows that work? You can be close-minded and belittle christians, but they cant criticize you or homosexuals? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Giving them amnesty would be rewarding them, which is what I have been saying for 3 straight pages, if you would bother to actually read this, rather than just blindy reply with "everything is americas fault" and "back alley abortions is messy biznuss."

Did you not read what the f*ck I just said? 1 weekend a month, 2 weeks a year. That leaves plenty of time for them to remain in their jobs.

You stated history, but it did nothing to prove your point. Maybe youve led a sheltered lifestyle, but just becuase YOU believe something does not make it true, sheez...

Once again, isnt SOME money better than NO money? Do I need to start a poll so you can see that your POV is unique and skewed?

If mexicans could come here legally they would, right? My proposition for a road to amnest via military enrollement has little if any permeabilities. It would allow them to become citizens and earn an even better fair, american wage. How can you argue with that? And if they earn money here and send it to mexico, that only hurts our economy. If they become citizens, they could move their family here and spend their money here. It's a win-win situation.

I would come here and earn a decent living. But if given the chance, my plan I stated above sounds like a great option.

So we should kill innocent children, but not criminals? We have a secured border, not a militarized one. Guards who kill illegals crossing the border get reprimanded and sent to prison, watch the news lately?

TheDonald

Many people die crossing the border b/c of the horrid conditions, not b/c they are shot and left there. Most illegals crossing the border that are killed were killed by OTHER illegals who were crossing the border, not by americans sitting on their porch with rifles.

Why does it make you sick Mr. Encyclopedia Dramatica? It offers a legitimate solution to a legitimate problem.

That was nearly 250 years ago, hardly comparable to today's modern society with our modern problems. Native americans are people too, they have normal jobs, they dont get discrimated against. I am in fact part native american, half of my family is native american. We are normal people.

Why are you getting to defensive? I never said we were superior to them, nor did I say they were trying to take over our country. You countering non-existant arguments is funny to watch.

This is exactly what my road to amnesty would lead to, thats why I'm advocating it! Do you even realize what you're typing anymore?

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. America may be a PART of the problem, but once again, we are not mexico's big brother. It is not our job to save them.

So now you can read the minds of 300 million other people? Nice. Stop playing like you or the mexicans are some sort of victims, it's pathetic.

Imaginary? America is quite the tangible place...
And yes, they SHOULD be evicted, they broke the law and came here illegally, but I don.t want them to be. Hence my reasoning to give them a road ro amnesty, so they can stay here. Start paying attention, pleeeease.

But think about it. If someone broke into your house and then started protesting thier right to live their? What would happen? Would you reward them by letting them stay their, take your food and send it back to their family, then reward them by giving them the deed to your house? Apparently YOU would.

Ones that were displaced hundreds of years ago, thats my fault how?

They can have the same road to amnesty as the mexicans.

Well, although I am against abortion, you are a walking, talking, breathing example of a quality reason to abort with a coat hanger.

I'm not ignorant, I'm close-minded, theres a difference. And if you tell me "its just a word", im must tell you the same thing. I see no difference between the close-mindedness of our views.

They ARE different, ask them, youd be surprised.

I have stated numerous times this exact same thing, read harder.

Yes, people like me who think everyone deserves the same rights and securites, as Ive been saying this whole time, were the cause of slavery. You are super dumb.

TheDonald

I'm going to bed now. I await your uber-spiffy response

sleepy jack

I didn't even say ONLY teenagers and poor people have abortions. Once again read my posts please. Here's where I got my information. http://www.plannedparenthoodnj.org/a..._newjersey.pdf then because that one didn't include age ranges I went here Facts on American Teens' Sexual and Reproductive Health

It isn't legal to give them someone under 18 without parental consent which is essentially the same thing. Hospitals and police stations (do they even carry morning after pills?) don't make a habit of breaking the law.

Correct.

See my point two posts above this, that's a crime police stations don't commit crimes.

I'm responding to everything you're saying but since you're convinced I'm not I'll re-word and re-quote everything so you can see me replying to each individual thing.

