Justice

Ruining OUR international image? Watching Colin Powell try to use theories and possibilities to justify the war ruined it enough. Of course, France vetoing any sort of timeline or table even before the Iraqis had a chance to speak out against it gave us so many options...

Powell is a teflon man (Nothing sticks to him and he's generally recognized as a hero for something or other) and racism isn't THAT rampant anymore. Powell, if he runs, would have the best shot ever of being the first black president.

Personally, I'd prefer only countries with a decent amount of troops in the region being the only ones getting the contracts. That seems a bit more fair to me.

I'm mixed. I really doubt anything will really go to the Saudis (I'm guessing Poland and the other Eastern Bloc guys who supported us will be getting a big part of the contracts), though the fact that there's the chance does disturb me. But to all who are bitching that those who got locked out aren't going to join now, well, fact is that the big three that we are thinking of at the moment (France, Germany, Russia), have pledge only a few donations to the new Iraqi government and have come out and said that they will definitely not be putting troops in the region as well. They aren't gonna jump on the band wagon any time soon guys, and if it takes contracts to make them jump then we don't want them. They had their chance, they didn't toss us any support, they shouldn't get a shot. This is a reward for those who pledged support to us when we asked, and if you shot us down then you really shouldn't bitch about it coming back in your face. It's not really blackmail when they actively tried ruining our international image in the UN by cockblocking us. I'd argue it's getting what was coming to them.

Aie yie yie. Well, PM me these stats quick. I may ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO WRITE FOR THIS (It's still a maybe depending on how prepared I am for my Con Law final...)!

Ah frick, I hate this place. I always get lost looking for the HTML one ...

Actually, I just finished reading the entire thing. I've been following the case closely, as it relates to my mock court case in a constitutional law class. So yes, in fact, I do know what the fuck I'm talking about in this respect. Wow. Considering it just came out today, color me impressed. And fuck, you gave me the PDF form one. I'd found that one, but I fucking HATE them. *Searches for a version he can copy to word to ready so the scrolling doesn't irritate the fuck out of him* I hate Adobe and it's jerky as fuck scrolling. Hurts my eyes when you have to read 298 pages of it... Edit: Oh, I found that. I'm more of a CJ Rehnquist fan myself, though. His starts on 280, it seems.

I honestly have doubts on this whole decision. I personally think the elections ad one was a bad part because how does one tell if an ad is really that negative? If an ad focuses on a person's past and is truthful, is that considered negative because while true it paints a bad picture of the person? I'll read the entire decision over break (Tyler, how the fuck can you speak as well? Did you read all 298 pages of the decision already? Not saying you are wrong, but I highly doubt that you've looked at this indepth enough to make a real decision, to be fair), though I can't find the dissenting opinion yet. It's a bit frustrating, actually. At any rate, I'm very leery of this whole thing but I'd need to really look at this to make an educated decision.

Nice work, Mr. Malibu.

*Scoffs* Lightweight. Until you can convince a dozen people in a chatroom that you just committed a murder, was wounded, and ACTUALLY CAME TO THE CHAT ROOM FIRST, you shall not get props from me. Bitch.

You kinda sorta make that choice when you consent to sex, whether you like it or not. And since you regard it as a human being now, wouldn't it be murder to end it's life? Privacy does not overrule one's right to live.

Of course, you aren't even old enough to buy ammo, let alone run out of it...

Are you sure you're not a gimmick poster? God damn it, you got it before I did.

Can I try? If you really want to, though we may shoot each other in the end, sparking me to crawl back to my room with a leg wound and- Well, I think we both know where this is going.

Then you are an idiot because you fail to see LEGAL reasons. The basic Right to Live overrules the Right to Privacy that abortion is claimed under. That's not a religious reason, that's a COMPLETELY SECULAR reason. GET WITH IT! A right to live for a HUMAN. A fetus is not yet a human. You basically have to stretch the right to live farther than its original intention. In another words, the same thing I'm doing with the right to privacy. Pot. Kettle. Blaaaaack. ... Stretching the Right to Live to include those who will live is not near as much of a stretch as saying your right to an abortion is covered under the right to PRIVACY. Do you even know HOW it falls under the right to privacy?

