Yeah, I'm loving the outright lies while they work to cause the _exact_ opposite of what they claim to want.

The sad thing is that it's all of America that has to suffer for the _retarded_ ones numerous enough to vote in this failure. Every day the news brings more tidings that I will probably have to explain to my children that the USA was once different, ahead of the entire world.

lol little paul.

Wrong? You just said I was wrong in stating that most pro-choice advocates aren't seeking moderate legislation and then said that you agree that the majority of pro-choice advocates are rather extreme.

forgot the 400 coronas

has his own secret ingredient

Some of them wave their hats
Some of them turn their backs
It's all the same
None of them know where you've been
It's all the same

-Spartan

>>What you call "responsible capitalism" is what we call realistic socialism.<<

I'm pretty sure my "responsible capitalism" which takes freedom and then adds those government controls which protect the rights of contract holders, property holders, etc. is a bit more on the realistic or responsible capitalism side than responsible or realistic socialism side.

Many in Amerika have taken a great liking to Marx. I just don't like him because I've read a number of his works and I think he's an idiot. I find many of his claims unsubstanciated and so what he builds upon them makes me shake my head that this poor bloke needed to get a real job producing some sort of wealth before he proclaimed himself wise and wrote about that which he did not understand. So while not everyone has a problem with Marx, as a PR move a real discussion of the US's move toward socialism isn't found ANYwhere among ANY of its most avid supporters. Which is why I proclaim the whole thing bullshit garbage and immoral--The discussion is fine (and good). Supporting socialism is fine (if not good ). But underhanded tactics which include openly lying about one's intentions I'm not a big supporter of.

>>If there's a mass of unemployed people who don't get anything from the state by redistribution, they can only live off charity.<<

Living off the state by redistribution IS charity.

>>Thus, they're unable to contribute in the economic system.<<

People living off charity do not contribute to the system anyway--they merely spend the earnings of those who donated, earnings which would have been spent by their earners anyway. We have redistribution in the form of unemployment and welfare. It's good for our economy because people who can't bathe and wash their clothes or feed themselves and their families tend not to find new work and resume contributing to the system.

But when "redistribution" ceases to be this pragmatic and utility matter I just described, it becomes entitlement of low-income earners wanting more because they decided they deserve it and there's enough of them to vote that government force be used to cease it and give it to them. And this becomes problematic, to use the euphemism of the century, because it brings in government bureaucrats to decide how much to shave off of who and how much to give to who for wealth each creates. It short-circuits all of the natural motivations a free market naturally creates for people to work harder and produce more in order to better themselves (better yourself by bettering humanity... what a radical idea this capitalism thing fosters!). Because in a free market, you get rewarded by producing what people want and need. And the more of what people want and need you produce and the better it is, the more people are willing to pay for it--the more you produce and the better it is, the more you are rewarded for making it! But even such a simple motivation which has rocketed the USA to economic superpower unparalleled in human history is ignored in the redistribution being discussed here. Discussed here is a fine idea that short-circuits this most basic motivation capitalism provides for everyone to work harder and better for others in order to be rewarded. Redistribution here encourages laziness by paying it (don't bother working, they'll pay you not to and it's a lot less work!). Redistribution here assaults motivation to excell and be better than your competition because hey, you're not going to be rewarded for working harder, you'd have to be stupid to bust your ass when your reward is the same as the idiots you work with who slack and do a fifth of the work you do on their good days.

Redistribution does not "allow" anyone to "contribute" to the economic system. Creation of wealth contributes to and expands the economic system. Encouraging hard work and innovation (and that means rewarding it) expands the economy. Taking from the successful and giving to the have-nots does not.

As much talk as there is about the gap between the rich and the poor, it is and has always been and will always be nearly unimaginably large. Maybe you have a much greater mind than me, but comparing myself to someone with 10 billion dollars and comparing myself to someone with 50 billion dollars reveals pretty quickly that they're both just so unimaginably huge I don't really think I'd be able to discern a difference in the gap. Regardless of this gap, it's not because of redistribution that we're not still experiencing the crash of the 30s. People enjoy, on average, better pay and a better standard of living today WITHOUT redistribution.

The only things redistribution contributes is bureaucratic costs, injustice, and stiffled motivation.

>>Those babies were unwanted, thus not really anyone's friend.<<

They're obviously thought close enough to a friend for some to want to protect them.

I do not take for granted that there is a God. I'm on the fence concerning His existence myself. He hasn't Spoken to me or responded to my emails regarding this question. I'm still waiting to hear back about the answer to the Question.

>>but it doesn't justify the killing in any way<<

I was just explaining that to him, who believes that this man murdered countless human beings, killing this man was justified because he was going to continue to kill countless more human beings. To him it was like shooting a Nazi deathcamp executioner whose job it was to kill countless human beings in order to prevent them from killing more.

I completely agree and in no way whatsoever condone his actions. I believe they are likely motivated in large part by (in addition to his beliefs, which I do not judge, as I believe that holding [human] life sacred isn't such a bad thing) the apathy of authority and the voting public as well on an issue that he cared deeply about.

