Nonsense. I understand why he is the way he is. It's no differnt than you and you aren't any sort of hero and neither is he. You and Saddam think in much the same way. That you are better than them and that your way is the only right way. He thinks this way and so do you. You are no different than your enemy. Neither of you are any sort of "hero", though you both believe you are.
I certainly wasn't separate. Oh you certainly were. Separate and distinct.I only became separate when she gave birth to me.
It is a separate being and that is why some women want to kill it.
nonsense. Only at birth did I become separate from her. No, separate means to see the differences between distinguish or having existence as an entity; distinct; individual.Â
The unborn child qualifies from the moment of conception. Had I been separate prior to her giving birth to me, I'd have been stillborn. You were a distinct entity form the moment of conception.Â
Holding your breath until you turn blue doesn't change anything.
When I was my mother's fetus, it was her breath, not mine. Birth provided what you religious folks call "the breath of life." How nice of you to attempt to use religion that you obviously don't comprehend to attempt to make a point. It just makes you look even more foolish. There is nothing magical that happens at birth. only that morons can see something that they apparently didn't know existed before. ignorance certainly isn't good grounds for supporting abortion, is it?
No. You say that because you want to believe it. It helps you maintain control in your fantasy world.
No. I say it because it's what I have read you saying. As for fantasy worlds, tell us more about that big supernatural guy in the sky. How does it feel to be so arrogant?Â
I care quite a bit, but what makes you think otherwise? Because I simply don't agree with you?
Because I've read what you have said. You have a callus mind and an intolerant attitude. It's pretty obvious. It is obvious that you have a limited intellect and are thoroughly dishonest to yourself and others.
By yourdefinition. No, not my definition. I didn't make it up. I pulled it right out of the dictionary. If you were as much of an intellectual as you want to be, (that is why you spend so much time attempting to convince yourself that you are, isn't it) you would actually consider whether the unborn child is a human being. But of course, you won't.
How dogmatic of you
I love the smell of irony on a sunny afternoon. Too bad your nose is stuffed up. You are as dogmatic as crabs. You, too, are dishonest about the whole matter. I have concluded, based on logic, that the unborn child is a human being utilizing definitions not of my making. You and crabs, on the other hand, will not consider anything that may possibly lead to the conclusion that maybe unborn children should not be killed. You don't want to think.
No, I became a human being when my mother gave birth to me. I was her fetus until then.
A fetus(alternatively foetusor fœtus) is an unborn vertebrateoffspring after the embryonarystage.
In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Foetus, in Latin, literally means 'young one'...
...The word fetuscomes directly from the Latin fetusmeaning "offspring" or "young one"...
You were not a part of your mother like her arm or leg is a part of her, you were her "offspring" of "young one" by any definition.
As for fantasy worlds, tell us more about that big supernatural guy in the sky.
If there is no "big supernatural guy", then tell us why we should not kill anyone? Why should the president not just blow up the earth with all the nukes that we got? Why does any of it matter if all we are is a bunch of minerals and such? If what you say is true, then we should just live for today and not worry about tomorrow since there would be no consequences or consciousness of such after we pass away.
He turned against us. Were we supposed to keep him on the payroll?
Was he supposed to remain our puppet? First we give him all the weapons he wants and now we invade him for wanting to have weapons. Think about that. Why was Bush so sure he had the weapons? Rumsfeld had the reciepts. It's okay for him to have weapons and to wage war on his neighbors as long as he's on our side, right?
and yet people deny our own responsibility for the way things are over there.
The leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday called Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' views "radical." The comment comes a day after new documents were released showing Robert telling a California physician that abortion is a "tragedy."
No, we invaded when he waged war on his neighbor Kuwait.
Which we publicly stated we would remain neutral about. Saddam's beef with Kuwait involved border disputes and ecomonic disputes over a war debt that we helped Iraq incur. The Saudis and Kuwaitis were squeezing Iraq financially. As late as a week before Iraq invaded, the Bush administration was still claiming we would remain neutral.
