For or Against Bush

by **Knight of Orient** on Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:26 pm

lol, i think hed make an excellent diplomat. and also, thanks for that little bit u had earlier on this page theosi. its annoying when some1 gets the, im right your wrong mentailty. its good to see both sides of things.

by **Capt Killroy** on Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:37 am

look night of the orient the reason gas is so high is because he pissed off the arab nations did you know that his father is a friend to the bid ladends this pres is a real peace of chit he also cut bennifits for people in the service send them out to die and our own service can't even supply the bullits for there own guns now you tell me what kind of shit is that

by **jay_a2j** on Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:21 am

theosi wrote:
a·bort
1. To give birth prematurely or before term; miscarry.
2. To cease growth before full development or maturation.
3. To terminate an operation or procedure, as with a project, missile, airplane, or space vehicle, before completion.
1.
1. To cause to terminate (a pregnancy) prematurely, especially before the fetus is viable.
2. To cause the expulsion of (an embryo or fetus) before it is viable.
3. To give premature birth to (an embryo or fetus).

vi·a·ble (v-bl)adj.

1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.
3. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: a viable plan; a viable national economy. See Synonyms at possible.

Jay wrote
The fetus cannot live on its own (the mother is sustaining its life). A newborn baby cannot "sustain its own life" yet if the mother smothers it with a pillow she is charged with murder, not abortion.
If you look at above defintion of ABORT you will see the common sense answer as to why she cannot be commiting an abortion but commiting Murder. The English language is a tricky thing and manipulating it to your whims only works on those that do not take the time to actually LEARN a thing or two about it! I LOVE TO READ THE DICTIONARY AND ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT I AM SAYING RATHER THAN ENDLESS SPIN AND TALK SHOW COMMENTATOR TYPE RETORHIC!:D
BUT anyway... An open an honest DISCUSSION is always interesting. If discussing is something you are interested in here is my response:
As I said in the above post.
. But being that fetus does not have a life without that mothers life it really does not have a life....yet.... So the mothers rights trump the fetuses....? I don't know...
See Smarty pants it was a question... That I do not know the answer to. I know what the answer is for me and my Wife is. this is a discussion we have had on several occasions and as INDIVIDUALS we feel very strongly about our BELIEVE on the subject. But we do not feel that our FEELINGS on the subject should be forced upon others. Every individual has there own choices to make and their own life to live... They know what they can handle or what they can't. they know wether they can give that child a life or not. they know what Genetic dispositions they may have that could make that childs life a living nightmare and could choose not to subject an innocent child to it... there are many, many, many reasons I have known people to have for aborting. Some had validity and some were extremly shallow and heartless! When you see CRACK babies born with inhuman deeformites you wonder why... when yous see babies become children to die of some horrific diesease that the parents knew they had a predipostion for. You wonder why... When you see babies born to people that NEVER WANTED THEM and beat and MOLEST and RAPE their souls.... YOU WONDER FUCKING WHY!!!
TO blindly say abortion is IMMORAL AND WRONG is a BROAD STROKE of ignorance. Every situation is handled in a different way. Laws cannot be written to cover the very wide valley of reasons some people choose to end the PROBABILITY of a life. Who the hell am I to DICTATE that SUSIE with a Drug problem should bring a BRAIN DAMAGED, deformed, precious and innocent child into a life of MISERY and suffering for the, possibly, short span they may be here.
I completely understand your desire to end the irresponsible persons means of birth control. I to consider Abortion as ameans of birth control IMMORAL and wrong. But to PUNISH EVERYONE for the IMMORALITY of others is shallow, cruel and unjust.
I am not looking to be argumentative or some whacko... Just trying to show the other side of the coin. To open up that NARROW field some people (not speaking of you Jay) would like to keep the game on!

Ok we'll use you definitions.

2. To cease growth before full development or maturation.
Are you saying a newborn is FULLY DEVELOPED? Why don't you look up the word murder it might say something along the lines of "ending the lifecycle of a living organisim" which could/should include abortion. Oh, and a newborn is not "viable" left on its own it would die. So this is an attempt at justification of killing.

