| For those who mischaracterize BIll O'Reilly |  |  | |
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Eric ® 02/25/2002, 00:57:43 Author Profile Mail author |
Well, a while back when I made a post concerning Bill O'Reilly some opinions came up about him that were not true, and I said I'd come through with his beliefs in his new book, The No Spin Zone to let you guys characterize him. I hope thsi clears some things up, and if I have those year and a half old links sent to me again that take his comments and quotes out of context I'll go ballistc... So what else is new, huh? Well, here goes, the list of O'Reilly's beliefs from the man himself: 1) I believe that the federal government wastes a huge amount of the people's money and that most politicians buy votes with entitlement promises. 2) I believe that global warming is real. 3) I believe that the green movement has hurt America because it has shut down responsible energy exploration. 4) I don't believe in the death penalty. 5) I would not outlaw abortion, but I would restrict it and encourage Americans to see this ghastly procedure as a human rights issue. 6) I believe in stringent control of hard drugs, but I would decriminalize marijuana use. 7) I would "suggest" that the automakers develop cars and trucks that would be far more fuel-efficient than they are today. (If they don't, the government ought to slap a huge tax on them). 8) I would order the Department of Energy to strictly monitor any kind of energy price collusion or gougin--and impose massive fines on any company found guilty of these crimes. 9) I would have the federal government negotiate discounted drug prices with pharmaceutical companies so that there could be an affordable Medicare drug benefit. The manufacturers should be pressured to be "generous" in their pricing and rewarded with tax incentives for complying. 10) I believe America should maintain the most powerful armed forces in the world and develop a missle shield if the technology is feasible. 11) I would eliminate the payroll tax and institute a national sales tax to cover Social Secrity and Medicare. The sales tax would slide depending on need. Those Americans who saved would be rewarded. The poorest would have more cash in their pockets. 12) I support setting up federal prison work camps on federal land in Alaska for violent offenders. Murder, rape, hard-drug dealing, and gun crimes would be punished at the federal level--taking the massive expense and chaos away from the states. These federal prisons would be run military style, and the violent convicts would in effect be banished from society. 13) I believe our government should place the U.S. military on the border with Mexico to stabalize the illegal immigrant and drug smuggling problems. The military would back up the Border Patrol but would have arrest powers, requiring that the posse comitatus law be changed. 14) In conjunction with strict border enforcement, the USA should set up a "guest worker" program is the Mexican government would cooperate. U.S. companies and individuals that need labor would be able to participate in the program. But it would be administered in an orderly manner and taxes would be paid. Well, that's all he has listed. Hope this helps those of you who are ignorant on this subject. My fingers are worn out now ;-).
|
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
All of that typing for nothing... Re: For those who mischaracterize BIll O'Reilly -- Eric Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/25/2002, 01:47:35
Author Profile Mail author
I am curious as to why you think anyone should care about what Bill O'Reilly thinks. Because he is on TV? O'Reilly is cut out of the same cookie-cutter mold as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, G.Gordon Liddy, etc., etc.
These guys are in the positions they are in because they are able to stir up controversy by making sensationalist claims. They are the flak producers for the neo-liberal imperialist elite who own the mass media. They serve the purpose of making sure that anyone who obtains a voice that strays outside the bounds of acceptable discourse is pounded with flak.
The absurdity of O'Reilly's views can be illustrated by contrasting these two statements:
>>1) I believe that the federal government wastes a huge amount of the people's money and that most politicians buy votes with entitlement promises.
>>10) I believe America should maintain the most powerful armed forces in the world and develop a missle shield if the technology is feasible.
The U.S. will spend close to $400 billion next year on the military. The entire world spends less than $1 trillion. Furthermore, if you account for all of the military and financial aid we give to foreign countries like Israel and Columbia (two terrorist states), we spend more money on war than the rest of the world combined. And this is when there are no threats to U.S. soveriegnty - no real military threats.
So O'Reilly thinks there is too much government waste, but he doesn't mind the kind of government waste that goes into the pockets of defense contractors in the form of "military spending," and he doesn't mind wasting billions and billions of dollars on a plan to militarize space under the guise of "missile defense."
O'Reilly's political philosophy has to fit between commercials. It has all the depth and rationality that that entails.
Really, Eric, I am much more interested in what you think than what some blow-hard sensationalist thinks.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I feel sorry for you, Tyler Re: All of that typing for nothing... -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Eric ®
02/25/2002, 13:29:39
Author Profile Mail author
>>1) I believe that the federal government wastes a huge amount of the people's money and that most politicians buy votes with entitlement promises.
