REAL issues

Seeing all the upset that came about after the banning of same sex marriage in California, I've gotten really tired of hearing about all these non-issues. The concepts of things like abortion and gay marriage are not really issues. They are distraction put forth by those in power to keep all you simple minded people away from thinking about the real problems in this world, like war, poverty, pollution, and health care.

Whether or not gays can marry under a religious institution is a decision that should be made by the churches that hold the ceremonies. Remember the whole idea of separation of church and state that this country was founded upon? Why should the issue of gay marriage EVER be taken to the federal level?

Gay union (legal marriage, no religion involved) should be a right just as the union of a man and a woman is a right. Why should two people be held back by the deranged beliefs of another?

Abortion is also a stupid thing to argue about. The beginnings of a human fetus are no more valuable or special than the beginnings of a pig fetus. I'm tired of so many fellow humans taking on the belief that they are so much more important than any other race. It is a delusion. We are all equally unimportant.

Even if abortion was banned, it would only increase the number of already illegal abortions, wherein the baby is killed via physical harm to the mother. So tell me, what is the "moral" thing to do?

These are all non-issues that should NEVER be taken to a federal level.


Something else that I noticed while reading through the recently closed "gay marriage" thread was the way multiple people kept repeating a phrase along the lines of "If you discriminate me for discriminating gays, you're discriminating my religion."

Why is it that we have all deemed discrimination against someone's religion to be "Off-limits?" If anyone is deranged enough to put their trust in any form of organized religious bullshit, I'd say they are the most deserving of discrimination as anyone. How is your average ghost seeing lunatic any different from someone who believes in "angels?"

The fact that someone was "raised to believe" in something does not make their beliefs acceptable. I was raised to believe in Santa clause, Hell, I was raised a presbyterian, but I was still intelligent enough to discern fact from fiction by the time I was 12.

This world needs reform. We need to stop focusing our attentions on false distraction and start worrying about the real issues in this world, and we need to stop excusing people for blindly following archaic stories.

Erm... Some of those are issues, but as you said they should never go to the Federal level. I can see that stuff hapening at a state level though...

I dont see anyone trashing you for your beliefs so dont trash mine.
(btw, Santa Claus is an evil little trick parents use to screw with their kids and that corporations use to get lots of money)


War, Poverty, Famine, Pollution; Regardless of what it is plans are already in motion to control these things.

War?
Between the multiple 'laws' that are enforced on the combatants, its getting near impossible to even conduct a real war in most areas.

Poverty?
I honestly cant think of anything to solve this one. Wealth all depends on where it is, and right now that is in the U.S. and a few other industialized nations.

There is no way that money will be distributed out to the poorer people's in the near future.

Famine?
They already have these organizations out there, so donate.
No government is going to send food in their right mind; the convoys or whatever would be taken by force because of the unrest in areas where there is famine.

Pollution?
This is the only one where we could do more... and im sure everyone here already knows how to solve this one...

and about health care....

No national healthcare is needed, the gov. just needs to impose limits

Hey man, I've been trying to talk about the war.

Problem is, these damn Neo-Cons think we're winning in Iraq and everything is perfectly fine.
An Darfur really is a problem that needs to be addressed, but because of Iraq, we just don't have the manpower.

Pollution: That all depends on whether or not you guys believe in Global Warming.
I do.
Hell, I'm an American Indian. My people have watched the white man destroy the Earth for hundreds of years, and this is just the newest problem to come up.

As for poverty, well, just donate to charities (good charities), that you know are active in Africa, Southeast Asia, or right here in the back alleys of the U.S.
Oh, and of course Mexico.

And finally, health care.
Again, the Republicans here think that "Socialistic Healthcare" is a terrible idea that will just end with us all living in communes.
Universal Healthcare may not be perfect, but it's better than letting people just die because they don't have the cash to live.

Oh here we go again Toaster.
:QC:

Seriously, I think Obama is the end of this nation, I'm not whining.

Now stfu and get on xfire.

ReconToaster wrote:Seeing all the upset that came about after the banning of same sex marriage in California, I've gotten really tired of hearing about all these non-issues. The concepts of things like abortion and gay marriage are not really issues. They are distraction put forth by those in power to keep all you simple minded people away from thinking about the real problems in this world, like war, poverty, pollution, and health care.

Healthcare? Insurance is more important than the murder of children? They are issues. Maybe you don't think they're as important, but they're issues. Personaly, I don't think pollution is a big isssue right now. So what if the planet will burn in 500 years? What are you doing about it?
Poverty is probably at the bottom of my list. Why? Because we live in the US. If you want to get rich, you darn well can. If you don't try, you just go down. That's how it works. Some may have to try harder than others, but anyone can do it. As for other countries, that's not our problem until these people are abused by their government. Do you think Spain gives a crap about our healthcare? No, because it's not their business.

ReconToaster wrote: Whether or not gays can marry under a religious institution is a decision that should be made by the churches that hold the ceremonies. Remember the whole idea of separation of church and state that this country was founded upon? Why should the issue of gay marriage EVER be taken to the federal level?

Gay union (legal marriage, no religion involved) should be a right just as the union of a man and a woman is a right. Why should two people be held back by the deranged beliefs of another?

And this is why I don't have a solid standing on this debate.

ReconToaster wrote: Abortion is also a stupid thing to argue about. The beginnings of a human fetus are no more valuable or special than the beginnings of a pig fetus.

So I suppose humans are no more valuable or special than pigs?

