Staredit Network

And please, please, PLEASE, don't capitalize every word, it makes reading your posts painful. As cheeze and others said, pleasure from mating exists because if it didn't then humankind wouldn't survive, seeing as only a single generation would exist, which would then die off, leaving no offspring because they didn't reproduce, therefor only the creatureds which have a reproductive urge would survive, seeing as they would be the only ones to spread their genes.

NOT 100,000 iraq civilians, mininum 23,000 -- maximum 26,000. I love it how liberals try to lie to make their point, Bush...lied???....Nope, Russian intelligence, our own intelligence and MI-6 all said Iraq had WMDs. I call it bad information acting on bad information. Now before you start flaming me, going into Iraq=bad idea OK? no flamage. But still any civilian death is horrible. You can thank the insurgents for most of the body count

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Yeah, I mean, American bombs and missiles are specially designed only to harm insurgents... there's no way they could EVER hurt a civillian, right?

I don't think chris has any idea of how capable the government is at lying.

Maybe you need to check some numbers on previous wars fought and compare the facts to the reported government number.

Quote:
NOT 100,000 iraq civilians, mininum 23,000 -- maximum 26,000. I love it how liberals try to lie to make their point, Bush...lied???....Nope, Russian intelligence, our own intelligence and MI-6 all said Iraq had WMDs. I call it bad information acting on bad information. Now before you start flaming me, going into Iraq=bad idea OK? no flamage. But still any civilian death is horrible. You can thank the insurgents for most of the body count wink.gif








http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Oct28.html
"One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion."
"Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A16"

The point is that casualties due to occupation are not necessarely a direct result of United States attack on them. It is the overall causulties due to the activity. For example since the USA attacked Iraq, the chances of an Iraqi civillian to die increased 52 times. That is so much safer than under the Hussenian dictatorship...

Edit: I included the date so you can see that this number obviously rose, due to the fact that it's been close to a year since this report has been released.

And about your intelligence
Downing street memo: (long before the attack on Iraq"
"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

I've said thsi about religion, I'll say it again:

You can't prove ANYTHING about wether religion is true or not because you are always reading from a man's interpretation of it. (Then you also interpret it, and so on.)
Some man named Adam living in some ancient time could have been a sole survivor with his wife and made up religion out of his insanity of being stuck with his wife.

We never know.
(And that was a stupid example, I know. )

ADDITION:
Oh, I repeat,


A man's was made to make a female of proper age and maturity pregnant. (As if the age and maturity part are true in today's world.)

well you can disprove a religion based on the fact that there is no hard evidence that cannot be otherwise explained without reasonable doubt of the scientific community.

You can't disprove something because "there is no evidence". You need evidence AGAINST something to disprove it.

Chris, before you bash liberals, go look at the 60's. Conservatives were SO bad, they had to change their ways. You know, the whole "New Conservativism" movement.

Oh no, the liberals lied once! I mean, people never lie!

Snakes, you got the wrong mind set. You Need PROOF to PROVE that something exists. Not the other way around, other wise we'll be so beyond left wing, I'll be forced to start kicking babies.

While we are converting you, you are constantly creating these "problem" topics... like trying to un-convert us...

Are you saying we should not mention these "problems" because everything you believe in is perfect and if there is a problem, it should be destroyed through ignorance?


Well, I read a quote that said, "in science, everything is false until proven true."
Or something similar to that. So I guess it's what you're referring to.

Someone should make a topic called "My problems with people saying their problems about Christianity and any other religion and trying to create a serious discussion on it, which eventually gets turned into a useless God/religion topic".

Wow... there's a lot of emotion there, CHeeze...
Let's see who the first ones to yell are...

I don't yell; no emotion either. I reply without one. I simply asked a question, didn't get a response.

Then again, I'm not suprised. Ignorance is what you're after, is it not?

Man, I'm getting close to never arguing with people about this stuff again, unless they're REALLY asking for it.

*Neiji asks for it*

well, liberal news papers have to lie about Bill O'reilly all the time and then have to go back and change what they said in their news papers becuase people got pissed at them.



Lets not mention Michael Moore's lies either.

but I see what your saying

Ya, you're right, cause the liberal news papers, and micheal moore, really represent almost half the liberals.

Would you can independent news sources "liberals"?

I would call any news papers that constantly bash or find news stories to bash right wing people liberals. I would find them liberals if the constantly directly or indirectly show much or country is horrible and what it is doing wrong. I would call any news paper liberal if it trys to undermine the war on terror. New York Times posted over 50 front pages of Abu Grahib (or how ever you spell it)......thats sending a message and I think I got that message after the 35th front page

Aww come on. Either we stop this, or stop this from affecting us personally... This shouldn't create hate, but just have this as a discussion and idea sharing.

Why does everyone use the word "Liberal" as a bad thing?

Here's two definitions I found:





Doesn't seem like a bad thing to me... If the above definition is "liberal", then yes. I am a liberal.



So... if the country is doing something wrong, we're not supposed to say anything? So, if the country is doing something wrong, we should ignore it, because its "America like it or leave it?"

Same as Voyager.

Oh yeah, by the way, when the people says nothing against its government, you'd be in China, not the U.S.

Oh yeah, branding Chris a Communist* just to see what happens.




*But then again, China isn't really Communist any more.

you cant argue on what some1 believe, if some one think a cow is god he can believe that, u cant say him that a true god isnt a egg, have u ever see god? if u havent u cant tell some1 that is wrong to believe gays are people that must b in hell, or u say they can go heaven bcause u say so? u cant prove Jesus wasnt the son of god, but neither some1 can prove it, is just fe

the thing is that almost everything liberals did was for the good.

-Free the slaves ***BEFORE YOU SAY "OMG ROFEL REPUBLCNZ DID IT I RED IT IN MAI BOOK LOL" think about this. If you look at the action of freeing the slaves, it was a progressive innovation, therefore liberal. The "Democrats" of the time (only the name remains) wanted to keep the social dogma, therefore they wanted to conserve the status quo, and therefore are conservatives.

-Allow women to vote

-Reduce racism

-Separation of Church and State

-Laws equal for all.

Conservative side agenda:

-Reduce womens rights by overturning Roe vs Wade

-Reduce homosexual rights by openly discriminating and forbiding civil unions.

-Reduce non-christian rights by instigating prayer in school.

-Render separation of church and state to null

-Reduce YOUR rights by prolonging the patriot act

Looks clear to me.