Zenister

Well the Good General was removed from his position. Very rarely does one get removed for doing a GOOD job. didnt spend to much time in the military did you? people get removed for doing good jobs all the time, particularly if they didnt do the task in exactly the manner demanded and acheive the results that their bosses (often politicians or wannabe politicians) expected, no matter what the situation really was on the ground... and I'm totally sure your assessment is based on the current troop levels, equipment status and training projections for the US military.. Have you ever seen those numbers? Checked them recently?? Clark has, and he has the strategic experience to properly evaluate them. Do you? that said the troop relocation has been in the works for much longer than Bush has been in office... Germany no longer wants us there and there isnt the looming red reason to remain... Korea is a much tricker situation, mostly for political reasons. I'll be suprised if anyone can really explain what the mission of the US military is in South Korea.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

if the kid doesnt scream through the whole movie and annoy the rest of the theater, it shouldnt matter... at 3 he's not likely to get much from the movie other than the quick motion suprise scenes and emotional feedback from the audience's reactions..... He's not likely to be scared until everyone else reacts that way...fear is a learned behavior.. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

start by defining 'Human'. What are the shared characteristics of all members of the species Homo Sapien? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

i guess he's no expert either... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Isn't it possible that there is no "real answer" that is applicable to all people, but rather that each person must devise their own answer that works well for them? if it were not a legal issue that would work... but what happens when two people disagree? or one culture disagrees with the choice of an individual? it then becomes a legal matter and needs a clear definition. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

natural? yes, but they still have a cause, and it could be the drug you took for your cold, or the 4 mile run you just finished. The point is that if you define a fetus as a human you are opening the door for an obscene number of legal actions against women who are only otherwise using their own bodies as they see fit. Does pregnancy eliminate the women's freedoms in favor of the fetus? the cause is unimportant, tandem, pill, exercise, abortion, change in diet. etc....by defining a fetus as human before the point of viability, any action that potentially harms the fetus could be construed as negligence (based on the State’s current view of whatever activity you were participating in.) Would you like the State to charge your wife with unintentional manslaughter because of a miscarriage caused by riding a horse when she knew she was pregnant? Horseback riding is fairly mainstream imagine the reaction when the activity was something as sensationalized as skydiving… Think about the civil suit implications. Should a male be allowed to bring a wrongful death suit because a woman has a miscarriage while participating in a risk activity or non-traditional diet/ exercise program? If he doesn’t approve of an activity should he be able to prevent her from participating because of the possible risk to ‘human’ life? How much to you want the State to decide what/where/when women can do with their bodies. Remember you don’t have to be aware a human is present to be held responsible for actions that lead to its death. If you shoot into a box without checking to see if anyone is living in it…… It is the ‘unintended’ legal effects that create the possible problem and the need to clearly define what ‘human’ is… We can’t legislate against stupidity, but we can ensure that our laws do not create situations where people are enslaved to their physical condition. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

No you are saying its not a life since it has no biological functions. See your own words fight you. Have a nice day. no i'm saying it is not a human life. you could at least use my words properly... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

If you fire a bullet into the air could you know that it hit someone? You're the one claiming it's murder. What's the difference? I think motive and intent are also factors in determining whether murder has taken place. If someone is killed by your falling bullet, it was probably an accident. If you fire at a house where you believe there might very well be people and you kill one of them, that’s a different story. I’m not sure how long it takes for a pregnancy test to be accurate after conception but if you knew you were pregnant and took one to kill the embryo (or whatever stage it’s in at that time), then I think murder would be appropriate (That is, if you believe that it is human, unlike Zenister). If you took the morning after pill not knowing for sure, I guess (if there was human growth) it would only be something like manslaughter. The common factor I see in all this is that we’re acting on an unknown in a very harsh way. so charging a women with involuntary manslaughter because the tandem she just did caused an unintended miscarriage is an acceptable legal outcome? How about reckless endangerment for simply making the tandem even if no harm was done? that is the exact problem with defining anything from zygote to fetus as 'human' before it is viable. Every miscarriage is a possible criminal action, and women become suddenly imprisoned by the life developing inside them.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

