lol my friend tried to kick a McCain sign over today and he fell over on the sidewalk.
Printable View
lol my friend tried to kick a McCain sign over today and he fell over on the sidewalk.
I really hope McCain wins.
uh what?Zitat:
Zitat von robzzzz18
your a bit late.... he lost... 2 weeks ago...Zitat:
Zitat von robzzzz18
whats amazing is that your the 1st person (thats iv seen) (if your location is correct) that is from a different country that does not support obama! thats truly amazing since the whole world loves him. which makes me wonder if he if the right guy for the job(hes not in my opinion), why would the world love this guy.... i have a theory on how the more "everyone" agrees on something the more "wrong" it most likely is. but he did win and thats all i can say about that.
could someone close this topic or start a new one(about obama) since the election is over?
Has anyone seen the new South Park where Obama and McCain are actually both diamond thieves who used the election to steal the hope diamond?
YESS. It is so brilliantly funny I almost fell out of my chair! OBAMA! OBAMA! Oh look guys, it's the police! oooOOOooo!Zitat:
Zitat von mohaas05
what made me 0.o was the "grandma who faked her death on monday" part.
made me wonder if the idea for the episode was made up on tues night after obama won.
wow man what have you been doing lately :\ lolZitat:
Zitat von robzzzz18
It had to've been, they probably did some parts that could go either way no matter who won, that or they made two episodes.Zitat:
Zitat von rock4christ
It doesn't matter how many times stupid people (such as O'Reilly) say that Palin is smart...
I hate what Obama supports to the core (the ideas behind it are good, but it would NEVER work. Say there are two guys, Jack and Johnny, and they both are in the same class. Jack is a lazy ass, while Johnny studies his brains out. Up comes a test, and whatchaknow, Jack fails while Johnny passes. But, then, the teacher goes "Hey, Jack, I'm going to let you pass, but Johnny, since Jack was a lazy ****, I'm going to have to take points off your grade to even them out and be the same thing". Now much fairness in that). But, I hope it works out, otherwise people will realize that nothing he "supports" will ever truly work.
Let's exaggerate his policies some more...it's really entertaining. You're acting like Obama's taking the king's ransom from rich people, but all he's doing is going back to the Clinton era tax policies. Do you know what the tax increase for Major League Baseball is? 4 freakin' %. It's not 20%, it's not 30%, freakin' 4%. And that's a huge business we're talking about. This country will never be socialist, because the system does not allow that. Spread the wealth does not mean everybody will be equal. The rich will be rich and the middle class will be the middle class. The people who will slightly benefit are the lower class, but they're not all of a sudden going to be rich. And you know something else? The exit polls showed that Obama had won the rich people vote (200K+ annually) 52-48 over McCain. The majority of rich people don't seem to care... Realize the actual situation and stop trying to imagine that Obama is going to become the next Stalin, Hitler, or Mao. It's been two weeks since the thing and you're still not getting over it. He's the next president, you can't change that. Criticize all you want, but do it after he screws up or something. Not when he's not even in office.Zitat:
Zitat von NoEffex
My point is that Obama wants to change the system. Naturally he cannot, but that's what he wants to do, which is why I don't like him.Zitat:
Zitat von -CHW42-
Even though they don't pay the same percent, they pay millions more.
I think I'm going to drop out of high school and live off the Government, it's the NEW american way. Pshhh, man, I make like nothing, and all those dudes who went to college pay more than I. THEY SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO SIT ON ALL THAT MONEY WHILE I SIT HERE ON MY ASS.
shut the **** up. Honest to god. Please shut the **** up.
You just don't quit, do you?
"Obama wants to change the system"
LOLWUT. He's altering the amount of taxes to be paid. Big ****ing whoopdeedoo. Source me please.
"They pay millions more"
LOLWUT. Source me please.
"[Insert bad analogy/assumption here]"
LOL shut your dirty worthless trap, you're annoying
Everything you claim is based off of a steaming pile of bull****, and is entirely untrue. Give it up already.
Slasher's intolerance to other people's opinion is hilarious. It's like FreePlay, just not as civilized.
There comes a point where I just can't tolerate stupidity any further. I'm open to reasonable opinions, but of course if they differ from mine I'm going to provide some input. I'm not sure what it is about this subject, but I just can't let stupid/ridiculous views go without being criticized. His display of ignorance just drives me nuts. Forgive me for exploding, but ararararrahghgharaghZitat:
Zitat von NickyP
It's not intolerance, it's called "knowing what he's talking about".Zitat:
Zitat von NickyP
Neither you nor NoEffex do.
