Drea

Atheists do not form a "group". Funny how the religious cannot fathom NOT being a part of a "groupthink". I love the Salvation Army, support them every chance I get. I also do some marketing for them and they are far and above any other organization in terms of helping the poor. You see, they do not force anyone to believe... you just have to be poor, or cold, or hungry. But my post had nothing to do with "charity" -- where'd that come from? My post was about Christianity thinking it is "vilified" and "downtrodden" and "omg, wahhh us poor Christians get spit upon!" Frig, cry me a river, all religions feel they are "victimized". Notice that most atheists (once again, not a group of them) do not feel victimized and we take responsibility for our actions unlike the religious who have ulterior motives for everything they do -- "If I do such and such I get to go to heaven! Whoo hoo!" -- they are not helping out of the goodness of their hearts, they are helping out of fear of not getting into "heaven".

Jesus-bald-headed-allah-christ man, do you not HEAR that the guy in the Manitoba Legislature is talking about the VERY THING that Bush and Harper call a conspiracy? I even typed it out for you in case you were too lazy to watch a four minute video. Frig you people believe anything the Bushbot says. Is the Manitoba Legislature LYING? Whaddya think? Is he lying about the "port" in Winnipeg, or the "port" in Churchill? Is he lying about the "corridor"? Is he lying about the "business professionals" that are working towards making it happen? Why would a provincial LEGISLATURE make this shit up? Maybe you naysayers ought to get out there to Manitoba and set them straight. Come on now, let's have a real conversation about this. It is happening there is no denying it.

and a teeny weeny head...

I was looking for stats on how many this and how many that religion there are but ran across this instead. It's from Library and Archives Canada (hopefully an unbiased source, unlike "Christians Today") Religion One can plainly see that Christianity is the main religion in Canada. But for some odd reason, Christians always think they are being "victimized". So do Jews and, as a matter of fact, so do Muslims. Poor widdle wewigion.

Buffycat - excellent find! Thanks. I am sharing this video with all my buds... and even (ha! moreso) to thyne enemies. For those of you who are on dialup or just can't be bothered to watch here it is... I copied parts of it word for word as close as I could. (Hope that's not "illegal") 39th Manitoba Legislative assembly, Throne speech Nov. 20, 07: The three leaders are then asked about the corridor... (during the summit) Harper: Bush: Unbelievable! I am utterly shocked at the bullshit coming out of Harper and Bush's mouths! Harper does what all rightwingnuts do! He went overboard. "Maybe they even think it'll be interplanetary! Those lefties are totally nuts". Bush -- yes he is well aware of this "technique" and he has gotten good at lying about it. Notice when he lies his body language does not betray him like it used to? Does he not know that this very corridor is being discussed in the Manitoba provincial legislature? Did he think that an "international port" in Winnipeg would go unnoticed? Unmentioned?

Even adults can be victim to bullying. Even adults can be bullies. DoP, not just you, and I'm sorry I singled you out. Everyone, JB, capricorn, scottsa, moxie.. all of you acted like bullies. Not one of you (ok maybe Rue) tried to talk about the subject. You just threw a bunch of insults around. Although many of us do this (we sorta know one another) it can be quite disconserting to a newbie. I am not defending aras' behaviour, I am condemning yours. He is crude and doesn't yet know the subtleties of this unique forum. Read the sentence in its context. In the post from which this sentence came, aras was lamenting the fact that he felt vilified and singled out. Just like the Japanese, the Chinese back during the second world war. I'm not trying to be a mod -- just noting the low level of decorum. ...aras we use smilies to denote emotion...

Different thread.. which you folks have turned into a mess that I am avoiding. Read my post I do not believe in such things. Well when someone is backed into a corner (I bet aras felt backed into a corner well before he got to MLW) they attack. Even a cute mouse will attack when cornered.

Aha! Now we know where you've attained your *ahem* education!

I have to respond to this because everyone else has ganged up on this guy... and I for one am happy to see a muslim with the guts to be here. Welcome aboard aras. He is pissed because he is vilified because of the colour of his skin and his religion. He's pissed because his culture and religion are vilified in the media. He is pissed because he feels he can't get a word in edgewise. He is pissed because all he's gotten so far on this board are insults. If there is even one person who has the guts to debate the man on the issue, I have yet to see it. Tossing out propaganda links is not debate folks. I am not going to debate the issue because I do not have enough knowledge of it. It's like highschool bullies (guys like you DogonPorch) who cannot understand why the skinny nerdy kid really hates him (gets a gun and kills everyone). Bully kid can't understand why the nerd doesn't find his "pranks" funny. "Whaat?" says the bully, "I was only jokin', you can't take a joke loser" You were that bully kid weren't you DOP? Yes, and the nerd can just blame himself, his parents or his religion, right? The bully kid picking on him has absolutely NO bearing on it? Being told you are the scum of the earth, in person and in the media day after day. Come on now, get a clue. This would piss off even the most zen of personalities. He meant the treatment that the Chinese and communist Americans recieved at that time in history. In Canada we stole all the assets of the Japanese and sent them to internment camps. This is the type of thing he was referring to. Clue in.