ReconToaster wrote:I'm tired of so many fellow humans taking on the belief that they are so much more important than any other race. It is a delusion. We are all equally unimportant.

This is your argument? Saying that humans don't matter? I can tell you right now, don't do it, because it all boils down to religion, and do you want another religious fight?

ReconToaster wrote: Even if abortion was banned, it would only increase the number of already illegal abortions, wherein the baby is killed via physical harm to the mother. So tell me, what is the "moral" thing to do?

The moral thing to do would be to put up safehavens, adoption centers, and other various services so they don't have to kill the baby.

ReconToaster wrote: These are all non-issues that should NEVER be taken to a federal level.

That may be so, but they're here. What is an issue recon? It is a conflict of intrest within our society, and when this conflict of interest is about morality, it is quite often brought to the federal level. You can whine all you want, but it doesn't change anything.

ReconToaster wrote: Something else that I noticed while reading through the recently closed "gay marriage" thread was the way multiple people kept repeating a phrase along the lines of "If you discriminate me for discriminating gays, you're discriminating my religion."

Why is it that we have all deemed discrimination against someone's religion to be "Off-limits?" If anyone is deranged enough to put their trust in any form of organized religious bullshit, I'd say they are the most deserving of discrimination as anyone. How is your average ghost seeing lunatic any different from someone who believes in "angels?"

Well guess what, I am a Christian. I go to church, I believe in God, heaven, hell, angels, demons, satan, ect. Do I let my religion control my life? Hell yah! But does it make a big impact? No.
In fact, I didn't use religion in the gay marriage thread at all. In fact, I fought those that did. You can discriminate against me if you want, but remember, I think you're crazy too, so it isn't going to help you any more than it will help me. You may as well just drop this now.

ReconToaster wrote: The fact that someone was "raised to believe" in something does not make their beliefs acceptable. I was raised to believe in Santa clause, Hell, I was raised a presbyterian, but I was still intelligent enough to discern fact from fiction by the time I was 12.

Santa's a fake, but Saint Nicholas is (well... was) real. Recon, the fact that someone was raised that way doesn't make it acceptable, but if they so choose to believe it when given the other side, then it is acceptable. I have seen both sides of the argument, and I choose Christiantiy.
Everyone has their views. Some think some views are crazy, others think they're perfectly reasonable. That's why there will always be conflict in the world.

ReconToaster wrote: This world needs reform. We need to stop focusing our attentions on false distraction and start worrying about the real issues in this world, and we need to stop excusing people for blindly following archaic stories.

May God bless your soul.

PiElord wrote:And finally, health care.
Again, the Republicans here think that "Socialistic Healthcare" is a terrible idea that will just end with us all living in communes.
Universal Healthcare may not be perfect, but it's better than letting people just die because they don't have the cash to live.

You do realise that healthcare is insurance, right? What is the point of insureance if everyone has the same? Then all the company does is raise price. Insureance isn't insureance if it is just handed out. Insureance is about covering your losses. So with univeral healthcare, there are three things I could see that happen:

1. We all get the healthcare and the hospitals just raise prices so we all have to pay 100%.
   
2. We all get the healthcare and as the hospitals raise their prices, the government raises our coverage. Soon, the hospitals can't get enough money to stay afloat and the government has to take that over. Now healthcare is pointless, so that is just allout removed and the governments mismangement of the hospitals causes millions to die.
   
3. We all get the healthcare, but the government sets it at a happy median so that hospitals still have barely enough to get by. Qualtiy goes down, doctors quit because the job that made them rich nolonger pays much at all, and millions of people that previously had healthcare just had their coverage cut in half by the government and never got a chance to use their previous insurance.

CivBase wrote:
You do realise that healthcare is insurance, right? What is the point of insureance if everyone has the same? Then all the company does is raise price. Insureance isn't insureance if it is just handed out. Insureance is about covering your losses. So with univeral healthcare, there are three things I could see that happen:

1. We all get the healthcare and the hospitals just raise prices so we all have to pay 100%.
   
2. We all get the healthcare and as the hospitals raise their prices, the government raises our coverage. Soon, the hospitals can't get enough money to stay afloat and the government has to take that over. Now healthcare is pointless, so that is just allout removed and the governments mismangement of the hospitals causes millions to die.
   
3. We all get the healthcare, but the government sets it at a happy median so that hospitals still have barely enough to get by. Qualtiy goes down, doctors quit because the job that made them rich nolonger pays much at all, and millions of people that previously had healthcare just had their coverage cut in half by the government and never got a chance to use their previous insurance.

Okay, if this is so damned terrible, than why hasn't any of the things you listed happened in Canada or Europe?

Canada? You mean where they have to wait 6 months just to get a checkup due to lack of doctors?

pie, those systems are failing in largernations, and we are larger than them even.

We do not have the resources nor the money to support everyone in the country. Currently, those who succeed are okay and have healthcare thsoe who dont drop down.

We do not have to wait years for a surgery or asimple checkup(which we would with universal healthcare because of the Beuracracy(sp?)) with our current system either, which is a god-send. WIth 300 million requesting help when it has to through the gov. would be a disaster.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:pie, those systems are failing in largernations, and we are larger than them even.

We do not have the resources nor the money to support everyone in the country. Currently, those who succeed are okay and have healthcare thsoe who dont drop down.

We do not have to wait years for a surgery or asimple checkup(which we would with universal healthcare because of the Beuracracy(sp?)) with our current system either, which is a god-send. WIth 300 million requesting help when it has to through the gov. would be a disaster.

The idea of having to wait months for healthcare in Canada is mere propaganda. It is a total exaggeration of the truth.