Example: NoEffex keeps frothing on the mouth about supporting lazy people. News flash: The vast majority of people on welfare are employed. Oops. Myth busted.
For the last eight years, there has been a DEMONSTRABLE shift in the tax burden AWAY FROM THE RICH and TOWARD THE POOR. Don't turn to your Republican saviors if you want taxes to be fair.
People on welfare are employed? This isn't towards you, but how does that make any sense? I thought you could not be employed and on welfare at the same time? And if you can, well, now I see why that system is failing (and how easily it's exploited).
... Unless we're talking off the record, under the table type of employment (such as working for various construction companies, etc)?
Spare me. The only arguable thing I've said in this thread were my thoughts on abortion (which I've yet to see anyone show evidence against my claims. Hey, I'm just saying.) and pointing out the stupidity of what one poster said (which was misinterpreted by a few people). That's it. Don't try dragging me into this!Zitat:
Zitat von FreePlay
Zitat:
Zitat von NickyP
No, you can get welfare if you still work. It all depends on how much money you make...
You can.Zitat:
Zitat von NickyP
Please, do explain how that makes any sense.Zitat:
Zitat von NickyP
Alright. Don't quote me on this though, as I'm not too informed of how economics work (I'm a law guy, it's just not my thing). The way I see it is, the welfare system itself was set up to protect people from poverty. And seeing that, according to a few of you, you can work and be on welfare at the same time, it just seems like the system is being exploited.Zitat:
Zitat von FreePlay
Of course, I'm not saying that having a job guarantees you won't be in poverty, but it's certainly better than not having one. Why I believe this system is failing is a little psychological, I guess. The thing is, if you have the government providing the household with everything it minimally needs, what reason would the heads of that household have to work towards a better lifestyle? Consider this: you live in your house and you have a wife and two kids. For whatever reason you do not work, so the government provides you with everything you need to sustain (food stamps, welfare checks, free healthcare, etc). Now that you see everything is literally being handed to you on a plate for absolutely nothing, what motivation do you have to find a job or go to college and better yourself? In a sense, the welfare system almost promotes laziness.
But, that was taking into consideration that you didn't have a job. What if you did? Think about it: you're obviously able bodied enough to go out into the world and make your own living if you're working, so why do you need the governments help with everything else? Granted there are many factors that come into play and I assume being put on welfare is on a case by case basis, but in the long run how can that possibly be fair? So Ted, for example, is working two jobs living in a one room apartment just making a living and going on about his life, and he's unable to take more than maybe 2 college courses due to his other obligations. He gets no help whatsoever from anyone. John, on the otherhand, is on welfare in a 2 bedroom house with his wife and 3 kids, and he works at one job. John is now getting basically a free ticket to life simply because his circumstances are a little different compared to Ted, who has to fend for himself. Is this fair? What of Hank's family, who is unable to work and basically live on their own? Don't you think they should get a little bigger piece of the pie than John and people like him?
It's for instances like that that I believe the welfare system in our country is failing and exploited. Also, though a topic for another time, this is similiar to the reason why I believe socialism can never work. But like I said, that's for a completely other topic. :p
So, do you see where I'm coming from, now?
ok on the abortion topic...Zitat:
Zitat von NickyP
so lets say a woman gets rapped and she becomes pregnant with the rapist child, do you think she would want to go through all the emotional trauma and pain of baring child and then putting it up for adoption?
Here is another scenario...
two teens decide to have sex, but for whatever reason the girl becomes pregnant (ripped condom, unprotected sex, etc.) If i were in that situation I would be scared out of my mind id panic and start thinking for what will become of my future. Now put yourself in that position when you come from a lower or middle class family. Most pregnant teens come from a low income family and they may not have the luxuries that other people do to raise a child. So which option would you take?
Keep in mind, welfare is primarily meant for single parents unable to provide enough money for their children, or for the physically handicapped. The amount of money provided is in most cases not even enough to get by. You'll be living in a dump. That in itself is incentive enough to want to strive for a better lifestyle and want more than just the leftovers served to you on a plate. I personally don't know anybody who wants to have that sort of lifestyle, so how is it promoting laziness?
In your second scenario, you talk about somebody with a job and wanting welfare.