>>10) I believe America should maintain the most powerful armed forces in the world and develop a missle shield if the technology is feasible.
Those two statements do not contradict each other. I don't know how you could ever interpret it that way, nor do I know how anyone could be stupid enough to think like that.Those two statements say this: He disagrees with te government wasting money on projects like the UC schools having a sex class run by students and getting credits for it, and for programs that teach little girls and boys that they are "better than the other gender" and any other program a politician promises to put into place if he or she gets elected.
O'Reilyl supports military funding because he KNOWS that we need defense. He didn't say ANYTING about spending too much on the military.
How you could misread those statements is beyond me.
Remember, YOU are the one who called him conservative. As far as I know, you've lost your credibitility already, and are fighting to win it back.
Go play idiot somewhere else. By insulting O'Reily directly and stating something completely wrong, you've put yourself into the category you've placed them.
Eric
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Feel sorry for the sandman. Re: I feel sorry for you, Tyler -- Eric Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/25/2002, 19:18:29
Author Profile Mail author
>>1) I believe that the federal government wastes a huge amount of the people's money and that most politicians buy votes with entitlement promises.
>>10) I believe America should maintain the most powerful armed forces in the world and develop a missle shield if the technology is feasible.
>>Those two statements do not contradict each other. I don't know how you could ever interpret it that way, nor do I know how anyone could be stupid enough to think like that.I explained that already. Perhaps you weren't paying attention?
The basic contradiction is that O'Reilly claims to be against government waste, but he supports the most wasteful government program of all: the military. The U.S. military is ridiculously over-bloated. We could do with a military 1/10 of what we have, and be just as safe, if we changed our foreign policy. So, at least 9/10 of this $400 billion is being wasted. Furthermore, a large amount of this goes into the pockets of heads of big corporations like Boeing and Raytheon. It is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
This idiotic contradiction is one of many stupidities in O'Reilly's excuse for a political "philosophy." In reality, O'Reilly has no philosophy, and merely parrots the excuses for justifying policies that will benefit him and his millionaire friends.
>>Those two statements say this: He disagrees with te government wasting money on projects like the UC schools having a sex class run by students and getting credits for it, and for programs that teach little girls and boys that they are "better than the other gender" and any other program a politician promises to put into place if he or she gets elected.What the hell are you talking about? Is he against using public funds for public purposes? Is he against public funding of education?
>>O'Reilyl supports military funding because he KNOWS that we need defense. He didn't say ANYTING about spending too much on the military.
Exactly my point. He wants to spend MORE money on the military; he wants to waste even more money on this ridiculous military junk produced by corporate parasites like Boeing.
>>Remember, YOU are the one who called him conservative. As far as I know, you've lost your credibitility already, and are fighting to win it back.He IS a conservative, in that he supports without question the growth of the capitalist state, and the spread of the neo-liberal ideology.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Feel sorry for the sandman. Re: Feel sorry for the sandman. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Eric ®
02/26/2002, 17:38:36
Author Profile Mail author
Tyler wrote: "The basic contradiction is that O'Reilly claims to be against government waste, but he supports the most wasteful government program of all: the military. The U.S. military is ridiculously over-bloated. We could do with a military 1/10 of what we have, and be just as safe, if we changed our foreign policy. So, at least 9/10 of this $400 billion is being wasted. Furthermore, a large amount of this goes into the pockets of heads of big corporations like Boeing and Raytheon. It is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich." Right Tyler. I'm sure you're THE militayr expert, and know exaclty ho wmuch military it takes to protect our country. Perhaps you didn't know that ever since the military has been patrolling our Mexican borders drug busts have gone up 600%? How do you think we afoord to be able to devleop new weaposn that will require us to have LESS of a military after their creation if we do not fnd our military? Do you also expect our Military officers (hmm, like my oldest brother, a Marine Reserve) to not get paid? Honestly Tyler, I expected something more of you than to jsut spurt out some opinion someone gave to you (hmm, does it sound Liberal?) and treat it as fact.
Tyler: "This idiotic contradiction is one of many stupidities in O'Reilly's excuse for a political "philosophy." In reality, O'Reilly has no philosophy, and merely parrots the excuses for justifying policies that will benefit him and his millionaire friends."Yes, because you are just the ultimate decider of what O'Reilly thinks, correct? I guess all that typing WAS for nothing. I gave to you his ENTIRE political philosophy and aparrantly you have your head too far up your own ass to realize that you're arguing about his philosophy.