But we do not feel that our FEELINGS on the subject should be forced upon others.

You feel the same about child molestation? Rape? Believe it or not there IS right and wrong. And YES we have the "right" to stand up for what's right. You can not "ride the fence" on issues like these. Otherwise rape might not be good for you but who are YOU to say its not right for Tommy next door?

P.S. I AM BACK!

by **heavycola** on Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:53 am

You feel the same about child molestation? Rape? Believe it or not there IS right and wrong.

Jay you know full well this is rhetorical hot air. Abortion is not a black and white issue. But equating the expression of that belief with allowing paedophiles to act on theirs is disingenuous and beneath you, i would have thought.

by **jay_a2j** on Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:21 am

heavycola wrote:
You feel the same about child molestation? Rape? Believe it or not there IS right and wrong.

Jay you know full well this is rhetorical hot air. Abortion is not a black and white issue. But equating the expression of that belief with allowing paedophiles to act on theirs is disingenuous and beneath you, i would have thought.

No its truth. How can one sit by on a huge issue like abortion and say " I have no right to tell others what to do"? This isn't picking out curtains for the livingroom window, its life and death.

by **heavycola** on Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:52 am

" I have no right to tell others what to do"

how about

"I believe that a woman has the right to make choices about her own body"

Then we get back into arguments about the viability of foetuses. Fair enough. But even that is not black and white.

i can't believe i just posted in an abortion thread. I am as bored as i have ever been.

by **jay_a2j** on Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:05 am

heavycola wrote:" I have no right to tell others what to do"

how about

"I believe that a woman has the right to make choices about her own body"

Then we get back into arguments about the viability of foetuses. Fair enough. But even that is not black and white.

i can't believe i just posted in an abortion thread. I am as bored as i have ever been.

How about a "child has a right to live"? A parent does NOT have the "right" to kill her child in or out of the womb.

by **Jolly Roger** on Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:11 pm

jay_a2j wrote:Are you saying a newborn is FULLY DEVELOPED? Why don't you look up the word murder it might say something along the lines of "ending the lifecycle of a living organisim" which could/should include abortion. Oh, and a newborn is not "viable" left on its own it would die. So this is an attempt at justification of killing.

To clarify, I don't think the viability argument has anything to do with the fetus living "on its own". I believe the argument is based on whether or not it can survive without its mother. For instance, if a fetus/baby is developed enough so that it can be delivered and survive with the assistance of medical professionals and equipment, it's viable. However, if there's no way the fetus can survive without additional development in the womb, then it's not viable. That is my understanding anyway.

So consider the rape victim: She's not responsible for her own pregnancy yet you would have her carry the fetus to term. By the same reasoning, aid agencies should be able to pick up a victim of famine and drop them off at your house and then you'd have to keep, feed and support said famine victim until he/she were back in good health and viable. The difference being that you would not have to experience the severe trauma of rape or the physical/emotional strain of an ensuing pregnancy and if you decided to abort, the procedure would not be surgical in nature. Shall I call UNICEF and give them your address?

So what does this have to do with Bush?

by **Willgfass** on Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:45 pm

here's what i have to say: everyone said fdr would be bgad back in the 30's, same with bush. see the resamblance?

by **vtmarik** on Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:58 pm

Ok, Mr. Abortion-is-murder, here's a simple question:

If a woman gets an abortion, should she be sentenced to death? I mean, it's premeditated murder, so that's 1st degree.

You agree with this, don't you?

by **pikmin** on Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:59 pm

I think bush would have been an okay president if he hadn't invaded iraq.because if iraq had weapons of mass destruiction dont you think they would have used them by now.

by **kwolff** on Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:25 pm

see people in the world are too quick to react to things.Its the American way ...fast food , fast cars ect.

20 years from now people will say wow , he was a hell of a president.