Let's say both 'job & welfare are = to bare minimum money to sustain living'
They reduce the amount of welfare you receive obviously if you're making enough money to get by. Welfare only allows you to get the minimum (poverty). You are required to submit proof of your earnings, and they check up on you regularly. "If a person wants to receive welfare, he or she must apply, provide proof of financial need, and meet a full range of federal and state requirements."Code:It doesn't work like:
Person A Earnings = job + welfare (Which would lets say = 2)
Person B Earnings = job + job (Also = 2)
It's more like:
Person A Earnings = job + (welfare - job) (= 1)
Person B Earnings = job + job (= 2)
Also, I'm pretty sure that if you have a wife/significant other, you can't be granted welfare. In Canada at least, that's how it works I'm pretty sure. Because if it's two people, they should be able to provide for each other.
1. As I've stated earlier, there's always the morning after pill. Now, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be stupid enough to say rape doesn't happen or that it isn't a traumatizing experience. However, there are alternatives to abortion. You make it sound like it's the only option.Zitat:
Zitat von Iconic_187
2. I was in that situation: the condom broke, I did panic, we both worried for our future. Know what I did? Got the morning after pill. Problem solved. She never got pregnant, so abortion was never an issue to deal with. And don't even try to say not everyone can afford the morning after pill: it's free if you go to a public health department and sign a few papers. Hell, they'll even give you condoms and 3 months of birth control as well. And, even IF she really did get pregnant, then I'd dedicate my life from then on out to supporting that child. After all, it was half my mistake, so I would do what I have to do to correct it. Hey, life happens. Deal with it.
And in case anyone tries the "womans right/choice" argument, well I ask you this: why doesn't the man have any say so in this decision? Sure, it's happening in her uterus, I'll give you that. But, it wouldn't be had it not been for his sperm. He has every right to that child (or potential, in this case) as she does: they're both responsible for it's existance. They should then both be responsible for the cease of it.
In Canada at least, there was a case Tremblay v. Daigle which determined that the father has absolutely no rights when it comes to the fetus.Zitat:
Zitat von NickyP
It was a case in which he wanted to stop his girlfriend at the time from getting an abortion because he believed that the state could intervene in such a matter.
"A consideration of the status of the foetus under the Civil Code supports the conclusion that a foetus is not a "human being" under the Quebec Charter. The provisions of the Code providing for the appointment of a curator for an unborn child and the provisions granting patrimonial interests to such child do not implicitly recognize that a foetus is a juridical person. They do not accord the foetus any additional rights or interests. In view of the treatment of the foetus in the remainder of the Code, the term "human being" in art. 18 of the Code, which provides that "Every human being possesses juridical personality", cannot be construed as including foetuses. The Civil Code, therefore, does not generally accord a foetus legal personality. A foetus is treated as a person only where it is necessary to do so in order to protect its interests after it is born.
The injunction must be set aside because the substantive rights which are alleged to support it -- the rights accorded to a foetus or a potential father -- do not exist."
So basically, a fetus has no rights, therefor the father has absolutely no say in what happens to it. It is her body after all... It's just another life vs. choice argument
Hm. Fallacious, if I say so myself. Almost as if the court completely ignored the fact that that fetus would not exist had the man not been there (although, this may not be the case with women who go to sperm banks). Although I have to admit, it's interesting, in a way.
Slasher, you wouldn't happen to have a link or anything to the case brief of this court case you mentioned? I'm not too sure how Canada works, but I'm sure it's available as public record, seeing that it seems to be a "supreme court" decision of sorts. I'm curious to study it now, see how it led up to that decision.
Here she is: http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/198...9rcs2-530.html
There's a lot
Keep in mind, he was initially given rights of the fetus determined by a provincial judge, but then the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and was overruled setting a precedent for both fetus and father rights.
"The Canadian Charter cannot be invoked in this case to support the injunction. This is a civil action between two private parties and there is no state action which is being impugned. The respondent pointed to no "law" of any sort which he can claim is infringing his rights or anyone else's rights. The issue as to whether s. 7 of the Canadian Charter could be used to ground an affirmative claim to protection by the state was not raised. This Court should generally avoid making any unnecessary constitutional pronouncement.
Finally, there is nothing in the Quebec legislation or case law, to support the argument that the father's interest in a foetus he helped create gives him the right to veto a woman's decisions in respect of the foetus she is carrying. The lack of legal basis is fatal to this argument."