Tyler wrote: "What the hell are you talking about? Is he against using public funds for public purposes? Is he against public funding of education?"
Aparrantly you dont' know what I am talkign about. Maybe you shoudl go do some reading and find out what exactly our government is spending its money on, and realize that there is absolutely NO organization that monitors HOW tax money is septn once it goes where it is distributed. O'Reilly is against public funding for stupidity. Aparrantly you support waste of tax revenue.
Tyler wrote: "Exactly my point. He wants to spend MORE money on the military; he wants to waste even more money on this ridiculous military junk produced by corporate parasites like Boeing."
Uhmm. No he doesn't. You keep showing your ignorance on the man. He has NOT ONCE suggested MORE funding for the military. Not on his shows, not in his books, from what I have seen and heard. That statement is a BELIEF he has, not a SUGGESTION he has.
Tyler wrote: "He IS a conservative, in that he supports without question the growth of the capitalist state, and the spread of the neo-liberal ideology."
Did you even read his beliefs? I'm beginning to doubt it.
Eric
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Feel sorry for the sandman. Re: Re: Feel sorry for the sandman. -- Eric Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/26/2002, 18:00:46
Author Profile Mail author
>>I'm sure you're THE militayr expert, and know exaclty ho wmuch military it takes to protect our country. Perhaps you didn't know that ever since the military has been patrolling our Mexican borders drug busts have gone up 600%? And how much does that cost? Do you have any idea where military spending goes? Boeing, for instance, gets about $16 billion per year from the government to make fancy killing machines. The CEO of Boeing makes about $2 million per year. This is public money that is going into private pockets, to make useless military crap that we don't need.
>>How do you think we afoord to be able to devleop new weaposn that will require us to have LESS of a military after their creation if we do not fnd our military?
That makes no sense. The more weapons we build, the more we seem to need. Even now, when the cold war is over, and we have no enemies that are a serious threat, President Dumbass wants to increase military spending by $50 billion.
>>Do you also expect our Military officers (hmm, like my oldest brother, a Marine Reserve) to not get paid?
I have no problem with increasing military pay. What I have a problem with is pouring billions of dollars into useless programs that we don't need. This money is nothing more than corporate welfare for the very rich.
>>O'Reilly is against public funding for stupidity. Aparrantly you support waste of tax revenue.
Apparently you haven't been paying attention. I am against the kind of waste of tax revenue that goes to pay for big houses and boats for the CEOs of companies like Boeing and Raytheon. Now THAT is stupidity.
>>That statement is a BELIEF he has, not a SUGGESTION he has.
What?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I feel sorry for you, Tyler Re: I feel sorry for you, Tyler -- Eric Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/27/2002, 03:35:20
Author Profile Mail author
Eric, To say, as you do, that #1 and 10 don't conflict with each other is self-deception.
You write: "Those two statements do not contradict each other. I don't know how you could ever interpret it that way, nor do I know how anyone could be stupid enough to think like that."
And I don't know how you could FAIL to see that these two goals conflict! I don't now how anyone could be so duped as to "think" like that.
You foolishly write: "Those two statements say this: He disagrees with te government wasting money on projects like the UC schools having a sex class run by students and getting credits for it, and for programs that teach little girls and boys that they are "better than the other gender" and any other program a politician promises to put into place if he or she gets elected."
How vapid can you get, Eric? O'Reilly is talking about "entitlement programs" which include Medicare and Social Security! How clueless must you be to imagine he means sex ed classes???
You write: "O'Reilyl supports military funding because he KNOWS that we need defense."
That is a non sequitur, Eric. The face that we need defense does NOT mean that we must spend more money than we are now! Couldn't it possibly mean that we must spend the money previously allocated more sensibly? So sensibly that it wouldn't effect Medicare and Social Security?
Why can't you think these things out more carefully, Eric? What kind of hypontic, fascistic power does Rupert Murdoch and Bill O'Reilly have over your mind??
To quote your own words: "How you could misread those statements is beyond me."
You then write: "Remember, YOU are the one who called him conservative. As far as I know, you've lost your credibitility already, and are fighting to win it back."How did he lose his credibility by merely pointing out the very, VERY obvious fact that O'Reilly is an extremely conservative right winger?