[begin optional rant]
I believe that we human beings are wretched things and, if there is a God, a Hell, or any sort of Justice whatsoever I'm confident that plenty of people deserve to burn, so while I would never choose to abort my own child (I know I know, you never know until you've been there--but I have these old things called values and a belief system based upon the natural order; and two human beings of opposite sexes coming together to beget another human being of their own flesh is kindof a sacred thing by that measure, not to be shat upon--so blow me. ) I am aware that people always have and always will do it anyway, so I'm not particularly concerned about 'aborting' children immediately and shortly after conception, before they have anything of a nervous system whatsoever. So if people want their right to kill their children before there's any possible way their children can have thoughts or feelings whatsoever, let them go on and do that. It's their decision and, I do have faith in this, anyone irresponsible enough to have an unwanted child will probably be Damned if there is such a thing anyway (not necessarily for killing a few cells, but I'm presuming a level of stupid here that leads to plenty of other actions). Let them have their hell and purchase a ticket to it too--live and let live, to each his own, AKA it's none of my damn business. After 9 months or nearly 9 months when a child is completely 'formed' and all parts are present, however, I've got a little of a problem with the "chop it up, poison it, use a hammer (China used/uses(?) this method when they run out of poison for the head), whatever" attitude. It's a living child that feels pain and will, without some method of killing it, grow and mature. I would like to see laws forbidding late-term abortion. Anyone who is not aware that they're pregnant and have the option of 'aborting' their child after a number of months but later decides they want their child killed after it has developed to a point where IT DOESN'T NEED THEM TO SURVIVE ANYWAY should probably be forced to have the child and then be shot in the head, on principle, IMHO.
[/rant]

Those are some random thoughts--my position, if you will--on the topic of abortion and "abortion rights." I do not think they are unreasonable. I do not desire control over a woman's body or have some strange psychological problem that brings me to this position. I have no religious faith, so there's no "well God said!" contributing to my position. I think it's fairly reasonable. It's certainly open to discussion as to at what point (and why then) abortion should be allowed and when forbade. And the rant brings me to my point:  And yet I've never heard a position like mine (for instance, or anything else) desiring some reasonable safegaurds to prevent letting children be half born and killing them before they're entirely born because it's somehow alright to kill a child 6 inches in one direction from a woman's holiest of altars but totally wrong to murder an infant 6 inches in the other a few seconds later, with no psysiological change happening in the human being whose termination is in question. Most of us probably agree that SOME protection ought to be given to children after birth, and many believe that some protection ought to be given to children during and before birth. But often what we get is the bi-product of whichever political candidate who spent X money with X marketing tactic on X issues figures will get him re-elected. I'm disgusted by the way many parents (with the aid of doctors) dispose of their children at what stage of pregnancy. But I'm an asshole and I just don't care if they, or all of you , die. But many people feel VERY strongly about this issue and don't resign themselves to my "screw off and die" position. For them it is a very serious issue that is being ignored by virtually every legislative body in the nation. Sometimes it isn't ignored, but that's usually in that their tax money is used to pay for poor people to kill their kids.

People argue that life is sacred from conception and that abortion should never be allowed. People argue that it's a woman's right to kill her offspring at any time, up to and including while it's already half birthed. But there's no public discussion of what our laws ought to allow (if anything) and/or what they ought to prevent (if anything). Candidates for legislative offices that make these laws do not discuss their views of the law and values and morality. What do we expect in a society where lawmakers give the go-ahead to unsupervised killing of infants during birth and a significant poriton of the population thinks it's wrong beyond all measure (horrific) what is being done?

There's no communication. This man found a way to get his point heard. I agree it was wrong, and the sad thing is that this won't give any attention to the matter other than for liberals to shout that this is another of the crazies the right produces and they need more protection for their right to kill their kids, and conservatives to shake their heads because another lunatic has snapped. The two sides not communicating just separate farther and farther from discussion. And a few years later it happens again.

[F] you, Morbo the Annihilator! I have dreams of 'flying' millions of light years to fight giant cockroaches in my lifetime! I just played a game where you mow down zombees (sorry it's a term of endearment, I've come to love blasting them) with rifles, chainguns, rockets, other rockets, other rockets (expectly my favorite, all 3 types), sniper rifles, and, recently, even two types of lasers! Oh, and flamethrowers. But that's obvious, as well as fun. I'd like to keep thinking that advancements in space travel will occur in the next decade or two and I won't be too old to serve my country [Edit: PLANET! HA!] in the fight against giant cockroaches. Not exactly possible my ass. It's gonna happen! Just you wait!

I do not think that murdering this man was justified or excusable. Nor do I think it is surprising that a man engaged in shady dealings was murdered in a society apathetic to the cause of stopping late-term abortions where the issue is not debated nor open to debate but accepted as "abortions up to (and sometimes past) partial birth are a necessary right of women."

Where is there is no tolerance for discussion or room for this man's views (the man who murdered Mr. Tiller), his violent and criminal act was his substitute.

While I in no way condone the killing, I'm torn about the location chosen. On the one hand, God is Love and killing a man is obviously not generally something that fits within this Law. On the other, there is no greater love, says the Lord, than to lay down one's life for a friend. This man gave up his life to stop a man from ending the lives of many children who were fully capable of surviving and thriving in the world we take for granted our right to survive and thrive in. I don't think it was right to kill Mr. Tiller. But I think it was right to stop Mr. Tiller from doing what he was doing.

Let God sort them out. May Mr. Tiller rest in peace. I wonder if his view on taking life has changed now, considering his own experience with it.

>>Theres a difference.<<

Thank you for making this point: the only difference is what they call it.

agrees with Rick James in regard to the potency of certain popular narcotics

thinks E