You're right that we don't have the resources to take care of 300 million people, but that's only because we are fighting 2 wars. The system used in the UK is works fine, and If you see that as too unreachable in the near future, you could even look to the French system where there are still paying for their Healthcare from private enterprises, but are reimbursed by the government.

It actually wouldn't be such a financial problem if we simply gave people healthcare and taxed them more. Instead of paying the crazy prices of insurance, they could just be paying slightly higher taxes. This would also mean that companies would not have to pay for employees' healthcare, thus giving back to the economy what would be taken by crushing the health insurance industry.

The fact is, a person's well being should not be controlled by an attorney, and no one should have to choose between their health and finances. It's just wrong.


In response to civbase, what I said about abortion was that the beginning of a pig fetus in no more important than that of a human. They are just clusters of cells. They have no sense of self awareness and can feel no pain or emotion. I think that late term abortions are usually wrong. But Civbase, what about the situation wherein having the baby would kill the mother? Is it ok to abort then? Or is the future life of a fetus somehow more precious than that of a grown woman?

Dud Doodoo wrote:

Seriously, I think Obama is the end of this nation, I'm not whining.

SO instead of actually putting together a prepared response you are going to come in here and make a dumb statement like that and leave? How about you elaborate on WHY you think such a thing. I myself am under the comprehension that the previous administration already did all the damage. It can't get much worse.

I don't know if you remember, but George W. Bush ran on a campaign of no nation building. Apparently something changed. 9/11 is their excuse for inverting all of their policies. That doesn't cut it in my opinion.

the previous administration furthered the world's hatred towards the US by involving us in yet another stupid war, destroyed our economy, and dismantled the constitution. Tell me, how is Obama "the end of this nation"?

ReconToaster wrote: In response to civbase, what I said about abortion was that the beginning of a pig fetus in no more important than that of a human. They are just clusters of cells.

But mear clusters of cells have no potential of being a human. These have more chance of being a baby than a child has of being an adult.

ReconToaster wrote:They have no sense of self awareness and can feel no pain or emotion. I think that late term abortions are usually wrong. But Civbase, what about the situation wherein having the baby would kill the mother? Is it ok to abort then? Or is the future life of a fetus somehow more precious than that of a grown woman?

You don't have to kill the baby, take it to a safehaven. If it would kill the mother, than surgicaly remove it. If that wont work, that's the only time I might be okay with it.

[quote="CivBase"][quote="ReconToaster"]

Kasrkin Seath wrote:
You don't have to kill the baby, take it to a safehaven. If it would kill the mother, than surgicaly remove it. If that wont work, that's the only time I might be okay with it.

And what of the cost of check-ups and the delivery to a person with no insurance? That's why underground abortions happen.

Quit fake quoting me!
Universal Healthcare = fail, and the waiting lines ARE long

*yawn*

do we really have to go through all this again?

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:You don't have to kill the baby, take it to a safehaven. If it would kill the mother, than surgicaly remove it. If that wont work, that's the only time I might be okay with it.

And what of the cost of check-ups and the delivery to a person with no insurance? That's why underground abortions happen.

Cost of checkups? That's where the whole thing comes along where you make the choice before intercourse. I know the next thing you're going to bring up is rape, something that is very unlikely. If someone is raped though, then the government should pay the necessary fees so long as there was no concent (such, even though it's rape if their under 18 no matter what, if the girl gave concent then the govt shouldn't be responsible).
People have the misconception that pro-life people are not pro choice. The thing is, we are. But the choice comes before intercourse.

PiElord wrote:
An Darfur really is a problem that needs to be addressed, but because of Iraq, we just don't have the manpower.

Please, tell me how Darfur will be any different from Iraq. Same ethnic issues.

PiElord wrote:And finally, health care.
Again, the Republicans here think that "Socialistic Healthcare" is a terrible idea that will just end with us all living in communes.
Universal Healthcare may not be perfect, but it's better than letting people just die because they don't have the cash to live.

If 60% of the population cannot afford health care, then spreading around the wealth isn't going to help anything. You'd just have to keep printing money... like what they have to do with Social Security.

ReconToaster wrote:
I don't know if you remember, but George W. Bush ran on a campaign of no nation building. Apparently something changed. 9/11 is their excuse for inverting all of their policies. That doesn't cut it in my opinion.

So... because we finally woke up and realized that there are people out there who hate us not just because of what we did to them, but because of what we are, that's not an excuse to start protecting ourselves?

ReconToaster wrote: the previous administration furthered the world's hatred towards the US by involving us in yet another stupid war,

Which a lot of the people in the US wanted... Hence John Kerry and his "I was for it before I was against it".

ReconToaster wrote:destroyed our economy,

Hey! The Iraq war didn't get us here all on our lonesome. Take a look at America's addiction to credit. And then there's the Democrat's social engineering. Go look up the "Urban Reinvestment Act".
And then there's the Democratic REFUSAL to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

ReconToaster wrote:and dismantled the constitution.

Alright, I want a complete list of how they did that.
And if you're going to bring up the "Wiretapping", that was 95% social network mapping. Which, by the way, major advertising corporations do anyways. If you're going to start ragging on the Gov't for that, rag on the companies too.

Rasq, Darfur would be different than Iraq only if it is well coordinated. With Iraq, we had plans on how we would install a new govt. we already had a cabinet of people that would be taking over once Sadam Hussein was taken from power.

