For Jim and Scott
 

For Jim and Scott after the relevant posts in the Wisconsin thread...

this is pretty much what I hear when you make that right turn... :love:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...---stork-bucks

makes sense knowing that you get your information from comedy shows :uhuh:

I hear there are some new opportunities opening up for scientists, especially funny ones... in Hollywood..

The U.N., failing to convince the world, turns to Hollywood on global warming
February 22, 2011: “Global warming: The United Nations courts Tinseltown“, Los Angeles Times, California, U.S.A.

“Now the beleaguered multi-national agency, fresh from a disappointing round of climate negotiations in Cancun, wants something more concrete: actual story lines in movies, television and social media drawing attention to the dangers of global warming.…

The day-long gathering will feature panels titled … “Making Global Warming a HOT Issue” …

“The science is clear,” he [Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon] said in an interview. “Climate change will continue unless drastic measures are taken to stop it …. I am sure Hollywood can make good stories from this,” he said.

Bryan, what I hear is the daily sound of 4,000 babies begging for their lives, and losing the argument...it's not a particularly pretty sound.

I hope we can talk about fishing again soon...cabin fever...

Pro-Life: Valuing life, until birth.

Can you expand on that, please? Who doesn't value life after birth?

Most religious people I know that are "pro-life" also support the death penalty.

Johnny, do you really see a contradiction between being anti-abortion and pro death penalty? In order for that to be a contradiction, that necessarily means that you think the killing of an unborn baby, and the execution of a mass-murderer, are morally equivalent.

In my opinion, the execution of an unborn baby and the execution of a mass murderer are not only NOT morally equivalent, they are about as different as can be. An unborn baby, by definition, has not had a chance to harm anybody. And the unborn baby doesn't get a chance to support his cause in the abortion process. Mass murderers have committed a horrible crime, and also have all kinds of due process available to them.

Apples and oranges, don't you think?

Now, what is completely illogical is the liberal notion that says that the death penalty is wrong, but abortion is OK. Those people are saying that Osama Bin Laden has more of a right to live than an unborn baby. How many bad acid trips does it take to arrive at that insane conclusion?

That was perhaps the least funny thing I've ever seen on the Daily Show.

-spence

Yeah, it seemed that the audience didn't know when they were supposed to laugh. Probably because there wasn't much worth laughing at.

That chick is much funnier on Flight of the Conchords.

Bad delivery on a sensitive topic. concept was funny I thought. would have really made no sense if Wyatt or the brittish guy had done the skit.

Scott, news no, entertainment, yes.

don't think I mentioned either..... but if you find abortion entertaining and conceptually funny...to each his own I guess, it's your thread....

The good book says that no life should be taken. The life of that collection of cells at conception are just as sacred as the life of a rapist.

I find the commentary on the way people discuss it entertaining.

there is nothing whistful or whimsical in my mind about it.

As a parent, I couldn't imagine my wife having one, but it needs to be an option on the table for the women to choose IMHO.

I'd rather they spent my tax money on sterilization of criminals and deadbeats. I guess that would never work, though. The Dems need all the votes they can get.

JohnnyD, do you really believe that murderers should have the same right to live as an unborn child? I think you might just be trying to make your point, because I don't believe your really that much of an ignoramus.:wave:

Of course he doesn't . JD wants alot of people dead.

Strange how alot of the pro choice crowd are anti gun though!!!

The delivery was terrible.

Agree on the subject though. PP takes heat for the abortion issue but the variety of other woman's health services they provide is very important and adds a lot of value to society especially lower income women who don't have care.

I guess the other option would be to make PP obsolete via a single payer government system :hihi:

-spence

I only here from them when a womens right to choose abortion is under fire. They need a better PR person maybe ???

Which good book said any of that? If you mean the Bible, among many passages where life is legitimately taken, there is also this in the very first book: "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed;" Genesis 9:6 and, concerning your "collection of cells" there is the rest of the sentence: "for in the image of God made he man." Genesis 9:6. The sanctity of that collection of cells is not garanteed from conception if you trespass the will of God. And when the Bible says thou shalt not kill, the original Hebrew translation was closer to thou shalt not murder--especially premeditatedly.

And if all we are is a godless collection of cells, then raping, aborting, murdering are meaningless acts relative only to someone's opinion.

What options should not be available at the expense of the taxpayers?

I don't think I've presented any of my own opinions.

I just find it interesting that many people I know that state religious reasons for being pro-life also happen to support the death sentence. When they should be stating religious reasons for being against the death sentence.

Also, buckman is starting to know me well.

If those religions are against the death sentence and are religiously pro-life, then those many people are half-hypocrites. That hypocrasy is no argument against pro-life, they should be stating religious reasons for being against the death sentence as well as for being pro-life.

However, if those religions are not against the death sentence, there is no hypocrasy. Which religion is?

Further, we are in the era of "broad interpretation." Our contemporary judges, academics and philosophers, interpret their laws as they see fit. If you want to interpret your religious laws and commandments the way that suits you, that is now acceptable.

I agree with you by the way, I'm anti death penalty for the same reasons I'm against abortion. But I can see a certain logic and honesty in a position that says that killing a baby is worse than killing a murderer. I see no logic whatsoever in the liberal platform thatthe mass murderer deserves more protection than the baby. It's indefensible.

Yet you presented to us something that I assume is from the bible, since you called it the "good book" that certainly seems to be your opinion. Why would you throw something out there in a discussion if it wasn't your opinion? Are you just trying to get under someone's skin? Kind of petty if that's the case. Or, maybe it is you opinion and you don't want to come out and say it, so you throw it out there without admitting it? In that case, it's worse than just being petty.

And don't you worry, Buckman. Knowing JD well isn't as bad as it would appear on the surface. He's actually a good guy.:uhuh:

Totally. It's just an interesting trend amongst some of the people I know. To the latter part, I agree with you.

Watch yourself with that "good guy" malarkey. I don't want any preconceived standards set. I'm a "set low expectations" kind of guy.