By July 31, two days before the invasion, analysts at both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency reportedly had reached a consensus that some type of Iraqi military action against Kuwait was imminent, although there were disagreements as to whether Saddam was simply targeting the Rumaila oil fields and the two islands or the entire country.
But that day Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly, in a prepared statement to a House foreign affairs subcommittee, said, "Historically, the U.S. has taken no position on the border disputes in the area, not on matters pertaining to internal OPEC deliberations.''
The subcommittee chairman, Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), pressed Kelly, saying: "I read a statement ... in the press [in which] Secretary Cheney said the United States' commitment was to come to ... Kuwait's defense if attacked. Perhaps you could clarify for me just what our commitment is.''
Asserting that he had never even heard of Cheney's statement, Kelly said: "We have no defense treaty relationship with any gulf country. That is clear.... We have not historically taken a position on border disputes.''
Hamilton pressed Kelly further: "If Iraq ... charged across the border into Kuwait -- what would be our position with regard to the use of U.S. forces?.... It is correct to say, however, that we do not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage U.S. forces there?''
"That is correct.'' Kelly responded.
Two days later, Iraqi troops crossed the border into Kuwait.
Again, to act like we are some righteous lily-white good guy in this is absurd.
"In addition to these 24 companies home-based in the USA are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US. Also designated as suppliers for Iraq's arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories."
Read LIBERALISM VS CONSERVATISM to acquire a real understanding of how liberalism and conservatism fit together in politics.
We need to come together as a nation and forget all of the Rash Limp-ball (old pillhead) bullshit pitting lefty against righty. Such a moronic simplification labeling someone either a rightee or a leftee insults everyone's intelligence to include the labeler and the labelee.
The same people claiming the WTC was blown up by the CIA.
The same people claiming there was no plane that hit the Pentagon.....
I don't think the Memory Hole really makes claims one way or the other. They just dig up hard to find information and let the documents speak for themselves.
The answer is yes, I think they're just making shit up.
In regards to your link:
Due to security-related issues, this site is currently blocked from the network. If you have any questions in regards to this block, you may contact Security Services by sending an e-mail to ********.
It works fine for me. I can't help it if your network is paranoid.
Even before Iraq released its weapons-program dossier on 7 December 2002, it was said that the report would name the corporations that supplied Iraq with the equipment and other material it needed to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Soon after the report was released, those suspicions were confirmed. Sources who had seen the report said that it identified suppliers from the US, UK, Germany, France, China, and elsewhere.
Now, that part of the report has been leaked. The leftist German daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung received portions of the original, uncensored 12,000-page dossier. (The names of the corporations have been blacked out of the version of the report given to the ten non-permanent members of the Security Council.) The paper has printed the list, presented below.
[read more about the leak at the Independent (London) Financial Times, the Guardian (London), and the Associated Press (the only US news outlet to touch the story, albeit in an unrevealing article)]
Their repuation is of conspiracy theorists that believe the CIA blew up the WTC and the pentagon.
They just dig up hard to find information and documents. Can you link to where they advance any theories, because I don't think they do. They [he] just gets the information and presents it. There's no indication that he's any type of theorist, on the contrary, he deals in the actual documents with little if any editorial opinion outside of exposing those who attempt to hide information from the public.
I certainly wasn't separate. I only became separate when she gave birth to me.
nonsense. Only at birth did I become separate from her. Had I been separate prior to her giving birth to me, I'd have been stillborn.
When I was my mother's fetus, it was her breath, not mine. Birth provided what you religious folks call "the breath of life"
No. I say it because it's what I have read you saying. As for fantasy worlds, tell us more about that big supernatural guy in the sky.
It's people like you that help people like Saddam exist in the first place.
Because I've read what you have said. You have a callus mind and an intolerant attitude. It's pretty obvious.