By praising O'Reilly directly and stating something completely wrong, you've put yourself into the category of anti-human, anti-rational right wing apologist.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
"neo-liberal imperialist elite"... Re: All of that typing for nothing... -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Karyn ®
02/25/2002, 18:02:50
Author Profile Mail author
Try saying that 5 times fast!
Karyn
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
What the hell ARE "neo-liberal imperialist elites" Re: All of that typing for nothing... -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/27/2002, 04:13:32
Author Profile Mail author
Tyler, I'm not sure what that means. Care to elaborate?
Especially in light of the blindingly obvious FACT that O'Reilly's master and keeper is one of the most infamously far right conservatives in the world, Rupert Murdoch. Why would you refer to Murdoch as a "neo-liberal imperialist elite"? He's just another right wing, ultra-conservative imperalist plutocrat!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Neoliberalism. Re: What the hell ARE "neo-liberal imperialist elites" -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/27/2002, 04:48:15
Author Profile Mail author
>>Tyler,
>>I'm not sure what that means. Care to elaborate?Neoliberalism refers to the system of priniciples of capitalism, as passed down from Adam Smith, and whose doctrinal system is governed by the "Washington consensus." The term "neo" is added to distinguish the capitalism up through the industrial revolution and until the growth of the welfare state and its demise. The new order calls for a growth of "free markets," de-regulation, a destruction of the welfare state, and increased power for the capitalist state.
In other words, neoliberalism is the "New World Order" of rule by the corporate oligarchy.
Neoliberalism is imperialist because it must be in order to survive and grow. The economy of the U.S. and other western states needs the resources of the entire world to sustain it. This necessitates an imperialism in which markets around the world must be forced open to exploitation by U.S. corporations. This is done by various means, including bribery, blackmail, and, if necessary, force, as was achieved, for example, in the Gulf War, or in Indonesia since 1965 via Suharto, who Clinton referred to as "our kind of guy."
The neoliberal order is ruled by the corporate oligarchy, which is, in turn, ruled by a small number of corporate elites. These are the "neoliberal imperialist elites," and include such people as Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner.
Modified by Tyler at Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 04:53:19
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Neoliberalism. Re: Neoliberalism. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/27/2002, 05:03:23
Author Profile Mail author
Tyler writes: Neoliberalism refers to the system of priniciples of capitalism, as passed down from Adam Smith, and whose doctrinal system is governed by the "Washington consensus." The term "neo" is added to distinguish the capitalism up through the industrial revolution and until the growth of the welfare state and its demise. The new order calls for a growth of "free markets," de-regulation, a destruction of the welfare state, and increased power for the capitalist state.Tyler closes with: "Does that help?"In other words, neoliberalism is the New World Order of rule by the corporate oligarchy.
Neoliberalism is imperialist because it must be in order to survive and grow. The economy of the U.S. and other western states needs the resources of the entire world to sustain it. This necessitates an imperialism in which markets around the world must be forced open to exploitation by U.S. corporations. This is done by various means, including bribery, blackmail, and, if necessary, force, as was achieved, for example, the Gulf War, or in Indonesia in 1965 via Suharto, who Clinton referred to as "our kind of guy."
The neoliberal order is ruled by the corporate oligarchy, which is, in turn, ruled by a small number of corporate elites. These are the "neoliberal imperialist elites," and include such people as Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner.
Somewhat. But the term "neoliberal" is arguably the most self-defeating bit of nomenclature I've ever heard. Talk about Newspeak! To use the word "liberal" in a description of what is essentially just modern conservatism seems like nothing more than a means to confuse the questions.
Yes, I know that Libertarians (who, as you know, are as far right as you can get) consider themselves "the original liberals", but to honor their deliberately obfuscatory self-desciptions seems extremely foolish to me.
Why not just call them Libertarians or conservatives? Why dignify them by calling them neoliberals? I don't get it, and in any case will not use such a confusing term.
And to put Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner into the same camp by calling them both "neoliberals" is so laughable as to demean the very idea of "neoliberalism". It's like comparing the Son of Sam to a jaywalker!
Or is laughing at the term "neoliberal" your purpose? If so, I concur! To hell with Newspeak!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Neoliberalism. Re: Re: Neoliberalism. -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/27/2002, 05:19:40
Author Profile Mail author
>>Why not just call them Libertarians or conservatives? Why dignify them by calling them neoliberals? I don't get it, and in any case will not use such a confusing term. The answer is that they are NOT libertarians, nor conservatives. They uphold none of the values of libertarianism, nor of conservatism.