9-11 shouldnt have happened to begin with , but billy clinton let them get away with a couple of attacks with a slap on the wirst (while he was slaping something off of monicas face), here bin take these tomahawk missles on your base .....ooooooo now theyre finished off.

then the patriot act. well yes it invades the privacy of citizens, but when citizens become dangerous and retarded like ours then they have to be baby sat , and who cares about the government listening , shit your neighbor next door probably has shit set up listening and watching........

yes the border thing has been a problem , i think the answer is clear, hire a bunch of illegal immigrants at low wages to build a wall lol and when your about to finish it make sure they are on the mexico side of it

as far as iraq.... they did have chemical weapons, and what ever they did have they gave to syria. And they dont use them because they know if they do on us anyway , they will lose their allies (france and russia). Let the killings go on over there. If Iran or terrorist divert one dollar to fighting us over there then its worth it. At mininmum cost of life from us.

bush has done many right things. More than the poll friendly democrats would do. they get in and just sit there.

Gas prices should be 10 a gallon then us americans might realize that we need to say no to gas.

However its tough to debate how good of a job he is doing untill years after hes gone.

I would like to say over all hes right around a jfk. not a lincoln, but in that reagan jfk area. only history will tell

omg wait im an athiest and i like gw...... As far as cocaine and driving drunk ........no one is perfect and i think its better he did use , gives a better perspective on the issue.......I ve my self have for alittle time , and learned alot lol ( when your up 24 hrs a day on it you have time to do more learning) lol but do you honestly think a majority hasnt done drugs and stuff. man you guys are nuts.

his best quality is that he doesnt back down, wrong or right he does what he believes....screw the media , the movie stars , the crying moms of dead soldiers(its a voluntary army, and an army is for fighting , if she didnt want her son to risk his life then she should have got him a job at seven eleven , where he probably has as good as chance of ending up dead), just stick to what you believe ...too many politicians get in there and change their mind.

by **Caleb the Cruel** on Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:25 pm

From 2000-2005 I was 100% anti-Bush, yes back when his approval ratings were higher
I thought he stole the elections, both from Gore and Kerry
I was against him for 'letting' 9/11 happen
I was anti-Iraq from the beginning, back when everybody else was all for it
But sometime in 2005, i changed to a pro-Bush, when everybody else went from pro-Bush to anti-bush
My pendulum seems to sway, just like everybody else's, except mine swings the opposite way of the majority
Now I see Bush handling everything very well considering the tough circumstances he has been put up against
Plus I believe if we all would stop complaining and tearing Bush to pieces and making up conspiracy theories, we would be far better off
UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL
another thing is that the voters of america signed a contract with him through their votes in 2004
the voters made him their leader for another 4 years, so they should be complaining to themselves for voting for him, if they don't like him
another thing i like about him is he is against stem cell research, gay marrige, and pushed for a moderate solution to the immigration problem

by **griff** on Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:43 pm

I've been around the world once already, gonna go around again here soon, bush had the right idea about afganistan, the other was not. One of the main reasons there are bombs going off is because instead of gaurding munitions bunkers, we gaurded oil fields, and in dealing with the arabic culture generally the cowboy mentallity does more to offend than help, its time for a change...and yes I do vote and it wasnt for him.

by **jay_a2j** on Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:46 am

griff wrote:I've been around the world once already, gonna go around again here soon, bush had the right idea about afganistan, the other was not. One of the main reasons there are bombs going off is because instead of gaurding munitions bunkers, we gaurded oil fields, and in dealing with the arabic culture generally the cowboy mentallity does more to offend than help, its time for a change...and yes I do vote and it wasnt for him.

Then please tell me you wrote a name in. Cause if Kerry would have been president Iraq or Afghanistan probably wouldn't have happened, other US targets may have been hit and a tree would have been planted in France as a "declaration of peace" in memory of the victims of 911.

by **kingwaffles** on Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:11 pm

jay_a2j wrote:Then please tell e you wrote a name in. Cause if Kerry would have been president Iraq or Afghanistan probably wouldn't have happened, other US targets may have been hit and a tree would have been planted in France as a "declaration of peace" in memory of the victims of 911.

