for Political Rants of the Cheesemonkey10/13/2004 c2 John Stein
I'm not gonna rgue about whether or not the Constituion allows abortion. We could go on for hours about it.
"Bible exactly where Jesus said life begins at conception."
You guys seem to think it has to be JESUS who says these things. He doesnt say it, but he says to respect your neighbor. If life only begins at the child's birth, i guess it would be ok to kill a baby in the womb a few weeks or days before it's born. Jesus never said flying planes into buildings was wrong, but that doesnt mean its right.
I'm not gonna rgue about whether or not the Constituion allows abortion. We could go on for hours about it.
"Bible exactly where Jesus said life begins at conception."
You guys seem to think it has to be JESUS who says these things. He doesnt say it, but he says to respect your neighbor. If life only begins at the child's birth, i guess it would be ok to kill a baby in the womb a few weeks or days before it's born. Jesus never said flying planes into buildings was wrong, but that doesnt mean its right.
10/3/2004 c2 
21Ovaia Pelosa
RIGHT ON! and u r right, abortion is obviously not mentioned at all in the holy bible.
21Ovaia PelosaRIGHT ON! and u r right, abortion is obviously not mentioned at all in the holy bible.
10/3/2004 c1 Ovaia Pelosa
u express yourself well. just one thing, some affirmative action in the past has been based on economic income and it has been helpful to lower income people. not a bad essay, though, and for the most part i agree.
u express yourself well. just one thing, some affirmative action in the past has been based on economic income and it has been helpful to lower income people. not a bad essay, though, and for the most part i agree.
9/4/2004 c3 150SpawnMeister666
Now this is better.
So, so, so much better than the previous chapter.
People might argue that the only people to worry about being stopped in the streets and searched, or having their homes raided without their knowledge, are the people who have something to hide.
And, seemingly, as such, if you are in the process of organising terrorist activities, should you then be eligible to the same rights and freedoms that normal people have.
My answer to that would be a resounding 'YES'
Surely the whole point of western civilised society is that we treat all people as equals, and people are innocent until proven guilty.
The minute we start deciding people are guilty first, then use underhanded tactics to try and prove it, is the minute the war on terror has been lost, and the terrorists have won.
Spawny
150SpawnMeister666Now this is better.
So, so, so much better than the previous chapter.
People might argue that the only people to worry about being stopped in the streets and searched, or having their homes raided without their knowledge, are the people who have something to hide.
And, seemingly, as such, if you are in the process of organising terrorist activities, should you then be eligible to the same rights and freedoms that normal people have.
My answer to that would be a resounding 'YES'
Surely the whole point of western civilised society is that we treat all people as equals, and people are innocent until proven guilty.
The minute we start deciding people are guilty first, then use underhanded tactics to try and prove it, is the minute the war on terror has been lost, and the terrorists have won.
Spawny
9/4/2004 c2 SpawnMeister666
Whilst I agree with what you have to say here, I think it could have been a little longer and perhaps better argued.
Maybe with some instances of how the government are trying to rule peoples lives or something.
Anyway, at least you got the important thing said!
Spawny
Whilst I agree with what you have to say here, I think it could have been a little longer and perhaps better argued.
Maybe with some instances of how the government are trying to rule peoples lives or something.
Anyway, at least you got the important thing said!
Spawny
7/12/2004 c3 49greenbanana
yay! I'm not surporised you didn't get last place. 'tis good. I liked the part "our questionably elected president" W-dawg is definitely questionable.
49greenbananayay! I'm not surporised you didn't get last place. 'tis good. I liked the part "our questionably elected president" W-dawg is definitely questionable.
7/10/2004 c3 1wills-n-minne
I loved your chapter on the Patriot Act. It makes my blood boil that someone who lost to a dead guy could be appointed Attorney General, or that this country somehow managed to elect (or did it?) the WORST President since Ulysseus S. Grant.
1wills-n-minneI loved your chapter on the Patriot Act. It makes my blood boil that someone who lost to a dead guy could be appointed Attorney General, or that this country somehow managed to elect (or did it?) the WORST President since Ulysseus S. Grant.
7/10/2004 c3 9fugiguru
was this written after watching 'fahrenheit 9/11"? the one man's admission that "we don't read most of the bills put before us." was chilling.
anyway, agreed, generally. i want the patriot act revoked, especially after the shady details of the ways in which certain prisoners have been treated. the only point in your essay i believe anyone could argue is that the constitution applies to citizens, therefore making it "okay" (at least under the constitution) to jail foreigners indefinitely.
9fugiguruwas this written after watching 'fahrenheit 9/11"? the one man's admission that "we don't read most of the bills put before us." was chilling.
anyway, agreed, generally. i want the patriot act revoked, especially after the shady details of the ways in which certain prisoners have been treated. the only point in your essay i believe anyone could argue is that the constitution applies to citizens, therefore making it "okay" (at least under the constitution) to jail foreigners indefinitely.