Not all mothers who want to follow through with pregnancy want added complications. I never said complications only happen in this case, stop putting words in my mouth.

As usual, you're missing my point. Epidural anesthesia can result in complications not only harmful to the mother but to the baby to. Okay she would've originally killed the fetus (didn't from the baby, you keep confusing the two) but now that she's going to have it why would she want to risk her own health as well as this child?

There's still such things as orphanages you even acknowledged it "Most children in orphanages are older than babies." What are you trying to say here?

I never said there wasn't.

Not everyone want to be foster parents and that doesn't guarantee adoption either. There's still 115000 children waiting in the system.

Where did I say anything like that? I'm just saying there's only so much space for children.

Sorry I had my figures wrong, remembering this **** from a month ago in an assignment isn't easy. "Each year, two out of every 100 women aged 15–44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion." Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States Still a pretty high number.

Are you actually going to pull what is and what isn't natural? Half the stuff we eat isn't natural, what we're doing now (arguing on an internet forum) isn't natural. We are not a natural society anymore and it isn't up to the bible to decide what is and what isn't moral either before you go and pull that.

It's an illogical analogy, murder and ripping the tag off of a mattress are both illegal. They're nowhere near similar or comparable offenses.

It's not and I'll explain why.

Me wanting open marriage to all couples is close-minded how?

I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion but what that opinion is and isn't isn't up to your opinion.

My criticism of christians is based on factual and bigoted beliefs they have. There's is based on what some book written 2000 years ago by straight religious males says.

That's not how I've been replying to everything, you're just being pointlessly condescending here.

Some of them would rather be working that weekend this is all hypothetical anyway, as I stated before, so it's not really worth debating this much now is it?

My history I stated proves my point America is partly to blame for the situation Mexico is in.

When it's history it makes it true.

Some money isn't much better than no money when some money can't support you.

Too bad you're road to amnesty isn't even going to happen right? It's not even worth debating.

Um, they need to keep some of the money to support themselves and they can't go shopping for necessities in Mexico now can they? Plus I'm more referring to the fact that in doing all these jobs they fill needed positions in society, while they don't get fair pay sure they're still contributing. Sending them all away would pretty much ruin our workforce.

But your plan isn't existent so...

FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME FETUSES ARE NOT PROVEN CHILDREN. Also are you admitted you would come here and earn a decent living and then turn around and call people doing it criminals and saying it's okay to murder them? Kind of nonsensical there oojay.

How does that change the fact it happens?

Somehow I doubt the rising border death rate (just 29% in the last year) is rising due to horrid conditions.

Yeah most but not all and it's a problem we don't care to fix or try to fix.

I don't know many Americans that sit on there located by the border house with a rifle I didn't even imply that.

Because we shouldn't force these people to do anything to want a better life.

So I guess you think all that first nation slaughtering was okay because it happened in the past then?

See above, they've been discriminated again and treating it unfairly.

Because I actually care about what goes on around here thats why I get defensive because I'm passionate about it.

__________________

sleepy jack

Your road to amnesty is hypothetical I'm growing pretty tired of debating it and discussing it because guess what? It's not going to happen why waste time on it?

And it's not our job to even try and help undo the BIG mistake we inflicted upon them?

We helped put them in the situation they're in and the majority of Americans don't care otherwise we would be doing something about it.
I meant imaginary line in the land.

*sigh* I've re-stated the problem with your fictional road to amnesty several times I'm going to just start ignoring it everytime you treat it like it's helping these people.

Um...a more accurate metaphor would be what if someone snuck into your house and started doing various chores for pay...well that isn't accurate seeing as America isn't a house. It's a wide open land and they come here and get a job and pay their way into it society like other Americans.

This isn't really right what were doing to them seeing as we're part of the problem and we have no intention of fixing it.

asdasdosa FICTION

Very mature!

Sure if we get super anal and technical then everything is just a word but marriage is a bit more than just a word to people that want to get married. Is that really hard to understand?

One of my best friends is a lesbian and shes know different from any other of my female friends. I also know several gay boys and they're no different either. So what they like the same sex instead of a different sex. It's no reason to look at them different. Everyone is different.