I did not coin the phrase, and I agree that it is a bit confusing when you first hear it. However, I think it is important to distinguish the new movements of neoliberal capitalism from the old welfare state. We can call them whatever you like, but to call people like Murdoch conservatives doesn't make much sense, since they hold none of the values considered "conservative." They are libertarian only to the extent that they wish to get rid of any programs that benefit the public, but they want to increase government support of business, and corporate welfare.
Neoliberalism is a whole new animal that needs to be distinguished from the old labels of "conservative" and "liberal."
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Silly Neologisms Re: Re: Neoliberalism. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/27/2002, 05:44:26
Author Profile Mail author
I had asked: "Why not just call them Libertarians or conservatives? Why dignify them by calling them neoliberals? I don't get it, and in any case will not use such a confusing term." To which Tyler replies: "The answer is that they are NOT libertarians, nor conservatives. They uphold none of the values of libertarianism, nor of conservatism."
What a bunch of crap, Tyler! What the hell are you smoking?
They ARE Libertarians! They ARE conservatives!
It is incredibly fatuous of you to claim, as your arguments implicitly do, that all Libertarians are extreme anarchists and none of them hold more limited views, and that that all conservatives are whatever the hell extreme stereotype you have in mind for them!
Never mind, Tyler. Emjoy your specious neologisms if you like, but I will have no truck with them OR your exaggerations and distortions. If Rupert Murdoch is not a conservative with Libertarian leanings, then he's my fairy granduncle.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Where are you getting this? Re: Silly Neologisms -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/27/2002, 13:48:19
Author Profile Mail author
>>It is incredibly fatuous of you to claim, as your arguments implicitly do, that all Libertarians are extreme anarchists and none of them hold more limited views, and that that all conservatives are whatever the hell extreme stereotype you have in mind for them! When did I claim this, or imply it?
>>Never mind, Tyler. Emjoy your specious neologisms if you like, but I will have no truck with them OR your exaggerations and distortions. If Rupert Murdoch is not a conservative with Libertarian leanings, then he's my fairy granduncle.
He's your fairy granduncle, then. Or, explain to me how his actions justify your claim that he is a conservative. Of course, to do this, you will first have to define what a conservative is, and what a libertarian is.
Modified by Tyler at Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 14:03:32
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Details? Re: For those who mischaracterize BIll O'Reilly -- Eric Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/25/2002, 18:28:18
Author Profile Mail author
I don't know this fellow and I don't know what else he says. But as they say, the devil is in the details. For instance, take his first pronouncement: ":=1) I believe that the federal government wastes a huge amount of the people's money ..."
This is so general and true a statement that no one, not even the highest official in the land, would deny it. The question then is this: What does he suggest to do about it? I remember a few years ago some people, including a lot of politicians themselves, recommended closing down the Department of Education. Now, if this fellow suggests something like that, or worse, then I become wary!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Exactly. Re: Details? -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/25/2002, 19:22:50
Author Profile Mail author
Everyone is against government waste. It is a trivial tautology to say that you are against government waste. It's like being "pro-family," how many "anti-family" people do you know? Of course, where government is wasting money is a source of some contention. O'Reilly thinks that far too much money is being spent on things like education - you know, programs that actually benefit the public. But he wants to waste more mony on programs that will make a few millionaires even rich, like "missile defense."
It is truly amazing how nitwits like this get into such a position of prominence.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Exactly. Re: Exactly. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Laurie ® Wildpork
02/25/2002, 23:41:50
Author Profile Mail author
Let's see Who is anti Family?
1) Satan
2) Those that perform Abortions
3) Those that have Abortions
4) Those that would try to protect those who view Abortion as a right
5) Those that feel Abortion in ok.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A clarification? Re: Re: Exactly. -- Laurie Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/26/2002, 01:44:41
Author Profile Mail author
Let's see Who is anti Family?