But then you also say: That is hypocrisy at its best...The thing I know you best for. Have a nice day since you will hold on to your limited definitions, and assume they are the only correct answers. hmm seems you have issues with temporal placement too...you’ve got them in the wrong order... you assert that sperm is not 'a' life. Check your high school biology text. Find the definition of life. You continually argue against clear definitions (not mine btw) because you dont like/agree with them, however you offer no better alternatives. At what point would you define the merger of sperm and egg as human and when should be it granted rights and protections common to the rest of it's species? what is your standard for making that determination? You have yet to understand the method used to create the definition i am defending, or recognize that is contains no opinion, opinion is not a factor, or method. Brush up on the scientific method of inquiry.... also taught in high school biology. and you've missed the definition of hypocrisy as well... and have provided no evidence to show how it applies to my statement. Generally, in a logical discussion, it's important that your 'facts' support your assertions, but the structure of your argument so far (mostly asserting how wrong i am) is completely unsound and based totally on your opinion.... there is a difference, try to see it. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Define homophobe. Betcha can't without realizing that this non-word is just another distortion of the english language designed to foster normalization of homosexuality. you cannot 'distort' the english language. It is a continually, expanding evolving concept. New words are added everyday to define the world around us. Because you reject a behavior pattern does not make it 'abnormal' ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Wow who pissed in your corn flakes? You seem really angry...Try taking the little blue pill. While you are correct that both egg and sperm are "alive" they need each other to form a "Life" as we are talking about. A sperm by its self is not a life, otherwise we could charge millions of teenagers with murdering millions with a sock. And an egg is not a life since we don't normally flush children down a toilet. However when egg and sperm meet...It forms a life...It may not be a fully formed human, but the end result is one...Until that meeting you have not started any process that ends with a human. Maybe you need to work on your definitions some more. Only by your NARROW defintion does biological functions need to be present. And that is the error in your logic. You are not an expert on this, so your defintion is not the last word. It is only your OPINION. And since it seems you refuse to look past a firmly held narrow minded set of definitons.. There is no point in continuing with you..AGAIN. Have a nice day. ROTFLMAO... you need to brush up on high school biology Ron. sperm is alive, it has life, it is 'a' life. It is not a human life. It simply has no legal status, neither does the egg..hence no murder charges. Sperm has the potential to be human, as does the egg; both require each other, and the right environment to develop. Are you now arguing that because they have taken the first step in the development process they (it) should be granted the full rights and protections it might attain at the completion of that process?? Humans have definable characteristics; all humans have basic biological functions in common. A fetus does not attain these functions until late in the pregancy. This is not opinion it is fact. You might not accept that, so far have yet to acknowledge or attempt to even list those functions (can you?), but they are there, you are performing them while you sit and read this. no one pissed in my cornflakes, nor am I emotionally involved in this discussion in any way (unlike many) You have shown you have some issues with the logical thought process, scientific definitions and debate. I those issues keep you from participating in frank discussions without becoming emotionally involved, that is your problem not mine, but you could at least attempt to address the real points of discussion instead of continually asserting how little you know about me.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Sure, as long you get to skip past the points you can't defend . . . such as? i've yet to see anyone present a different standard. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

some would be ignorant then, sperm is alive, the egg is alive. Life comes from life, it 'formed' a very very very long time ago, we can argue over how / when it formed all you want, but that is a different discussion entirely, something you have yet to recognize. are you going to argue a human life exists the instant egg and sperm merge? If you are you might want to start by listing all the basic biological functions common to humanity, then add a timeline the shows when a fetus can perform them. When your done do you think it fullfills the definition of 'human' if it cannot fullfill the basic biological functions common to all humans? At what point in development can it perform those functions? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

i need personal assistance everywhere... oh wait that wasnt what you meant.. my next task as an invalid is to watch starving college students break...err ah move my stuff from storage into a new apt..... then maybe the vegas trip ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