"Cuz weer Awmerrickawns! -- thu meenest durtyest rottenest sumbiches yooll evr meet" Right BC 2004?

Aras, I have always wondered if "arab-looking" Canadians experienced suspicion from others since 911. I guess so. And I find that sad. We only see the worst of Islam. It's all over the TV every day. Even fiction. CSI and the like have "terrorists" now instead of criminals. Muslims are vilified in the media. I can imagine that it would really piss a person off after a while! I have a friend in Iran who would like to come here to university. Would she be "under suspicion" because of her country of origin or her religion? I've spoken with her many times and have never noticed even a shred of "hatred" of any race, religion or country. Yet if she were here she would be expected to hate - we are taught that Islam equals hate. There are hateful people who are Muslim, and 911 being blamed on them, the conflict between Israel and Palestine, Pakistan and India, Turkey, etc. only add to the suspicion. Keep in mind, aras that I do not believe in religion and would like to see it eradicated from the earth. At the same time, I also believe that one religion or culture is not inherently better than another. (being that I can't eradicate religion I begrudgingly accept that it exists) While we in the west may be astounded that people would kill themselves, other cultures are equally astounded that we kill one another so wantonly. I am not saying it's right, just that it is. Aras has come here and he is deeply p'od. I suspect that he has chosen (correct me if I am wrong aras) the Israel/Palestine conflict because it is something he is familiar with more than others. (admit it, if you don't know anyone living/lived in the area you are spouting from your arm chair). I am not saying he is correct in his assumptions, nor correct in his manner. I am saying he is pissed because of his treatment and lashes out with the knowledge that he has. There are always more than one "version" of events. Those "on the top" will have a different version than those "on the bottom". (history is written by the victor). And yes it is true that, on this board and in this country, Israel/Jews are subtley considered "above reproach" when it comes to criticism. Aras, although your approach, with this very sensitive subject, is crude I can understand you wanting to know that others (Canadians, Americans) that don't believe every Muslim is a terrorist. I'm one of those. I believe each individual is a human first. Everything else is secondary.

This is why little "football" groupies will try their damndest to get pregnant by a player. Because his finances dictate that she will never have to work or worry about money again.

You missed MDancer's post.. the woman will tell the man she is on birthcontrol and that he need not use condoms... and bingo! pregnancy. I realize that pregnancy results in a cute, little baby that needs financial support. No, kids born in relationships are not "more deserving" than others -- quit trying to put words in my mouth. Women have more control over the birth or lackthereof of their children. Men have NO control whatsover whether or not they become a parent. The first choice (the choice to have sex) involves both the man and the woman. The woman then goes on to make that second choice. She chooses FOR HIM. He is just a bystander who has no leg to stand on during this decision making and he should not be forced to pay financially or emotionally for a decision he had no part in. (the first decision to have sex, had already been made) Like I said, what options does a man have? Besides abstinence or sterilization? Shall we tell all men to get sterilized or don't have sex just in case? What if he is 22 and might want children later on? Should he sacrifice any future children because he just "might" be on the hook after a night of fun? Regarding men's birth control... condoms fall off or break. Abstinence is no fun. Sterilization is a huge risk. Regarding women's birth control... combine the pill with the sponge with a condom and then take the morning after pill.

Yes the child is innocent. And lord knows we all want to look after innocent babies and make sure they are financially and emotionally safe. But it's the woman who makes the choice. If she is against abortion or adoption, she should be diligent. Like I've said women have myriad birth control options. Men have very few. I've seen MDancer's example in action many many times. I know many fathers who did not want kids but were "tricked" by women who did.

When the couple has been/is in a relationship. I am all for child support for children born as a result of a relationship. One night stands -- while both parties decide to have sex, the decision to keep or abort lies soley with the woman. And the man just waits by the sidelines to find out a. if he is going to be part of the child's life, b. if there is going to be a child at all, and c. how much he will have to pay for the next 20 years...

Send 'im to Rabble Hell! on the other hand we could send 'im to... Freedominion! They'd eat 'im alive for those comments. LOL

Therefore she should be diligent in being on birthcontrol and using it properly. This is also why she and she alone can decide what to do with the pregnancy. She CHOOSES to go through 9 1/2 months of pregnancy. SHE chooses whether or not the man becomes a father. Once again, she is the one who has to go through the pregnancy so she should be careful. There are tons of birthcontrol choices (that first decision to have sex) for women but few for men. Once again, the man cannot "walk away". He is forced to pay child support for a child he didn't want. On the same token he may lose a baby he wants as it is HER decision to keep it or not. The innocent child is brought into the world by a not-so-innocent woman who made the CHOICE to have sex and then made the CHOICE to allow the pregnancy to go to term. The man only has the choice in the beginning (and then there are precious few birthcontrol choices for men). And the woman has no control over who she sleeps with? No control over her sexuality? Come on now, AW women are not passive parties, they want sex that doesn't result in pregnancy too. Once again, there are very few methods of birth control available to men and many (I forgot too add the rhythm method used by women for millenia) for women. /She could've just shut her damn legs no? /sarcasm, sorry.