1) Satan
2) Those that perform Abortions
3) Those that have Abortions
4) Those that would try to protect those who view Abortion as a right
5) Those that feel Abortion in ok.While I agree that Satan is probably anti-family, I don't see how those who "feel Abortion [sic] is ok" are necessarily anti-family. Perhaps you could elaborate.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: A clarification? Re: A clarification? -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Laurie ®
02/26/2002, 03:01:53
Author Profile Mail author
The way I see it, if you Murder, or assist in the murder of one of those special beings that help create "a Family", (a single woman give birth to a child she and the child is now a family), You are an anti Family type of person. If a single woman has an Abortion, if a Dr. performs an Abortion, It is MY opinion that they are Anti-Family
Modified by Laurie at Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 03:05:10
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
That is no clarification at all. Re: Re: A clarification? -- Laurie Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/26/2002, 05:23:20
Author Profile Mail author
>> The way I see it, if you Murder, or assist in the murder of one of those special beings that help create "a Family", (a single woman give birth to a child she and the child is now a family), You are an anti Family type of person. If a single woman has an Abortion, if a Dr. performs an Abortion, It is MY opinion that they are Anti-Family You first say that if you murder someone then you are anti-family. This, I might agree with. Then you go on to talk about Abortion, with a capital "A." Since abortion is not murdur, how is this relevant?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: That is no clarification at all. Re: That is no clarification at all. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Laurie ®
02/26/2002, 10:38:55
Author Profile Mail author
Abortion = Murder = the Killing of an innocent Life = The Murder of a life the has no way to fight back. If your mother ad an Abortion you would not be here, therefore you would have been Murdered!
Modified by Laurie at Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 10:40:36
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I am going to have to mark you off. Re: Re: That is no clarification at all. -- Laurie Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/26/2002, 12:26:37
Author Profile Mail author
>>Abortion = Murder = the Killing of an innocent Life = The Murder of a life the has no way to fight back. I am sorry, but you made an error in your equation there. Since murdur is a legal term that only applies to human beings, abortion is not murdur, i.e.
abortion != murdur
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Abortion is Murder Re: I am going to have to mark you off. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Laurie ®
02/26/2002, 13:26:34
Author Profile Mail author
Abortion is the Murder if inocent life, it is the murder of an unborn human being, it is the murder of you had your Mother had an Abotion while pregnant with you!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You can't murdur what hasn't been born. Re: Abortion is Murder -- Laurie Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/26/2002, 15:46:17
Author Profile Mail author
Murdur only applies to human beings. A fetus is not a human being, and hence the term murdur is inappropriate. Back to class with you!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: You can't murdur what hasn't been born. Re: You can't murdur what hasn't been born. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/26/2002, 16:03:42
Author Profile Mail author
Tyler : Murdur only applies to human beings. A fetus is not a human being, and hence the term murdur is inappropriate.
Back to class with you!Ramona : There are plenty of test cases that are hoping to redefine murder to absolutely apply to the human fetus.
And, it's spelled M-u-r-d-e-r, back to class with you.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I'm an idiot. Re: Re: You can't murdur what hasn't been born. -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/26/2002, 16:56:47
Author Profile Mail author
>>And, it's spelled M-u-r-d-e-r, back to class with you. Doh! You're right! I wonder why I was spelling it "murdur." Perhaps it was because I was watching LoTR the other day, and had the word "mordor" in my head. Ah well, spelling was never my strong point.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Nope Re: I'm an idiot. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/26/2002, 17:16:30
Author Profile Mail author
>>And, it's spelled M-u-r-d-e-r, back to class with you.
Doh! You're right! I wonder why I was spelling it "murdur." Perhaps it was because I was watching LoTR the other day, and had the word "mordor" in my head. Ah well, spelling was never my strong point.Ramona - LoTR??? I was just giving you grief bud. I'm glad you have a fine sense of humor. I have days when a correct spelling looks awfully wrong to me.
BTW - There is no correlation between spelling and intelligence. Some people just can and others just can't.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thank you, Ramona Re: Re: You can't murdur what hasn't been born. -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Eric ®
02/26/2002, 18:20:12
Author Profile Mail author
It's about time we got another perosn with common sense in here. SO I guess destroying a POTENTIAL human life isn't wrong either, is it?
Eric
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Ever masturbate Eric? Re: Thank you, Ramona -- Eric Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
02/26/2002, 19:19:15
Author Profile Mail author
>>SO I guess destroying a POTENTIAL human life isn't wrong either, is it? Do you consider masturbation murder? Do you consider using a condom murder?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Let's have "The Talk" Tyler Re: Ever masturbate Eric? -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Vicki ®
02/27/2002, 00:21:22
Author Profile Mail author
>>SO I guess destroying a POTENTIAL human life isn't wrong either, is it?
