KaskadskyjKozak

I will when it comes it's a song... why the big bad middle finger?

I'd rather live in a society where the known perpetrator is executed than allowed to have children, or to abort them if they are conceived.

Ride the lightning, baby!

excellent. back in form. I especially love the floating, misplaced comma, and the nonterminating ellipses FOLLOWING the question mark.

Please write properly so we can all understand you: blac kwater isar epublican-bac kinreligi ousri ghtfanatics upport inmer cenaryfo rce

Jump into the fire!

AC/DC rocks!

sorry, dude, I can't take your imbecile remarks anymore. you're back on ignore.

wow. maybe those crazy born-agains are right after all about the "end-times".

V7 and Kevbone - twins separated at birth?

It's perfectly consistent to oppose the intentional murder of an innocent life, and simultaneous condone the taking of a life of an evil-doer.

From Wikipedia: Some pro-life advocates, such as those subscribing to the philosophy of a Consistent Life Ethic, oppose virtually all acts that end human life. They would argue that abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust war are all wrong. And it goes on to describe those that are pro-death penalty.

I don't think so... too many "pro-lifers" also support the death penalty.

I concur. please start a new thread so we can move on. I find it hypocritical that you want us to “move on” yet you are still posting in this thread…..mmmmmmm STFU, nOOb!

I concur. please start a new thread so we can move on.

Or better yet…..pro lifers who also believe in the death penalty. That does not make sense. 'pro-life' is a euphemism designed to make the position more desirable and clearly "right". Ditto for "pro-choice", whose proponents at one point actually called the position "pro-abortion". the true terms probably should be a neutral (sans connotatioins) version of "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion".

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to stop balding. I would really like to believe that, but it just isn't true. First of all, most ED is a natural side effect of aging. Second of all, birth control is a normal activity that most countries like ours follow. (And that's good--it'd be tough to support 8 kids for every family). I think if you read a little on the incredible battle that it took for women to get birth control pills covered, you'll see that there is more than just your theory at work here. There have also been amazing battles that women fought just to get something back to normal again. For example, the legal fights over getting an implant after having a breast removed due to cancer were bitter. Isn't this simply returning something back to normal? I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that researched the battles fought over different coverages. Issues that only affected women were far more common and took much much longer to win than issues that only affected men. I am happy to see that trend starting to change. You mean like the current disparity between the funding available for breast and prostate cancer research? Prostate cancer is a slow growing cancer that usually affects men in their geriatric years. Breast cancer affects younger women and is often deadly at a faster rate. It makes more sense to put more money into the second group. (as a side note: my father has prostate cancer, my mother has breast cancer. I can say that emotionally they are both devastating. I don't wish to dismiss the problem in one group; but if we don't have money to fix everything, it makes sense to help the group that will benefit the most. In this case, getting another 40 yrs of life is worth more than another 10.) I agree that this is the reason why we spend more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research, and this rationale makes sense to me - but it doesn't support the contention that the claim that women's health issues have been the subject of an intentional, wide-ranging, and systematic neglect because no one cares about women, we value women's lives less and always have, the self-serving medico-patriarchy can't look beyond it's own interests, etc. I think in most cases men simply made better "animal models" for most medical research because no one had to worry about their drug candidate turning into the next thalidomide if they included women of child bearing age in the drug study, hormonal fluctations that might complicate the analysis, etc. Sins of omission versus sins of commission. Well, it really is a gender issue. And it works both ways. For example, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that men often have to sue the companies they work for in order to get paternity leave. This is a gender disparity issue that exists in the world of our "benefits package" due to cultural norms that have been allowed to live long past their time. The genders get treated differently and unfairly in many situations--and that is a sin of commission in my opinion. Is treating genders differently always unfair in every situation? Will this not become moot (in terms of drug research) as pharmacogenomics becomes the norm? Excepting the pregnancy angle, of course.

God, I love it when you get all up and O'Reilly - it brings out the real you... this is spray

So direct barbs, such as the ones you fling at me, are ok, Mr. magna cum filled laude pastry boy? the only thing filled with cum is your bunghole, you fudge-packing, pseudo-intellectual troll.

Sounds a little hypocritical don’t it? Nope.

1. I never said it logically followed 2. my point, you obtuse dipshit, is that is what is IMPLIED by the simplistic sound-bite rhetoric of the anti-war crowd. "we are less safe now" is quickly followed by "withdrawal timeline" and "get the boys home". The implication is intentional - the demagoguery to deceive through simplistic assertion and innuendo reinforced with repetition. And fuck off with your tangential barbs. Unlike that moron ass clown No. 13 whatever who is clearly a few dozen IQ points lower than Bush, I've never maintained that you fall in that category. The thread you cite with your pathetic barbs was meant to put him in his place - which it did. All you do is drop to the level of a moron, which you clearly aren't, whatever your personal academic credentials may be.

I think you are making too many excuses for some of these situations, and Eric was raising good points, albeit bluntly.

This is fucking rich! The same semantic, parsing bullshit brought to us by Bubba! I'm gonna frame your comment, and whenever I need a good laugh, pull it out.

Remember before the war discussing this subject, and how the argument was made that there was no "terrorist threat" or connection to terrorism with Iraq? And that after an invasion, there surely would develop a connection? I clearly remember you arguing otherwise.... But I digress: What is this terrorist threat "from Iraq"? Can you clearly define it? What specifically does it threaten now, and what would the natural evolution of this threat be, if the US was to leave? Would you see it growing, shrinking, expanding its influence. etc etc.... "By their argument"? Don't be so tendentious here. You are the one filling in the blanks with your magna cum laude deductive reasoning skills here, and frankly, they suck. The position isn't: x makes us unsafe, -x makes us safe; the position is: x makes us unsafe. It's not as if x FORCES a reaction for the sake of logical consistency; no, x maintains its validity (which you seem to agree with) without referencing any necessitated acts beyond its own reference of an accountability to sound evaluation. It's all that is needed. nice attempt at subterfuge and obfuscation. your side has made the claims that I have stated, and now you avoid them, and their concomitant implications. and your logic is the one in need of remedial education, sir. if our presence in Iraq makes us "less safe" as you and your ilk periodically vomit in some anti-war thread, then clearly the effect of our leaving would be to make us more safe.