Nonsense. I understand why he is the way he is. It's no differnt than you and you aren't any sort of hero and neither is he. You and Saddam think in much the same way. That you are better than them and that your way is the only right way. He thinks this way and so do you. You are no different than your enemy. Neither of you are any sort of "hero", though you both believe you are.
By yourdefinition.
I love the smell of irony on a sunny afternoon. Too bad your nose is stuffed up.
I certainly wasn't separate. Oh you certainly were. Separate and distinct.I only became separate when she gave birth to me.
nonsense. Only at birth did I become separate from her. No, separate means to see the differences between distinguish or having existence as an entity; distinct; individual.Â
The unborn child qualifies from the moment of conception. Had I been separate prior to her giving birth to me, I'd have been stillborn. You were a distinct entity form the moment of conception.Â
When I was my mother's fetus, it was her breath, not mine. Birth provided what you religious folks call "the breath of life." How nice of you to attempt to use religion that you obviously don't comprehend to attempt to make a point. It just makes you look even more foolish. There is nothing magical that happens at birth. only that morons can see something that they apparently didn't know existed before. ignorance certainly isn't good grounds for supporting abortion, is it?
No. I say it because it's what I have read you saying. As for fantasy worlds, tell us more about that big supernatural guy in the sky. How does it feel to be so arrogant?Â
Because I've read what you have said. You have a callus mind and an intolerant attitude. It's pretty obvious. It is obvious that you have a limited intellect and are thoroughly dishonest to yourself and others.
By yourdefinition. No, not my definition. I didn't make it up. I pulled it right out of the dictionary. If you were as much of an intellectual as you want to be, (that is why you spend so much time attempting to convince yourself that you are, isn't it) you would actually consider whether the unborn child is a human being. But of course, you won't.
I love the smell of irony on a sunny afternoon. Too bad your nose is stuffed up. You are as dogmatic as crabs. You, too, are dishonest about the whole matter. I have concluded, based on logic, that the unborn child is a human being utilizing definitions not of my making. You and crabs, on the other hand, will not consider anything that may possibly lead to the conclusion that maybe unborn children should not be killed. You don't want to think.
Where's JT with the BP report when we need him?
30 year mortgage down 3bp from a week ago.
Please take the abortion discussion to the abortion thread.
No, I became a human being when my mother gave birth to me. I was her fetus until then.
You were not a part of your mother like her arm or leg is a part of her, you were her "offspring" of "young one" by any definition.
As for fantasy worlds, tell us more about that big supernatural guy in the sky.
If there is no "big supernatural guy", then tell us why we should not kill anyone? Why should the president not just blow up the earth with all the nukes that we got? Why does any of it matter if all we are is a bunch of minerals and such? If what you say is true, then we should just live for today and not worry about tomorrow since there would be no consequences or consciousness of such after we pass away.
Please take the abortion discussion to the abortion thread.
Sorry, saw that after posting.
You and your intolerance and Imperial business manner and religious conceit created people like Saddam.
I'm sorry that I threw out the abortion grenade, I was trying to use it as a comparison tool and instead I started a riot!Â
"Can't we all just get along?"
It's the truth.
If you can't see our intolerance, Imperialistic business practices and religious conceit, you are blind.
Blah, blah, blah....
It's just the truth.
Why do you hate this country so much?
I love this country deeply, which is why I'm willing to be critical of it and to see it for what it is.
Why do YOU hate this country so much?
Just once.
That we are able to criticize our government when it is wrong is a great thing about this country.
I don't go around spouting platitudes about what is good, I simply enjoy them. The things that are wrong are what require our attention.
You and your intolerance and Imperial business manner and religious conceit created people like Saddam.
He used to work for us. He was on the CIA payroll.
He turned against us. Were we supposed to keep him on the payroll?
Was he supposed to remain our puppet? First we give him all the weapons he wants and now we invade him for wanting to have weapons. Think about that. Why was Bush so sure he had the weapons? Rumsfeld had the reciepts. It's okay for him to have weapons and to wage war on his neighbors as long as he's on our side, right?
and yet people deny our own responsibility for the way things are over there.