While I agree that Kerry may not have been the best choice, what's wrong with Iraq and Afghanistan not happening? Are you saying it's a good thing that tons of American soldiers died? Are you saying we should be sending people to die for the greed of our politicians and the corporations they work for? Can seriously say that with a clean conscience?

And what the hell is with everyone bashing France? So what if they decided not to help us, they did what they believed was the right thing.

by **b-b5** on Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:15 pm

kingwaffles wrote:And what the hell is with everyone bashing France?

Because they deserve it. Always have, always will. Dont ask me why, they just do

by **heavycola** on Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:06 pm

b-b5 wrote:
kingwaffles wrote:And what the hell is with everyone bashing France?

Because they deserve it. Always have, always will. Dont ask me why, they just do

It's always disappointing how they just lie down and take it, though.

by **jay_a2j** on Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:23 am

kingwaffles wrote:what's wrong with Iraq and Afghanistan not happening?

You feel the US shoulda left 911 alone and not retaliate? You would be in a very small minority.

by **kingwaffles** on Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:17 am

Iraq was not in retalation to 9/11, don't try to spin it like that.
I guess I can understand the justification for Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Nevertheless I still stand by this quote:

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

-Ghandi-

by **cowshrptrn** on Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:05 pm

i agree with waffles, u can't just attack a country for no reason, plus you need to get your facts straight, Osama bin Ladin absolutely hates Saddam Hussein, Hussein is highly secular, and bin Ladin is highly religious.

also, theres nothing wrong with france, jsut because they aren't in favor of killing thousands of their own men in a clearly misguided frivulous war doens't make them traitors to civilization itself, i'd rather peace over war

Bush can't think for himself either, having not vetoed a single piece of legislation except for the one that coudl save thousands, if not millions, of lives jsut so he doens't offend his misguided consituency. And by saying any dissent would be supporting enemies of democracy undermines the very core values of democracy itself

by **jay_a2j** on Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:01 pm

kingwaffles wrote:Iraq was not in retalation to 9/11, don't try to spin it like that.
I guess I can understand the justification for Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Nevertheless I still stand by this quote:

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

-Ghandi-

Actually the reason Bush gave us was related to terrorism. That Iraq would give the terrorist wmd's and they would bring them here and use them. Nice try though.

by **Machiavelli** on Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:28 pm

cowshrptrn wrote:Bush can't think for himself either, having not vetoed a single piece of legislation except for the one that coudl save thousands, if not millions, of lives jsut so he doens't offend his misguided consituency. And by saying any dissent would be supporting enemies of democracy undermines the very core values of democracy itself

How does Bush not being able to think for himself have anything at all to do with his vetoing patterns? :roll:

Besides, the best leaders are the ones who represent the beliefs of the majority of the people. They really dont even have to think for themselves to much.

by **Riskman** on Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:39 pm

Nostradamus predicted he would come.

by **reverend_kyle** on Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:39 am

Caleb the Cruel wrote:From 2000-2005 I was 100% anti-Bush, yes back when his approval ratings were higher
I thought he stole the elections, both from Gore and Kerry
I was against him for 'letting' 9/11 happen
I was anti-Iraq from the beginning, back when everybody else was all for it
But sometime in 2005, i changed to a pro-Bush, when everybody else went from pro-Bush to anti-bush
My pendulum seems to sway, just like everybody else's, except mine swings the opposite way of the majority
Now I see Bush handling everything very well considering the tough circumstances he has been put up against
Plus I believe if we all would stop complaining and tearing Bush to pieces and making up conspiracy theories, we would be far better off
UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL
another thing is that the voters of america signed a contract with him through their votes in 2004
the voters made him their leader for another 4 years, so they should be complaining to themselves for voting for him, if they don't like him
another thing i like about him is he is against stem cell research, gay marrige, and pushed for a moderate solution to the immigration problem

cough cough flip flopper cough cough.