BECAUSE THAT IS YOUR ENTIRE REASON BEHIND PUTTING THE LIFE OF AN ANIMAL OVER THE LIFE OF AN UNBORN CHILD. YOUR WHOLE REASON BEHIND IT IS BECAUSE THE ANIMAL IS MORE INTELLIGENT. WE ARE QUESTIONING SAID REASONING BECAUSE YOU ARE SIMPLY BASING THIS OFF INTELLIGENCE, THEREFORE AN ANIMAL'S LIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN AN INFANT'S LIFE. Jesus H. Christ. No one, not Jobber, not Tyler, not ANYONE has made me type my entire argument in caps. At least I can believe that those two are down to Earth in real life and that the CE folder only makes them a bit more extreme (Like I), but I can't believe the same in you. I'm surprised that you haven't been killed by the people around you.

Then you are an idiot because you fail to see LEGAL reasons. The basic Right to Live overrules the Right to Privacy that abortion is claimed under. That's not a religious reason, that's a COMPLETELY SECULAR reason. GET WITH IT!

Actually, uh, no, it isn't. Explain to me how the right to privacy overrules the right to live. That's the legal argument at hand (And that's some real liberal interpretation of the right to privacy as well, no pun intended). Scientifically one could say that most animals could be proven smarter than your average infant, but that doesn't mean it deserves to die. Intelligence does not prove your argument in any way because of the accepted inherent difference between an animal life and a human life.

Funny, I've been thinking that a lot lately. So you've been considering suicide? *Rimshot*

I think the fact that it will become a human being take precedence over animals. I mean, infants probably don't have the intuitive capabilities of your average dog or chimp, so do you kill it because it's stupidier? Intelligence is not the only factor here.

Okay, but is that really more important than improving our own quality of life here and why do we need to have military bases in Sweden again? Most likely because of NATO and the fact that Sweden can't afford a military without raising their taxes another 10%.

Well, think of it this way: All that useless money that we spend on the military goes into things like body armor, better tanks with stronger armor, faster flying jets, more accurate missiles. One shouldn't only consider that we have to upkeep the current military but must plan ahead and keep it on the cutting edge so we can enjoy that advantage in peace-keeping around the world. Didn't Mike bring up the fact that kids in D.C. generally tend to get more money per student than any district in the US? Money =/= Better grades. We have a similar problem in Detroit: It's called being 'top-heavy'. The current supervisor here makes $600,000 (he should NEVER be making more money than the President of the United States), plus he hired a dozen advisors on for six-figure salaries. Cut down on the administrative crap and get the money to the schools is what I say.

A sperm, alone, can NEVER become a human being. Same with an egg. A fertilized egg WILL become a human being, discounting a very small minority of those who have genetic defects that won't allow it to come to term. That's what my definition is. And I don't want a Vulcan way of life, but I don't think people thinking it's okay to have sex with everything and everyone because you always have the abortion backup is a safe thing to do, especially considering STDs. If you want to have sex, fine, but recognize that it's main function was not to be pleasurable but to create kids. If that happens, then sorry, but that's how the cookie crumbles; Just because you screwed up doesn't override the right to be able to live for a fetus.

This actually makes me think more of an X episode than anything else..... I wish more people would worry about all the animals that die who are, you know, ALREADY BORN that human fetuses that don't possess less intelligence than your average sewer rat. BUT HEY....they have SOULS~!! Or something. I'd imagine you're a PETA supporter? Take a wild guess. I'm not a complete veggie, but then again I'm not "pro-life" either. I just think it's massivley stupid for people to care so much about unborn fetuses and not about all the animals that die senslessly (not counting the ones that feed us- and even counting them there's some that are pointless, like veal). I have cousins in Wisconsin who actually hunt a lot for food; They eat what they hunt as one of their big supplies to save money on the Grocery store. I know a lot of hunters who do this as well, so to say it's pointless is a gross generalization. I do, though, laugh that you consider hunting senseless death yet it seems that abortion without a proper reason (Rape, Incest, Possible injury or death to the mother) doesn't seem to phase you at all. I suppose the fact that a fetus will undoubtably become a human and the fact that you are stopping this from coming to being could easily be considered murder, right? And comparing them to animals is just idiotic: The fact that will become human and nothing else can qualify them as something more than a squirrel. That almost ranks up there with comparing what happens to livestock to what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust (Something, incidentally, that PETA has already done). But whatever. I'm not a crazy Pro-Life person, but I'm someone who seriously doubts the morality of the act and the Constitutional right to have one as it stands today (Leave it to the states, personally), and I've NEVER seen anyone be so flippant on the subject. Congrats!

Uh, did he walk up to the face of 9/11 families and say it? No? Then I don't think it compares, really. Actually Vyce meant that these are probably the people that defended his right to say what he did about 9/11, which makes it that much funnier because he's biting the hand that feeds him. Getting all worked up for nothin', little fella .