7/10/2004 c2 fugiguru
"...I am a rational individual who does not want to impose my morality on others."
you contradict yourself. by calling yourself "rational" and "unimposing", you immediately divide yourself from those who are anti abortion, implying that they are "irrational" and "imposing" meaining that you are imposing your version of "rational morality" on those you consider "irrational".
"So I challenge you, pro-life Christians, to find me in the Bible exactly where Jesus said life begins at conception."
there isn't one, of course. the bible isn't known for always being the scientific authority, and the lifecycle of a fetus was not well known. i've never based my pro life stance in religion, (aside from the obvious belief in the sacredness of human life) basing it rather in basic human morals. (killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, slavery is wrong, etc.) i don't *necessarily* believe that the "life begins at conception" idea is a good argument. how about "life begins at two months", when the child has a working heart and brain, and the fetus responds to stimuli? or even "life begins at one month", when the child's heart begins to pump blood?
"...this new breed of 'neo-conservative' wants to use the federal government to control us, the American people."
i'm not "neo-conservative" in the broadest sense, or even conservative. i'm against violence, (with some exceptions. the nuances are too much to go into right now) the death penalty, and the patriot act. i'm an independant who is against abortion. don't pigeonhole everyone.
"The question of legalized abortion is no more than a question of whether or not the government should be allowed to impose certain morality on the entire populus.
I say not."
good. so when i steal your computer, i guess the government won't be able to do anything about it, because then they would be imposing the "certain morality" of "stealing is bad" on me. the u.s. government exists to create and enforce laws that protect the freedoms and rights of the american people. every law is based on morals. this means that the mother's rights end where the child's begin. it's very simple. it is not about "her choice". abortion is a human, not women's, rights issue.
"The freedom to choose your religion, the freedom to choose your opinions, and of course the freedom not to be persecuted for said choices."
the personal choices you meant do not result in the infringement of rights of another human. that is why they are choices protected by the government.
"...I am a rational individual who does not want to impose my morality on others."
you contradict yourself. by calling yourself "rational" and "unimposing", you immediately divide yourself from those who are anti abortion, implying that they are "irrational" and "imposing" meaining that you are imposing your version of "rational morality" on those you consider "irrational".
"So I challenge you, pro-life Christians, to find me in the Bible exactly where Jesus said life begins at conception."
there isn't one, of course. the bible isn't known for always being the scientific authority, and the lifecycle of a fetus was not well known. i've never based my pro life stance in religion, (aside from the obvious belief in the sacredness of human life) basing it rather in basic human morals. (killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, slavery is wrong, etc.) i don't *necessarily* believe that the "life begins at conception" idea is a good argument. how about "life begins at two months", when the child has a working heart and brain, and the fetus responds to stimuli? or even "life begins at one month", when the child's heart begins to pump blood?
"...this new breed of 'neo-conservative' wants to use the federal government to control us, the American people."
i'm not "neo-conservative" in the broadest sense, or even conservative. i'm against violence, (with some exceptions. the nuances are too much to go into right now) the death penalty, and the patriot act. i'm an independant who is against abortion. don't pigeonhole everyone.
"The question of legalized abortion is no more than a question of whether or not the government should be allowed to impose certain morality on the entire populus.
I say not."
good. so when i steal your computer, i guess the government won't be able to do anything about it, because then they would be imposing the "certain morality" of "stealing is bad" on me. the u.s. government exists to create and enforce laws that protect the freedoms and rights of the american people. every law is based on morals. this means that the mother's rights end where the child's begin. it's very simple. it is not about "her choice". abortion is a human, not women's, rights issue.
"The freedom to choose your religion, the freedom to choose your opinions, and of course the freedom not to be persecuted for said choices."
the personal choices you meant do not result in the infringement of rights of another human. that is why they are choices protected by the government.
7/10/2004 c3 22PheonixSlayer
Oh my gosh, I love you!(not in that way) These rants of yours are exactly what I think. Of course, I went to a Catholic school this year, so saying I was pro-choice wasn't such a good idea on my part, but yey for your essay I love it.
22PheonixSlayerOh my gosh, I love you!(not in that way) These rants of yours are exactly what I think. Of course, I went to a Catholic school this year, so saying I was pro-choice wasn't such a good idea on my part, but yey for your essay I love it.
6/28/2004 c1 John Kerry SUCKS
I couldn't agree more. I really hate affirmative action - it's just racism directed toward whites, excepr I thought Lyndon B. Johnson started it, not JFK.
I couldn't agree more. I really hate affirmative action - it's just racism directed toward whites, excepr I thought Lyndon B. Johnson started it, not JFK.
6/27/2004 c1 9fugiguru
i liked this, and i agree, though it could have been longer. i think that affirmative had its time, that time has passed, and we need to move on to another way to combat the situation of underpriveleged minorities. i think basing college applications (only one form of affirmative action), jobs, and a whole host of other areas affirmative action is used on income is an excellent idea.