Do you consider masturbation murder? Do you consider using a condom murder?Vicki: Tyler, umm...I don't know how to tell you this but...semen isn't a potential human life. It's only half of the equation. You see, the man has a "seed" Tyler ....the woman has a "garden" ...he plants his seed in the woman's umm...garden...do I REALLY need to go on?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Not according to the Bible, Vicki Re: Let's have "The Talk" Tyler -- Vicki Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/27/2002, 04:38:21
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki writes: "Tyler, umm...I don't know how to tell you this but...semen isn't a potential human life. It's only half of the equation. You see, the man has a "seed" Tyler ....the woman has a "garden" ...he plants his seed in the woman's umm...garden...do I REALLY need to go on?" You've forgotten your Bible yet again, Vicki! God condemned Onan for his crime of failing to create a human life when he "spilled his seed" upon the ground! Thus, masturbation can be seen as offensive to God because it destroys a potential human life.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A big fat Duh goes to Martin. Re: Not according to the Bible, Vicki -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/27/2002, 07:38:05
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki writes: "Tyler, umm...I don't know how to tell you this but...semen isn't a potential human life. It's only half of the equation. You see, the man has a "seed" Tyler ....the woman has a "garden" ...he plants his seed in the woman's umm...garden...do I REALLY need to go on?"
Martin - You've forgotten your Bible yet again, Vicki! God condemned Onan for his crime of failing to create a human life when he "spilled his seed" upon the ground! Thus, masturbation can be seen as offensive to God because it destroys a potential human life.Ramona - You seem to have forgotten that Vicki does not take the Christian bible as entirely literal. It then stands to reason that the story could be parable. Population was small, to enlarge the population it is better to impregnate than to masturbate.
Regards,
Ramona
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A big fat Duh WRITES to Martin Re: A big fat Duh goes to Martin. -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/27/2002, 18:30:11
Author Profile Mail author
Ramona writes: "You seem to have forgotten that Vicki does not take the Christian bible as entirely literal. It then stands to reason that the story could be parable. Population was small, to enlarge the population it is better to impregnate than to masturbate." We all better watch out when Ramona uses phrases like "It then stands to reason...."!
I'd enjoy hearing you explicate that passage as a "paralble", Ramona -- I haven't yet had my laugh for the day. You're often good for that.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thanks Mona but... Re: A big fat Duh goes to Martin. -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Vicki ®
02/27/2002, 21:48:22
Author Profile Mail author
I can state my own reasoning here.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
cki Re: Thanks Mona but... -- Vicki Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/28/2002, 15:40:42
Author Profile Mail author
I can state my own reasoning here. I didn't question that you could state, nor was I hindering, your own reasoning.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Not according to the Bible, Vicki Re: Not according to the Bible, Vicki -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Karyn ®
02/27/2002, 12:40:54
Author Profile Mail author
martin that was not the context and you know it. Onan was told by God to create an heir, and he did not. He disobeyed God. If we were to take the context you just proposed, then every woman not taking birth control who was past puberty would be sinning every month, involuntarily, when she ovulated without becoming pregnant. God forbid, an egg gets wasted!
its something He designed in us, and therefore it is not a "waste".
A life is not a life until the two components for it come together, sperm and egg. An egg, left on its own, will never become an adult human. A sperm, on its own, will never become an adult human, just as a stomach or a kidney will never transform itself into its own fully functioning human. A fertilized egg, however, has become a life and will become an adult human.
Karyn
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: let's take the context you just proposed Re: Re: Not according to the Bible, Vicki -- Karyn Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
02/27/2002, 15:37:37
Author Profile Mail author
instead then. =>A life is not a life until the two components for it come together, sperm and egg. An egg, left on its own, will never become an adult human. A sperm, on its own, will never become an adult human, just as a stomach or a kidney will never transform itself into its own fully functioning human. A fertilized egg, however, has become a life and will become an adult human.
Karyn
**A morula, left on its own, will never become an adult human. A blastocyst, left on its own, will never become an adult human. An embryo, left on its own, will never become an adult human. And even an early fetus (with the medical knowledge we currently have), left on its own, will never become an adult human.
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: let's take the context you just proposed Re: Re: let's take the context you just proposed -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/27/2002, 17:26:13
Author Profile Mail author
instead then.
=>A life is not a life until the two components for it come together, sperm and egg. An egg, left on its own, will never become an adult human. A sperm, on its own, will never become an adult human, just as a stomach or a kidney will never transform itself into its own fully functioning human. A fertilized egg, however, has become a life and will become an adult human.