Yet you're opposed to giving them the right of marriage, makes sense.

This makes no sense, you say they deserve the same rights but you don't think they deserve marriage. Correct me if I'm missing something here.

__________________

sleepy jack

You need to drop the insults. Admittedly I come across as condescending when I'm arguing but I usually try and avoid directly insulting someone. I said you make me sick but that is all (I did say it was people like you but you're contradicting yourself and saying they shouldn't have equal rights etc so I still stand by that) you're on your second chance here and you could say I'm antagonizing you but you we're fully aware that last time you were here this was the sort of thing that led to fights like this. So kindly start being kind or you'll be gone again.

__________________

TheBig3

Ok well anywho...the reason I'm not fond of Clinton is that she's part of the old boys network in washington and I've never really been alright with the glad-handing that goes on there.

People call that "experience" but I'm fairly certain that state government has a monopoly on ****ing me blind. I don't need washington to pull that same hogwash.

I don't disagree with her stance on the war or healthcare, but its her stance in politics thats especially trying. I was never a fan of NAFTA, and yes I realize that she isn't Bill Clinton, but thats another I have with Hillary, she's the most nimble of the "flip-floppers" to date. This isn't limited to her midcampaign change up but her ability to pull the "not a washington insider/washington experienced" BS.

For example, one of the reasons people love her is that she served as a politically prominent first lady with her husband, but on issues that people took umbrage "she had no hand in actual legislation."

Not to mention that she openly says she accepts money from lobbyists and while this isn't a huge issue, campaigned actively in Michigan prior to the NH primary.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Mockingbird!

one of the reasons i dont think Clinton should win is the fact that shes a Clinton. It just seems as though America is switching back and forth between the same two families, first Bush senior, then Clinton, then Buch Jr, and now another Clinton. Its sick! Now if she was the best person for the job, it would be differnet, but she is clearly not. The only reason some women are voting for her, is because of the fact that she is indeed a women, which is not right.
Im not even American, so its not like i can vote, but Clinton would probably not be the one i would vote for.

__________________
Is it cruel or kind
Not too speak my mind
And to lie to you
Rather than hurt you?
For after several large gins
He'll confess all of his sins
But still he'll hide from you
Hide what's inside from you

TheBig3

The femanist sentiment that is rising up in the media here around her campaign, with its constant coverage for her, and occational grrrl power corny lines is the "*** marrige in 2004" issue in this campaign.

In other words, its an issue that will probably serve them well enough for a victory but the backlash will be twice as powerful and will do much more harm than good.

Prediction: If she wins and shows anything less than near perfection in 2012 the republicans will waltz into that white house, and more scary will be if she survives until 2016. Don't get me wrong. I don't hate her, and if she actually carries through on what she stands for, more power to her. But the opposition forces have been writing her coffin since 1998 and if you don't think they are laying in wait, salivating at the chance to go for the jugular, you're foolish.

They'd do it anyway. She's a woman and while I don't think the other side is sexist, I do think their oppertunists, and if you can subtly get across that 1950's sentiment to a voting public that feels screwed, the game is over. But the femist "its time for a woman" hog**** is fanning the flames.

Paula Poundstone once said "So many people are praising this year 'the year of the woman, its the year of the woman!' [when 9 women were elected to U.S. congress]" well what happens next year? "Ok we had our turn, I guess its time to give it back to them men."

And shes dead on. Making claims such as "its time for a woman" or "its time to let a woman handle things, you men have ****ed it up for too long" (my mother loves that one) is all but inviting the time table for american politics that we've been trying to get for 4 years here with Iraqi politics.

Playing any sort of game, like gender with Clinton or, as Michelle Obama continues to foolishly try, Race with Barack, you are going to see one of the most furious uprisings since they tabled the Salvery debate in the senate for 7 years.

When you're playing games with the Republican party, there is zero room to screw around. Don't get in on tears and girl power and think they aren' planning Jeb's run in 2012.

__________________
I've moved to a new address