Unfortunately, stupidly, we did not follow these plans. Instead, we went on to dismantle all of their government institutions (including schooling and health care, two separate entities that were only considered "part of the government" because they were forced to comply with Hussein.,) and even disbanded their army that supported us and had already agreed to help patrol the streets.

Because of our stupidity, the country fell into chaos. People had no form of leadership and so they flocked to extremist groups for guidance and protection. Al Qaeda was nowhere near as prominent in Iraq as it is now, due to our fuck-ups.

With Darfur, If we were to step in and do something, much of the UN would likely follow suit. The activities going on in Darfur are explicitely against all that the UN stands for, and are practically synonymous with what they believes requires immediate action. Lack of United States participation is all that is holding them back.

Also Rasq, try not to classify all terrorists as "people who hate us for what we are." That may be the mindset of the mindless pawns, but the leaders of said groups likely think differently. I hate to break this to you, but Osama Bin Laden is somewhat of a smart guy. Could it be that he's a little bit frustrated by the fact that we'd been bombing the Middle east for over a decade before 9/11?

I am not in any way trying to justify his actions, I'm just trying to shed light on other factors that may have provoked him. I'm a bit tired of people submitting to the idea that all terrorists are brainless thugs who just want to kill us for no reason. They have motives. Don't fall into the mob of propaganda "They hate us for our freedom" bullshit.

This is not to say that we should not be taking steps to protect ourselves, but it does not constitute the stupidity by which this country has been run for the past 8 years.

The Bush administration has helped to dismantle the constitution through war without declaration, allowance of fascist laws (such as those pertaining to gay marriage) and the patriot act. The patriot act does not just entail wire tapping. It also allows for a warrant-less search and or arrest. Oh yes, and let's not forget about torture, a tactic that is not only cruel and unusual, but also useless. Someone who is being tortured will admit to anything if only to make the pain stop.

Oh, and the majority of Americans may have approved the Iraq war in the beginning, but that was before we realized that the guarantee of weapons of mass destruction was a complete and utter illusion. Either way, I think we've all learned the hard way that the majority of Americans supporting something doesn't really matter much these days. You ever heard of a guy named Al Gore?

ReconToaster wrote:9/11?

9/11: 2,997 Dead
War on Terror: 29,997

We Win.

KristallNacht wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:9/11?

9/11: 2,997 Dead
War on Terror: 29,997

We Win.

u quoted a browser game?

>.>

flash game

w/e

ReconToaster wrote:Rasq, Darfur would be different than Iraq only if it is well coordinated. With Iraq, we had plans on how we would install a new govt. we already had a cabinet of people that would be taking over once Sadam Hussein was taken from power.

Unfortunately, stupidly, we did not follow these plans. Instead, we went on to dismantle all of their government institutions (including schooling and health care, two separate entities that were only considered "part of the government" because they were forced to comply with Hussein.,) and even disbanded their army that supported us and had already agreed to help patrol the streets.

Because of our stupidity, the country fell into chaos. People had no form of leadership and so they flocked to extremist groups for guidance and protection. Al Qaeda was nowhere near as prominent in Iraq as it is now, due to our fuck-ups.

With Darfur, If we were to step in and do something, much of the UN would likely follow suit. The activities going on in Darfur are explicitely against all that the UN stands for, and are practically synonymous with what they believes requires immediate action. Lack of United States participation is all that is holding them back.

Also Rasq, try not to classify all terrorists as "people who hate us for what we are." That may be the mindset of the mindless pawns, but the leaders of said groups likely think differently. I hate to break this to you, but Osama Bin Laden is somewhat of a smart guy. Could it be that he's a little bit frustrated by the fact that we'd been bombing the Middle east for over a decade before 9/11?

I am not in any way trying to justify his actions, I'm just trying to shed light on other factors that may have provoked him. I'm a bit tired of people submitting to the idea that all terrorists are brainless thugs who just want to kill us for no reason. They have motives. Don't fall into the mob of propaganda "They hate us for our freedom" bullshit.

This is not to say that we should not be taking steps to protect ourselves, but it does not constitute the stupidity by which this country has been run for the past 8 years.

The Bush administration has helped to dismantle the constitution through war without declaration, allowance of fascist laws (such as those pertaining to gay marriage) and the patriot act. The patriot act does not just entail wire tapping. It also allows for a warrant-less search and or arrest. Oh yes, and let's not forget about torture, a tactic that is not only cruel and unusual, but also useless. Someone who is being tortured will admit to anything if only to make the pain stop.

Oh, and the majority of Americans may have approved the Iraq war in the beginning, but that was before we realized that the guarantee of weapons of mass destruction was a complete and utter illusion. Either way, I think we've all learned the hard way that the majority of Americans supporting something doesn't really matter much these days. You ever heard of a guy named Al Gore?

For the most part, you're absolutely right, except for the fact that:
A) We did not fuck up Iraq, Bush and his administration did.
B) It's not "They want to kill us for freedom" it's more like "They want to kill us for Christianity, and the fact that women can show their faces in public". Despite what any of us say, they view us as a Christian nation that supports Jews.

PiElord wrote:
For the most part, you're absolutely right, except for the fact that:
A) We did not fuck up Iraq, Bush and his administration did.

Yah, I suppose living under terror and oppression was sooooooo much better. Stupid poloticians love to make big deals out of small things without looking at the good that's come of it. And of course, they're always looking for short-term solutions that will f*** everyone up in the end.

PiElord wrote:
B) It's not "They want to kill us for freedom" it's more like "They want to kill us for Christianity, and the fact that women can show their faces in public". Despite what any of us say, they view us as a Christian nation that supports Jews.