He was a sonofabitch, but he was OUR sonofabitch.
but we are somehow this righteous lily-white good guy in the whole thing. how does that work?
No, we invaded when he waged war on his neighbor Kuwait.
I just want the U.S. to jealously guard its interests. Like any other country in the world.
The Pope can be righteous.
crabs: "It's just the truth."
The leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday called Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' views "radical." The comment comes a day after new documents were released showing Robert telling a California physician that abortion is a "tragedy."
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1547.html
 crabweed still can't explain why he has never said a good word about America.
First we give him all the weapons he wants and now we invade him for wanting to have weapons.
That's a lie! I've provided info on who really armed Saddam. It wasn't the US.
Which we publicly stated we would remain neutral about. Saddam's beef with Kuwait involved border disputes and ecomonic disputes over a war debt that we helped Iraq incur. The Saudis and Kuwaitis were squeezing Iraq financially. As late as a week before Iraq invaded, the Bush administration was still claiming we would remain neutral.
Again, to act like we are some righteous lily-white good guy in this is absurd.
The Corporations That Supplied Iraq's Weapons Program
Yes, I've seen that wacko lefty web-site before.
It's Iraq's weapons-program dossier. You think that they just made up who they got weapons from?
Read LIBERALISM VS CONSERVATISM to acquire a real understanding of how liberalism and conservatism fit together in politics.
We need to come together as a nation and forget all of the Rash Limp-ball (old pillhead) bullshit pitting lefty against righty. Such a moronic simplification labeling someone either a rightee or a leftee insults everyone's intelligence to include the labeler and the labelee.
jethro bodine 8/26/05 6:58am
Only the madman is abssolutely sure.
jethro, when you were in law school, did they cover the logical fallacies, particularly post hoc, ergo propter hoc ?
It's Iraq's weapons-program dossier. You think that they just made up who they got weapons from?
This is the same people that get their kicks posting pictures of coffins coming back from Iraq.
The same people claiming the WTC was blown up by the CIA.
The same people claiming there was no plane that hit the Pentagon.....
You didn't answer the question.
I don't think the Memory Hole really makes claims one way or the other. They just dig up hard to find information and let the documents speak for themselves.
Here's the original source of the information. You think a German newspaper is fabricating US corporations on a dossier in order to make us look bad?
jethro, when you were in law school, did they cover the logical fallacies, particularly post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
You didn't answer the question.
The answer is yes, I think they're just making shit up.
In regards to your link:
"The answer is yes, I think they're just making shit up."
Why would they seek to purposely damage their reputation?
Why would they seek to purposely damage their reputation?
What repuation?
Their repuation is of conspiracy theorists that believe the CIA blew up the WTC and the pentagon.
http://www.taz.de/pt/.nf/home
http://www.taz.de/pt/2002/12/19/a0080.nf/textdruck
It works fine for me. I can't help it if your network is paranoid.
They just dig up hard to find information and documents. Can you link to where they advance any theories, because I don't think they do. They [he] just gets the information and presents it. There's no indication that he's any type of theorist, on the contrary, he deals in the actual documents with little if any editorial opinion outside of exposing those who attempt to hide information from the public.
Look at the web-sites he links to.
So, you are saying there was no 12,000 page Iraqi weapons-program dossier?
That someone fabricated it?
Why would they do that?
A look at U.S. shipments of pathogens to Iraq
How did Iraq get its weapons? We sold them
US Companies Sold Iraq Billions Of NBC Weapons Material
But you still cling to this idea that we are some sort of righteous lilly-white country who would never be involved in such things.
So, you are saying there was no 12,000 page Iraqi weapons-program dossier?
No, I'm not saying that.
That someone fabricated it?
I'm saying they're twisting it for their own reason.
Why would they do that?
Because they're hateful, spiteful, and simply fucked in the head.
But you still cling to this idea that we are some sort of righteous lilly-white country who would never be involved in such things.
Not at all. We've made mistakes.