exactly. At what point does it share the most characteristics common you and me? (after it's jumped ) with rest of it's species? What are the characteristics common to the environment we live in? Are there humans who do not live in this environment? If an individual cannot live in the same environment as the rest of it’s species, is it a functional member of that species? if it cannot perform the basic biological functions common to of the rest of humanity, if it has never attained those functions, is it really human? Or does it have the potential to be human? Is potential the same as actuality? Should 'potential' be legal recognized in the same manner? Are a potential human's rights equal to those of a realized human? Somewhere there has to be a line, and that line should be consistent, measurable, and testable. What better standard is there than the basic biological functions common to all members of a species? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

i'd imagine it the exceptions that will kill you... they know what the risks are of hurricane, fire, flood etc, but how do they put a number on knuckleheads burning in thru the roof of the hanger?? easy, jack up the price so noone will want to pay for coverage that is difficult to quantify... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Ja the Orting 'out'... I've done a few firsts out that way... interesting feeling not knowing what your landing zone looks like before you get out....reminded me a bit of military static line jumps, minus the cool 3 way FF with Jay and Kristin... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

actually i can defend my position very well, much to the chagrin of naysayers such as your self. It's based on accepted definitions and can be tested, repeatedly demonstrated, unlike the majority of other 'standards' that have been offered. Ron has issues with simple definitions, he cant define what the basic biological functions common to all humans are, or recognize that a fetus becomes an independent life form (it was always alive, sperm is alive, the egg is alive, life comes from life. Where life starts has never been the question) once it can perform those basic biological functions on its own... check the definition of viable as applied to a fetus/baby. we agree on the testing part.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

per standing order I party like one as often as possible.. however i have been on a load where the whole field landed next to some baseball diamonds.. those of use who landed in the close outfield were immediately promoted to demi-god status (and damn near tackled) by the elementary school kids playing ball... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

somehow i seem to know a few members of the pink hair club... i'm so bored i'm thinking of tatooes to cover my new scars... or perhaps a trip to vegas.. i can kill time at blackjack tables there too.. and time helps me heal right?? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

you do realize the implications of that ridiculous ruling? that is why the definition of human needs to be strictly expressed, based on consistent scientific evidence instead religion and emotion. What purpose was served in requiring that pregnancy to continue?? what is the point in continuing artificial support when it will never become viable? proof that the courts can be equally ignorant and in california no less... via·bili·ty n. Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Main Entry: vi·a·ble Pronunciation: 'vI-&-b&l Function: adjective 1 : capable of living ; especially : having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living outside the uterus —often used of a human fetus at seven months but may be interpreted according to the state of the art of medicine viable \Vi"a*ble\, a. [F., from vie life, L. vita. See Vital.] (Law) Capable of living; born alive and with such form and development of organs as to be capable of living; -- said of a newborn, or a prematurely born, infant. Note: Unless he [an infant] is born viable, he acquires no rights, and can not transmit them to his heirs, and is considered as if he had never been born. --Bouvier. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

auditioning bitterjeffery today? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

if that counts as a 'BASE' jump ive got several hundred sub 300's from trust fall rappelling... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

by then it no longer requires the mothers womb. If it is a self sustaining life, then it's needs and rights as a human carry equal weight with those of the mothers. Before then, as a fetus, it's existence is completely dependent on the host. once it is 'viable' it is no longer a fetus, its a baby. viability is the point of no return Your definition contains an obvious oxymoron. It has no existence apart from the host, it has no status apart from that granted by the host. Without the host, it dies. It cannot support the basic biological functions common to it’s species, it has never performed those functions on its [I]own[/I]. It is developing its own nervous system, so it may or may not ‘feel’ based on the speed of development, but it's 'life' depends completely on another. Without the host it exists as a clump of (dying) cells, nothing more. ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

knowing the devs i do i really really wouldnt want them playing with the source code on my alti.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.