Does that make a difference? They still want us dead.

ReconToaster wrote:Seeing all the upset that came about after the banning of same sex marriage in California, I've gotten really tired of hearing about all these non-issues. The concepts of things like abortion and gay marriage are not really issues. They are distraction put forth by those in power to keep all you simple minded people away from thinking about the real problems in this world, like war, poverty, pollution, and health care.

If they were never taken to the federal level, things would be how the Conservatives want it. ;)

ReconToaster wrote: Whether or not gays can marry under a religious institution is a decision that should be made by the churches that hold the ceremonies. Remember the whole idea of separation of church and state that this country was founded upon? Why should the issue of gay marriage EVER be taken to the federal level?

Gay union (legal marriage, no religion involved) should be a right just as the union of a man and a woman is a right. Why should two people be held back by the deranged beliefs of another?

Did you know that if a legally married gay couple walked into a church and asked for membership, and the church turned them down, the church would lose its tax-exempt status and basically go under due to taxes?

Recon Toaster wrote: Abortion is also a stupid thing to argue about. The beginnings of a human fetus are no more valuable or special than the beginnings of a pig fetus. I'm tired of so many fellow humans taking on the belief that they are so much more important than any other race. It is a delusion. We are all equally unimportant.

Well, technically speaking, killing a pig is called farming and is a common and perfectly acceptable practice, where as killing a human is called murder and is frowned upon. So saying that a human fetus is no better than a pig fetus because humans are no better than pigs is really a nonargument, because the law protects humans much more than it does pigs, so by the argument that pigs are to humans as pig fetuses are to human fetuses, human fetuses would receive much more protection by the law than pig fetuses. ;)

ReconToaster wrote: Even if abortion was banned, it would only increase the number of already illegal abortions, wherein the baby is killed via physical harm to the mother. So tell me, what is the "moral" thing to do?

One could say that about almost any crime. Criminals have to use cruder methods to get things done when they break the law. That doesn't mean that we should legalize these things. For example, if rape became legal, rapists would be much less likely to kill their victims. So, by that logic, we should legalize rape too.

ReconToaster wrote: These are all non-issues that should NEVER be taken to a federal level.

They are issues now because they were taken to the federal level, and now other people want it to go back to the way it was.

ReconToaster wrote: Something else that I noticed while reading through the recently closed "gay marriage" thread was the way multiple people kept repeating a phrase along the lines of "If you discriminate me for discriminating gays, you're discriminating my religion."

Odd, because I read every line of every post in that thread, and I don't remember people saying that. In fact, I remember most of the more active religious people coming out against discriminating against gays. Perhaps you should reread the thread?

[quote="ReconToaster"] Why is it that we have all deemed discrimination against someone's religion to be "Off-limits?" If anyone is deranged enough to put their trust in any form of organized religious bullshit, I'd say they are the most deserving of discrimination as anyone. How is your average ghost seeing lunatic any different from someone who believes in "angels?"

ReconToaster wrote: The fact that someone was "raised to believe" in something does not make their beliefs acceptable. I was raised to believe in Santa clause, Hell, I was raised a presbyterian, but I was still intelligent enough to discern fact from fiction by the time I was 12.

I don't know if this base form of personal attack even warrants an intelligent response. There are ways to question religion without being such a prick. And considering that your initial point is moot because the alleged quotes upon which it was founded didn't actually occur, I think we can just ignore this little section.

ReconToaster wrote: This world needs reform. We need to stop focusing our attentions on false distraction and start worrying about the real issues in this world, and we need to stop excusing people for blindly following archaic stories.

I'd rather see people stop blindly following a hollow charismatic shell because the media says so, but whatever you say.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Erm... Some of those are issues, but as you said they should never go to the Federal level. I can see that stuff hapening at a state level though...

I dont see anyone trashing you for your beliefs so dont trash mine.
(btw, Santa Claus is an evil little trick parents use to screw with their kids and that corporations use to get lots of money)

Well said.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:War, Poverty, Famine, Pollution; Regardless of what it is plans are already in motion to control these things.

Indeed.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:War?
Between the multiple 'laws' that are enforced on the combatants, its getting near impossible to even conduct a real war in most areas.

Of course, breaking these laws has no punishment unless you are the United States, so really, it is becoming impossible for the United States to conduct a real war. Terrorists are walking breaches of the Geneva Convention, and it doesn't seem to bother them at all.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Poverty?
I honestly cant think of anything to solve this one. Wealth all depends on where it is, and right now that is in the U.S. and a few other industialized nations.

There is no way that money will be distributed out to the poorer people's in the near future.

Money redistribution will never work anyway. The only true way to end poverty on a whole would be Communism, and since Communism removes the incentive to work hard, it removes the hard workers too, thus creating more poverty.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Famine?
They already have these organizations out there, so donate.
No government is going to send food in their right mind; the convoys or whatever would be taken by force because of the unrest in areas where there is famine.

A particular movie comes to mind. Of course, God forbid Bill Clinton send US forces to rescue our own men. I still can't believe the UN, of all people, had to bail us out in Somalia.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Pollution?
This is the only one where we could do more... and im sure everyone here already knows how to solve this one...

Individuals have to make a personal choice not to pollute before this will get better, methinks.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:and about health care....

No national healthcare is needed, the gov. just needs to impose limits

Agreed.

PiElord wrote:Hey man, I've been trying to talk about the war.

Problem is, these damn Neo-Cons think we're winning in Iraq and everything is perfectly fine.