9fugigurui liked this, and i agree, though it could have been longer. i think that affirmative had its time, that time has passed, and we need to move on to another way to combat the situation of underpriveleged minorities. i think basing college applications (only one form of affirmative action), jobs, and a whole host of other areas affirmative action is used on income is an excellent idea.
6/27/2004 c1 150SpawnMeister666
I have to agree with what you're trying to say here, although I think it could perhaps have been better with definate examples of 'affirmative action' taking place.
I for one have been a victim of this policy several times over the last few years at work, and it's now getting to the point where people who are extremely good at the very difficult job I do are leaving in droves due to mis-management on a large scale.
I'll try to explain...
The company I work for is employed by Manchester City Council to enforce parking restrictions. About 18 months ago, someone from Manchester City Council pointed out that all of the supervisory positions in our company were occupied by white people, and suggested that this indicated racial discrimination.
Since that comment was made, a total of 14 different supervisors have been appointed, of which 11 were either black or asian.
Of those 11 people, only one was actually capable of doing the job, and he was forced to languish on the night shift where he wasn't given an opportunity to really advance in the way his skills suggest he should have done.
Of the other 10, 3 couldn't speak English. Now, when you consider that a huge part of the job we do is explaining to members of the public exactly why parking tickets have been issued, or giving directions, or help and advice, you start to realise an ability to speak English is actually vital to the job.
I'm sure you can imagine how much trouble is caused when an aggressive member of the public insists on a Supervisory presence, only for that person to turn up and be unable to understand the manner of the complaint!
I, personally, despite 3 and a half years experience, the best record in the company, according to management, and the respect of all my colleagues, have been passed over for promotion 7 times in the last year.
On each of those occasions the job was given to someone with less experience, less knowledge of the job, and on 2 occasions no command of the English language.
All this serves to do is to make the experienced people like myself wonder why we even bother, and we all start to look for other jobs.
I, like you, am totally against racism. I believe racism is fuelled by fear and ignorance, and the only way to defeat it is with education.
Reverse racism, also known as affirmative action, is not helping anyone.
It doesn't help the blacks, or the asians, or the muslims, who get the jobs they want but no respect from colleagues who believe they got the job because of something other than ability.
It doesn't help the people who are more than capable of doing those jobs, who are left languishing on the bottom rung of the career ladder, just so a stupid ratio quota can be fulfilled.
And it doesn't help the company invlolved, as they end up with an either unhappy or under-qualified workforce, which can only mean one thing in the long run.
And I think this is probably the longest review I've ever submitted!
Spawny
150SpawnMeister666I have to agree with what you're trying to say here, although I think it could perhaps have been better with definate examples of 'affirmative action' taking place.
I for one have been a victim of this policy several times over the last few years at work, and it's now getting to the point where people who are extremely good at the very difficult job I do are leaving in droves due to mis-management on a large scale.
I'll try to explain...
The company I work for is employed by Manchester City Council to enforce parking restrictions. About 18 months ago, someone from Manchester City Council pointed out that all of the supervisory positions in our company were occupied by white people, and suggested that this indicated racial discrimination.
Since that comment was made, a total of 14 different supervisors have been appointed, of which 11 were either black or asian.
Of those 11 people, only one was actually capable of doing the job, and he was forced to languish on the night shift where he wasn't given an opportunity to really advance in the way his skills suggest he should have done.
Of the other 10, 3 couldn't speak English. Now, when you consider that a huge part of the job we do is explaining to members of the public exactly why parking tickets have been issued, or giving directions, or help and advice, you start to realise an ability to speak English is actually vital to the job.
I'm sure you can imagine how much trouble is caused when an aggressive member of the public insists on a Supervisory presence, only for that person to turn up and be unable to understand the manner of the complaint!
I, personally, despite 3 and a half years experience, the best record in the company, according to management, and the respect of all my colleagues, have been passed over for promotion 7 times in the last year.
On each of those occasions the job was given to someone with less experience, less knowledge of the job, and on 2 occasions no command of the English language.
All this serves to do is to make the experienced people like myself wonder why we even bother, and we all start to look for other jobs.
I, like you, am totally against racism. I believe racism is fuelled by fear and ignorance, and the only way to defeat it is with education.
Reverse racism, also known as affirmative action, is not helping anyone.
It doesn't help the blacks, or the asians, or the muslims, who get the jobs they want but no respect from colleagues who believe they got the job because of something other than ability.
It doesn't help the people who are more than capable of doing those jobs, who are left languishing on the bottom rung of the career ladder, just so a stupid ratio quota can be fulfilled.
And it doesn't help the company invlolved, as they end up with an either unhappy or under-qualified workforce, which can only mean one thing in the long run.
And I think this is probably the longest review I've ever submitted!
Spawny