It's certainly a right that should be considered in regards to what significance the father's say should have, but unfortunately nothing is definitively set in stone.
Not at all. It's actually pretty easy to read through, compared to the US Supreme Court cases I've read. Almost like reading an article off of MSN. Thanks! :tup:
EDIT: Hm.. this happened in the late 1980s. I wonder if there are any recent appeals (to the decision of the father's rights, not for this guy.. it'd be far too late for that)? If it wasn't almost 2 am I'd look into it more but I'm starting to fall asleep here.
Also, I think I'm understanding what happened in this case. It doesn't seem as though the judges disagreed with his claim, just that there was nothing (at the time, granted this was 1989-90ish) legally* to support his claim that he has rights over the fetus. Seems like that could possibly open the door for potential-fathers' rights. Which makes me even more interested in seeing if there are any appeals to this decision.
*EDIT2: Granted, he had caselaw on his side thanks to that provincial judge in his initial appeal, however there was no set mandate or actual rights to help him later on.
Despite this being a near-20 year old case, I know for sure that nothing has challenged/appealed this decision since. I learned all about it last year in law class
An interesting tidbit: The guy in this case was later convicted for beating, stalking and choking women in 14 different instances. He's been in and out of jail consistently. He's designated as a long-term offender and will be supervised till at least 2015. He just recently in 2005 was re-arrested once again only a week after completing a 5 year sentence.
Wouldn't it of been grand if he in fact did halt the abortion and was in custody of the child?
I wasn't to happy that Obama won, since I voted for McCain. The thing that bothers me is that most people I know voted for him without ever researching anything about any of the candidates. Some of my other friends only voted for him because he's black and they would love to see him get assassinated (they're not to fond of black people).
also, this is my 1337 post.
OkZitat:
Zitat von NickyP
So lets say the girl is pregnant, and she doesn't find out until she misses a menstrual cycle. Then what option would the teens have? Theres no month after pill is there? I think probably not. Also, take into account of what the age that most teens get pregnant at is and the level of responsibility that most teens have now a days. Teens are more irresponsible now a days then they used to be in recent years.
btw I know this from experience I am a teen myself.
Thats basically what happened to me and my friends. Im black myself, and my friends told me that i was a traitor to my own race because i was not voting for Obama. To me Obama did not represent my beliefs nor what i wanted for the future. Though Mccain was not much better, he was truly the lesser of 2 evils for me.Zitat:
Zitat von Maniaxe
"they would love to see him get assassinated (they're not to fond of black people)."
****ing pitiful. How can you interact with such scum, let alone call them "friends". Pathetic
if he gets shot it will just increase black and democrat sympathy
I've known them for such a long time, and really to an extent it is my fault that most of them are the way they are. When I was younger I had very bad experiences with black people. I've been verbally harassed, punk'd around, beaten up, and robbed at gun point, so I believed that all blacks were the same. I hated them with a passion throughout all of high school and preached nothing but hate to my friends and well it stuck to them. Well I graduated and got on with my life. I matured and saw how ****ing retarded I was, and realized race is nothing to hate someone for. My friends are still in high school, sadly at the age of 20, so I rarely see them. It wasn't until earlier in the year that I began to hang out with them again, and when I did, I realized how ****ed many of them are. All the hate that I taught them stuck. When I asked my friends to stop saying ******, they laughed and said "Robert, you're the most racist person we know so why are you asking us to stop saying it?". I feel bad knowing that I was such a bad influence to many of them, and feel worse that they remember me as the "most racist person" they know.Zitat:
Zitat von Slasher
The fact that you're here telling us this story to begin with and admitting how terrible you feel is a sign of redemption. You've learned from your old ways and tried to help them; whatever wrongs they do aren't on your hands. :)Zitat:
Zitat von Maniaxe
I personally prefer Obama. Don't know the exact reason.Anyway it doesn't matter since i live in australia.By the way i want to ask something. Do you think will Obama remove the american troops from Iraq and let them to handle their own business.
just mabey...Zitat:
Zitat von wisetalk85
i dont think hell completely abandon iraq though.
we will still have some influence on them
PalmCentro/v0001 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D061; Blazer/4.5) 16;320x320 UP.Link/6.3.1.20.06.3.1.20.0
Yes, a 16 month withdraw of all forces (although I think he said that he might keep a very small amount of troops).Zitat:
Zitat von wisetalk85
Last I heard he is planning to send more troops into Afghanistan.