Perhaps that's because 34000 casualties on our side, of which only 4000 are deaths, for the entire coalition, is among the lowest death tolls of any war the US has waged. Let me put that in perspective for you. In the Vietnam War, the war liberals love to compare Iraq to, the United States alone had 361000 casualties, of which 58000 were deaths. That is to say, the deaths the United States incurred in Vietnam were less than the total casualties of all coalition forces in Iraq.

PiElord wrote:An Darfur really is a problem that needs to be addressed, but because of Iraq, we just don't have the manpower.

Everyone gets on the US's case for being the "world police." Isn't it the UN's duty to take care of Darfur? Why should US manpower have anything to do with it? It is a double standard for people to hate the US for acting like world police, then expecting them to clean up another mess in some foreign country.

PiElord wrote:Pollution: That all depends on whether or not you guys believe in Global Warming.
I do.
Hell, I'm an American Indian. My people have watched the white man destroy the Earth for hundreds of years, and this is just the newest problem to come up.

You realize that Earth has had four ice ages, none of which occurred when such a thing as pollution existed. In light of that, to claim that the planet's temperature changing is completely human's fault is absurd, at best. Furthermore, for Al Gore to ride around in his private jet and tell people to get off the grid and go green, while he lives in something like five houses, all of which are on the grid, and then for him to get a Nobel Prize for this, is simply insulting to science.

PiElord wrote:As for poverty, well, just donate to charities (good charities), that you know are active in Africa, Southeast Asia, or right here in the back alleys of the U.S.
Oh, and of course Mexico.

Indeed.

PiElord wrote:And finally, health care.
Again, the Republicans here think that "Socialistic Healthcare" is a terrible idea that will just end with us all living in communes.
Universal Healthcare may not be perfect, but it's better than letting people just die because they don't have the cash to live.

If people don't have the cash now, where will they get the cash? From other people who worked hard to get some extra cash for something else? If a doctor slugs through eight or so years of college and then works his way up to a high position at a hospital, is it fair to redistribute his money out to everyone else who didn't take the time to do so? And if it is, why be a doctor, if the government will fund you either way? Universal healthcare has all the same problems as communism, because there is no magical source of cash to pay for it. That money has to come from somewhere, and God help me, if liberals run up the national debt after hounding Bush for eight years for doing so, they will be the biggest hypocrites in existence.

Dud Doodoo wrote:Oh here we go again Toaster.
:QC:

Seriously, I think Obama is the end of this nation, I'm not whining.

Now stfu and get on xfire.

Dud and I agree on something? This planet is doomed...

CivBase wrote:Healthcare? Insurance is more important than the murder of children? They are issues. Maybe you don't think they're as important, but they're issues. Personaly, I don't think pollution is a big isssue right now. So what if the planet will burn in 500 years? What are you doing about it?
Poverty is probably at the bottom of my list. Why? Because we live in the US. If you want to get rich, you darn well can. If you don't try, you just go down. That's how it works. Some may have to try harder than others, but anyone can do it. As for other countries, that's not our problem until these people are abused by their government. Do you think Spain gives a crap about our healthcare? No, because it's not their business.

Exactly.

CivBase wrote:And this is why I don't have a solid standing on this debate.

I don't either. I'm not sure how I feel about gay legal unions, but the concept that gays could put churches out of business or cow them into granting membership due to a legal loophole is troublesome.

CivBase wrote:This is your argument? Saying that humans don't matter? I can tell you right now, don't do it, because it all boils down to religion, and do you want another religious fight?

Actually, in this one case, it boils down to simple logic. As the only fully sentient beings on this planet, most of us realize that we do matter. What's funny is that Recon argues that war, poverty, and famine are big issues, but that humans don't matter. Anyone else catch the irony?

CivBase wrote:The moral thing to do would be to put up safehavens, adoption centers, and other various services so they don't have to kill the baby.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:That may be so, but they're here. What is an issue recon? It is a conflict of intrest within our society, and when this conflict of interest is about morality, it is quite often brought to the federal level. You can whine all you want, but it doesn't change anything.

Agreed.

ReconToaster wrote:Well guess what, I am a Christian. I go to church, I believe in God, heaven, hell, angels, demons, satan, ect. Do I let my religion control my life? Hell yah! But does it make a big impact? No.
In fact, I didn't use religion in the gay marriage thread at all. In fact, I fought those that did. You can discriminate against me if you want, but remember, I think you're crazy too, so it isn't going to help you any more than it will help me. You may as well just drop this now.

I seem to recall that you, I, and several others who even mentioned religion were very much against discriminating against gays, or anyone for that matter.

CivBase wrote:Santa's a fake, but Saint Nicholas is (well... was) real. Recon, the fact that someone was raised that way doesn't make it acceptable, but if they so choose to believe it when given the other side, then it is acceptable. I have seen both sides of the argument, and I choose Christiantiy.
Everyone has their views. Some think some views are crazy, others think they're perfectly reasonable. That's why there will always be conflict in the world.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:May God bless your soul.

Agreed.

CivBase wrote:You do realise that healthcare is insurance, right? What is the point of insureance if everyone has the same? Then all the company does is raise price. Insureance isn't insureance if it is just handed out. Insureance is about covering your losses. So with univeral healthcare, there are three things I could see that happen:

1. We all get the healthcare and the hospitals just raise prices so we all have to pay 100%.
   
2. We all get the healthcare and as the hospitals raise their prices, the government raises our coverage. Soon, the hospitals can't get enough money to stay afloat and the government has to take that over. Now healthcare is pointless, so that is just allout removed and the governments mismangement of the hospitals causes millions to die.
   