But he cannot "walk away". He is financially responsible whether or not he chooses to be a "dad" to the child. He does not have a say in whether the child is born or not. That decision is the woman's alone. But she has the second choice and he does not. If she chooses to have the child that is HER issue, she could choose not to and not have to raise the child. OR she could give it up for adoption. OR she could give it to the "father". She is not forced to abort, give birth or give it up. HE, however, IS forced to pay financially even if he does not want to. Forced by that second decision that he has absolutely no control over.

AW, I meant father as in biological father, not as in "dad". My son has a "father" but he is certainly not his "dad". Like I said a woman gets two choices -- the man only gets a choice only once. The choice whether or not to have sex. The woman has the power because she and she alone chooses whether or not this man will need to be responsible or not. Hubby and I had to drop the topic (it got really heated around the kitchen table today!) -- he was arguing that the man should take responsibility because he chose to have sex. What he is not understanding is that the woman ALSO chose to have sex. BUT she has a second choice and he does not. She can choose to carry the child or abort. He just blows in the wind, waiting for her to make the decision. IMO, If a woman does not believe in abortion, she should be extra diligent when having sex by utilizing more than one form of birth control. Women have many choices (can be used together) to prevent pregancy. 1. Abstinance 2. condoms 3. vaginal condoms 4. the sponge 5. IUD 6. the pill 7. the birth control shot 8. birth control patch 9. sterilization. Men have three choices 1. abstinance 2. condom 3. sterilization. So who again has more control over whether or not there will be a pregnancy? The woman of course. Who has control over whether or not the pregnancy goes to term and produces a baby? The woman of course. So there are the men blowing in the wind at the whim of a woman's decision.

The way I see it the woman has two sets of choices while the man has only one choice. Her first choice is whether or not to have sex. His first (and only) choice is whether or not to have sex. While she makes her second choice (abort or continue pregnancy), he blows in the wind with no control over her decision. He cannot force her to have the child nor can he force her to abort. Yet she CAN force him to be a father if she decides to keep the child. Yes, we women have the burden of aborting or carrying the child. Yes, women have the ultimate choice. Where does the man's choice come in? Why does he have to "blow in the wind" not knowing whether or not he will be a father? Either he has the power to decide if the child is born or not, or he doesn't. Cannot have it both ways. IMO men are left at the whim of the woman's decision.

I do not agree, it is the woman who must deal with aborting or being pregnant therefore she is the only one who can make the decision. I agree, he should be able to say "no thanks I do not want to be a father, so if you decide to go through with the pregnancy you are on your own". He should then be absolved of any financial or parental rights or responsibilites. The father does not carry or abort therefore he does not have a say. Sorry but that is life. BUT if he does not want the child, he should not be morally or financially responsible. Like I said, a one nighter is different than a couple in a relationship. The couple would discuss whether or not to go through with it and the complexities of doing so. With the one nighter the guy is like "WTF? I gotta pay this biatch the rest of my life?" Not fair. She makes the decision and he pays.

AW, the way I look at it is that the woman (who gets the shitty end of the stick regarding unwanted pregnancy) should be responsible for her own body. If she has the right to get rid of the fetus, the man should have the right not to pay for the child if the woman decides to have it. She has all the power and that is simply not *fair. We women want to be taken seriously, to be treated as equals. How can we do this if our decisions (to keep a child or to abort) directly impacts the man (who has no say whatsoever in whether of not the pregnancy goes to term)? How can we say on one hand that he has no control over whether the child is born or not, yet he must financially contribute if the woman decides to give birth? It is not fair, but it should be and we should work towards making it "fairer" to all parties (man, woman and child).

Well I guess you will hear it from me first then. I do not believe that a pregnancy resulting from a one-night stand should have the man "on the hook" financially for the child. If the woman wants to have the child then she should take on the responsibility herself. Child support should only come into play when the couple has been in a relationship. I think there would be alot more abortions, alot less single mothers and alot less men on the financial hook if this was enacted as law. That the woman would have to prove she and the guy were in a relationship and therefore both responsible for contraception. Or the man (if he wants her to give birth) should also have to prove they were in a relationship and that he will be financially responsible. You see Scott, I do believe the contraceptive onus is on the woman as she is the one who has to deal with the consequences of unprotected sex. If she goes for a one-nighter and gets pregnant, it's no one's fault but her own. Only spoiled (or stupid) little biatches believe they should be paid to get laid. (meaning child support not sex for money)

Answer the question MDancer... Are you willing to sign a paper and take on those unwanted babies? What onus do you put on yourself for forcing women to give birth? If not, then we know for sure that you talk big but act small. And how do you know you have never impregnated someone? How do you know for sure that some g/friend back in your youth didn't get pregnant and abort without your knowledge? What you don't know doesn't hurt you does it? Now you can go through life agonizing over all your young sexual exploits... I'm with Peter. It is a woman's decision alone. So if you had gotten a woman pregnant, it would not be your decision anyway. *I still believe in limits in number of abortions one person may have... and time limits on the procedure.

works for Bush and his regime. Why not use it. Personally I believe the earth is warming naturally -- that it is natural for the poles to be ice free every few hundred thousand years. The best we humans can do is adapt to the change.