Karyn
**A morula, left on its own, will never become an adult human. A blastocyst, left on its own, will never become an adult human. An embryo, left on its own, will never become an adult human. And even an early fetus (with the medical knowledge we currently have), left on its own, will never become an adult human.
rdlBut, the embryo must be forcefully extricated from its environment to cease its development. Sperm does not progress because it can't.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
nevertheless Re: Re: let's take the context you just proposed -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
02/27/2002, 21:24:32
Author Profile Mail author
:=instead then.
:=
:==>A life is not a life until the two components for it come together, sperm and egg. An egg, left on its own, will never become an adult human. A sperm, on its own, will never become an adult human, just as a stomach or a kidney will never transform itself into its own fully functioning human. A fertilized egg, however, has become a life and will become an adult human.
:=
:=Karyn
:=
:=**A morula, left on its own, will never become an adult human. A blastocyst, left on its own, will never become an adult human. An embryo, left on its own, will never become an adult human. And even an early fetus (with the medical knowledge we currently have), left on its own, will never become an adult human.
:=
:=rdl
But, the embryo must be forcefully extricated from its environment to cease its development. Sperm does not progress because it can't.
Ramona**unless the blastocyst/embryo/fetus is contained within the host (ack!..shades of parasites) it will never become an adult human. Furthermore, if a sperm and an egg were to meet in a petri dish can they become an adult human? (assuming they don't get forcibly extricated from said dish)
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: nevertheless Re: nevertheless -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/28/2002, 14:10:04
Author Profile Mail author
:=:=rdl
:=
:=But, the embryo must be forcefully extricated from its environment to cease its development. Sperm does not progress because it can't.
:=
:=Ramona
**unless the blastocyst/embryo/fetus is contained within the host (ack!..shades of parasites) it will never become an adult human. Furthermore, if a sperm and an egg were to meet in a petri dish can they become an adult human? (assuming they don't get forcibly extricated from said dish)
rdlRamona - True, but that is not what we are discussing. (B/E/F)parasitic? That is true also. But I maintain the wiser choice is in prevention, not extrication of a human life. That is my beef with the topic.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: nevertheless Re: Re: nevertheless -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
02/28/2002, 15:36:40
Author Profile Mail author
Ramona - True, but that is not what we are discussing. rdl: What "we" were discussing was the ethics of abortion and when human life begins (I think). The assertion was made that both sperm and egg were sacred. This was refuted and it was asserted that:
A life is not a life until the two components for it come together, sperm and egg. An egg, left on its own, will never become an adult human. A sperm, on its own, will never become an adult human, just as a stomach or a kidney will never transform itself into its own fully functioning human. A fertilized egg, however, has become a life and will become an adult human.
by Karynrdl: My point was that unless the fertilized egg is in a human host, it too, will not become human. (I don't wish to touch the dog, elephant, whatnot issue)
RamonaB/E/F)parasitic? That is true also. But I maintain the wiser choice is in prevention, not extrication of a human life. That is my beef with the topic.
rdl: well, of course the wiser choice is in prevention...and education. Unfortunatly, abortion exists and therefore will always be an option (legal or illegal) The dilemma is whether or not it should be legislated. My beef with the topic is that I do not wish to have someone else's belief structure about the sanctity of human life and when it begins shoved down my throat. Abortion is a personal moral choice.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Every Egg, Every Sperm... Re: Re: Not according to the Bible, Vicki -- Karyn Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/27/2002, 18:43:00
Author Profile Mail author
Karyn the Dubious writes: "martin that was not the context and you know it. Onan was told by God to create an heir, and he did not. He disobeyed God." But HOW did he disobey your "God"?? HE MASTURBATED! Karyn, the very word "Onanism" (taken from Onan, in case you're that slow) MEANS masturbation!
Karyn continues: "If we were to take the context you just proposed, then every woman not taking birth control who was past puberty would be sinning every month [and, of course, she probably WOULD be seen to be -- at least according to people who think like you; after all the ancients had no CLUE that a gamete was hidden in all that blood]. God forbid, an egg gets wasted!"
Thanks for the set-up, Karyn!
Did you ever see the film Monty Python's Meaning of Life (I know many of you were expecting this...)? The best part was the scene where Michael Palin and his entire 40-50 child family sing this wonderful song:
DAD: There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