3. We all get the healthcare, but the government sets it at a happy median so that hospitals still have barely enough to get by. Qualtiy goes down, doctors quit because the job that made them rich nolonger pays much at all, and millions of people that previously had healthcare just had their coverage cut in half by the government and never got a chance to use their previous insurance.

Indeed.

PiElord wrote:Okay, if this is so damned terrible, than why hasn't any of the things you listed happened in Canada or Europe?

Try finding a specialist in Canada. ;)

CivBase wrote:Canada? You mean where they have to wait 6 months just to get a checkup due to lack of doctors?

Canada would be a scenario three country.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:pie, those systems are failing in largernations, and we are larger than them even.

We do not have the resources nor the money to support everyone in the country. Currently, those who succeed are okay and have healthcare thsoe who dont drop down.

We do not have to wait years for a surgery or asimple checkup(which we would with universal healthcare because of the Beuracracy(sp?)) with our current system either, which is a god-send. WIth 300 million requesting help when it has to through the gov. would be a disaster.

Exactly.

ReconToaster wrote: The idea of having to wait months for healthcare in Canada is mere propaganda. It is a total exaggeration of the truth.

So that makes me friends in Canada agents of American propaganda? One of them has been rather sick for some time. He and I have discussed Canada's universal healthcare plan before, so I'd say he's more experienced in the subject than you.

ReconToaster wrote: You're right that we don't have the resources to take care of 300 million people, but that's only because we are fighting 2 wars. The system used in the UK is works fine, and If you see that as too unreachable in the near future, you could even look to the French system where there are still paying for their Healthcare from private enterprises, but are reimbursed by the government.

Recon, do you know what taxes are like in the UK?

ReconToaster wrote: It actually wouldn't be such a financial problem if we simply gave people healthcare and taxed them more. Instead of paying the crazy prices of insurance, they could just be paying slightly higher taxes. This would also mean that companies would not have to pay for employees' healthcare, thus giving back to the economy what would be taken by crushing the health insurance industry.

Going from about 30% to 60% isn't what I call a "slight" increase in taxes.

ReconToaster wrote: The fact is, a person's well being should not be controlled by an attorney, and no one should have to choose between their health and finances. It's just wrong.

A person's well being is hardly controlled by an attorney. And need we remind you that in America, those who work hard enough succeed.

ReconToaster wrote: In response to civbase, what I said about abortion was that the beginning of a pig fetus in no more important than that of a human. They are just clusters of cells. They have no sense of self awareness and can feel no pain or emotion. I think that late term abortions are usually wrong. But Civbase, what about the situation wherein having the baby would kill the mother? Is it ok to abort then? Or is the future life of a fetus somehow more precious than that of a grown woman?

This has already been discussed. We, for the most part, felt that an exception could be made for mothers facing complications that would result in either the mothers and/or child's death. However, I personally feel that a child who has not lived at all has higher priority over a woman who has lived twenty or thirty years.

ReconToaster wrote: SO instead of actually putting together a prepared response you are going to come in here and make a dumb statement like that and leave? How about you elaborate on WHY you think such a thing. I myself am under the comprehension that the previous administration already did all the damage. It can't get much worse.

I seem to recall the Democrats being the masters behind the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae, which directly lead to the housing crisis and thus the economy being in shambles.

ReconToaster wrote: I don't know if you remember, but George W. Bush ran on a campaign of no nation building. Apparently something changed. 9/11 is their excuse for inverting all of their policies. That doesn't cut it in my opinion.

I think a terrorist act like 9/11 is a pretty good reason to change focus.

ReconToaster wrote: the previous administration furthered the world's hatred towards the US by involving us in yet another stupid war, destroyed our economy, and dismantled the constitution. Tell me, how is Obama "the end of this nation"?

I assume you mean the previous Bush administration, and not the Clinton administration, which was too frightened of a few Somalian militants to bother rescuing United States peacekeepers who were delivering food to the population. And as I recall, the Gulf War was not only justified by the UN, but hardly "destroyed our economy" or "dismantled the constitution."

CivBase wrote:But mear clusters of cells have no potential of being a human. These have more chance of being a baby than a child has of being an adult.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:You don't have to kill the baby, take it to a safehaven. If it would kill the mother, than surgicaly remove it. If that wont work, that's the only time I might be okay with it.

By Recon's logic, if we kill people, but we do so in a completely humane way in which they are totally unaware of it, then it is ok.

ReconToaster wrote: And what of the cost of check-ups and the delivery to a person with no insurance? That's why underground abortions happen.

And, what, abortion is a cheap alternative? We should legalize abortion because it costs too much money otherwise? So should we just clear the prisons by way of execution? It is quite expensive, feeding all those criminals, so we should kill them all. Yes, that would also put a huge damper on crime, I'd bet.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Quit fake quoting me!
Universal Healthcare = fail, and the waiting lines ARE long

He meant to quote Civ.

BBJynne wrote:*yawn*

do we really have to go through all this again?

It would seem so.

CivBase wrote:Cost of checkups? That's where the whole thing comes along where you make the choice before intercourse. I know the next thing you're going to bring up is rape, something that is very unlikely. If someone is raped though, then the government should pay the necessary fees so long as there was no concent (such, even though it's rape if their under 18 no matter what, if the girl gave concent then the govt shouldn't be responsible).
People have the misconception that pro-life people are not pro choice. The thing is, we are. But the choice comes before intercourse.

Indeed.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Please, tell me how Darfur will be any different from Iraq. Same ethnic issues.

I hope you aren't expecting Pie to think something through...

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:If 60% of the population cannot afford health care, then spreading around the wealth isn't going to help anything. You'd just have to keep printing money... like what they have to do with Social Security.

I remember a time when another nation tried to print money to fix economic problems. But then, post WW1 Germany wasn't a fun place to live...

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:So... because we finally woke up and realized that there are people out there who hate us not just because of what we did to them, but because of what we are, that's not an excuse to start protecting ourselves?

Apparently so.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Which a lot of the people in the US wanted... Hence John Kerry and his "I was for it before I was against it".

So when he spoke about the previous administration, he meant the current one? Because everyone pretty much hated us before W.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Hey! The Iraq war didn't get us here all on our lonesome. Take a look at America's addiction to credit. And then there's the Democrat's social engineering. Go look up the "Urban Reinvestment Act".
And then there's the Democratic REFUSAL to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

Indeed.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Alright, I want a complete list of how they did that.
And if you're going to bring up the "Wiretapping", that was 95% social network mapping. Which, by the way, major advertising corporations do anyways. If you're going to start ragging on the Gov't for that, rag on the companies too.

Interesting.

ReconToaster wrote:Rasq, Darfur would be different than Iraq only if it is well coordinated. With Iraq, we had plans on how we would install a new govt. we already had a cabinet of people that would be taking over once Sadam Hussein was taken from power.

Unfortunately, stupidly, we did not follow these plans. Instead, we went on to dismantle all of their government institutions (including schooling and health care, two separate entities that were only considered "part of the government" because they were forced to comply with Hussein.,) and even disbanded their army that supported us and had already agreed to help patrol the streets.

Because of our stupidity, the country fell into chaos. People had no form of leadership and so they flocked to extremist groups for guidance and protection. Al Qaeda was nowhere near as prominent in Iraq as it is now, due to our fuck-ups.

With Darfur, If we were to step in and do something, much of the UN would likely follow suit. The activities going on in Darfur are explicitely against all that the UN stands for, and are practically synonymous with what they believes requires immediate action. Lack of United States participation is all that is holding them back.

The UN condemns us for being the world police. Why would they support us in Darfur if they won't elsewhere? The UN is good for nothing when it comes to anything.

ReconToaster wrote: Also Rasq, try not to classify all terrorists as "people who hate us for what we are." That may be the mindset of the mindless pawns, but the leaders of said groups likely think differently. I hate to break this to you, but Osama Bin Laden is somewhat of a smart guy. Could it be that he's a little bit frustrated by the fact that we'd been bombing the Middle east for over a decade before 9/11?

Perhaps he should take into consideration the Middle East's attempts to push Israel into the Mediterranean next time?

ReconToaster wrote: I am not in any way trying to justify his actions, I'm just trying to shed light on other factors that may have provoked him. I'm a bit tired of people submitting to the idea that all terrorists are brainless thugs who just want to kill us for no reason. They have motives. Don't fall into the mob of propaganda "They hate us for our freedom" bullshit.

This is not to say that we should not be taking steps to protect ourselves, but it does not constitute the stupidity by which this country has been run for the past 8 years.

The Bush administration has helped to dismantle the constitution through war without declaration, allowance of fascist laws (such as those pertaining to gay marriage) and the patriot act. The patriot act does not just entail wire tapping. It also allows for a warrant-less search and or arrest. Oh yes, and let's not forget about torture, a tactic that is not only cruel and unusual, but also useless. Someone who is being tortured will admit to anything if only to make the pain stop.

Last I recall, the Geneva Convention does not give any rights to those that break the Geneva Convention. And last I checked, water boarding has gotten results and leaves no lasting affects.

ReconToaster wrote: Oh, and the majority of Americans may have approved the Iraq war in the beginning, but that was before we realized that the guarantee of weapons of mass destruction was a complete and utter illusion. Either way, I think we've all learned the hard way that the majority of Americans supporting something doesn't really matter much these days. You ever heard of a guy named Al Gore?

The guy who invented the Internet and Global Warming, flew around on a private jet and drives in a motorcade of Escalades (the engines are left running while he's inside) to tell us about this Global Warming thing, all the while living in five different houses (all on the grid), and somehow got a Nobel Prize for all this? That guy?

KristallNacht wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:9/11?

9/11: 2,997 Dead
War on Terror: 29,997

We Win.

Um...actually, casualties != dead. The US has incurred about 500 deaths in Afghanistan and 4200 in Iraq.

BBJynne wrote:u quoted a browser game?

>.>

A misinformed one at that.

KristallNacht wrote:flash game

On the bright side, it means that you simply didn't look up the facts rather than purposely misconstruing facts...

PiElord wrote:For the most part, you're absolutely right, except for the fact that:
A) We did not fuck up Iraq, Bush and his administration did.
B) It's not "They want to kill us for freedom" it's more like "They want to kill us for Christianity, and the fact that women can show their faces in public". Despite what any of us say, they view us as a Christian nation that supports Jews.

I'm sure we'll all rest easier at night knowing that Pie is on Recon's side.

CivBase wrote:Yah, I suppose living under terror and oppression was sooooooo much better. Stupid poloticians love to make big deals out of small things without looking at the good that's come of it. And of course, they're always looking for short-term solutions that will f*** everyone up in the end.

Indeed. I'd like to see Recon tell the Kurds that we screwed up in Iraq.

CivBase wrote:Does that make a difference? They still want us dead.

Indeed.