lictor616

be carful to identify WHO you're quoting... the last 3 or 4 citations aren't mine...

what doesn't sit right? that I think it pitiable that heartless people are capable of bringing into the world unfortunate creatures like Julianna, who will never taste food, feel genuine love, feel included, be able to produce progeny? SHe will have to go through countless painful and useless surgeries, and under constant doses of hard medication to keep her going... really look at her! Can you really be so blind as to not see that Julianna is hopeless? Have some mercy... let her have dignity.

nigeria is not challenging anything... its choosing between china and the US... and nigeria truly is a cesspit of dearth: http://earthtrends.wri.org/povlinks/country/nigeria.php

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...ingarrests.html here's one... but don't pretend like your not playing dumb...

I also said above that my heart ached at the thought of her plight and suffering... does it have to be for one reason only? DO I have to choose between doing the right thing and "putting an unfortunate child out of its misery" OR "saving money" to put to better use? Why can't it be for both reasons?

THEN DON'T POST SILLY! if you don't agree with the topic and have nothing substantive to say ... then why dirty another comment slot? stay quiet ! they did afflict her! they allowed their sickly and irremediably handicapped child to live a life utterly without dignity or happiness. if you see a deer that has just been hit by car, writhing in agony and pain on the ground... with no hope of living a normal life, do you simply maintain that "it's that animal'S life and freedom I have no right to intervene"... or do you mercifully put a bullet in its head? have you no pity?

Yeah Dancer... i mean of course i'm a crazed conspiracy nut for claiming that Rothschild is a jewish banking family... and that the chairmen of the federal reserve have been jewish since the 20's. again your rejections out of hand don't impose on anyone...

snip Aftermath "After 1971, when all had settled down, the Malaysian government was able to follow an affirmative action policy marked particularly by the New Economic Policy (NEP) favouring the Malays. To this day, there is still an unease about the potential of violence as the power struggles between groups continue". I'm not sure how this is supporting the view that racial diversity is some sort of strength for Singapore... again... if you delve into the facts you find that racial diversity is a source of weakness and a liability... not a strength. !? What in the world are you talking about with "nigerians" as the "new jews"? Nigeria is a howling cesspit of savagery and dearth... and Uganda despite what you say about blacks being wrongly stereotyped as raucous savages... still have cannibalistic cults. how any of this is supporting the view that diversity is some sort of strength ... is a mystery to me...

lol I actually wrote it on another forum... jeez sorry about that, ignore that utterly.

mercy in this case would be the OPPOSITE of what you're alluding to... and actually letting Julianna go peacefully and with dignity. once again... you're 180 degrees in the wrong direction... the contrary of what you say is true.

hey I wrote that where did my quote go?

I don't know how you could have failed to notice that in this instance racial diversity was responsible for a huge problem... and offered no advantages.. and also there were no affirmative action type policies enacted... of the only advantage to diversity is that it doesn't do a country any bad... and it doesn't do a country any good.. then it is at the very best.. USELESS..... some strength! lol minorities are prone to crime and need institutional racism like affirmative action... that's the advantage of diversity? very little for me please.. you can keep your "advantages"

Jesus also never existed... another swing and miss from charter...

The human genus is not at all different, except that it has by intelligence obtained the ability to destroy most of its non-human enemies, and is menaced chiefly by predators of its own specie. To weed out detrimental members to a society is a essential, but a civilized society, by collectively assuming responsibility for the survival of its members, protects individuals from a need to fight for themselves, and thus permits the thoughtless to entertain illusions about the world and to imagine that the precarious security given them by the nation is something that occurs automatically and that they can abuse and exploit at will. We are as much as part of nature as animals... we are subject to its very same rules. In this case we know that Julianna's environment is far too much for her to handle.

as marxism is designed to appeal to the inferior's resentment of his betters... marxism is an appeal to maliable people. Communism is 100% hot air and emotionally based... yet you have no problem embracing it as your religion.

Are you saying that the less choice and difference there is in presidential elections the better? anyway... since when are the republicans not the same as the democrats? both parties have been indistinguishable since the late 60's every election republicans try to out-democrat the democrats.... such is "democracy" in the country that free men once founded... but it now lost. democracy in the US is factitious choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

well again, these countries were only racist when they were in contact with OTHER NATIONS... you fail to grasp that without proximity or interference or mixing... none of this racism is possible.

In canada about, 23% of advertisements actors are black or mulatto... yet blacks constitute perhaps 2.3% of the total population of canada... a major over-representation. By and large affirmative action has nothing to do with ethnic makeup, which would be bad enough since in essence this would still be institutional racism... and please don't tell me that displacing people to include blacks SOLELY because of their race is not barefaced racism that absolutely DOES negatively affect people. In essence you're okay with a system that puts a black in a position (of employment or other) simply to fill some quota ? Never mind that you would never be for it if it were used by white people... lets say a public institution for some reason gets to be 34% asian and 40% black... would you be okay with displacing 10 to20% asians and blacks to put in white people to "reflect the ethnic makeup" of our society... of course not!

laughable, how can a country that is 99.7+% homogeneous have "racism"? Logically it cannot, racism can only happen when people of different races try to live in the same nation... How could a Japanese person discriminate against someone of the exact same ethnicity, culture and race? So again, racism is a non-issue in Japanese society.... sure Japan may retain a very low opinion of Blacks and other minorities... but, as rational people... they don't try to live with them or interfere with their lives... they are intelligent enough to know that sepeartion and non-intervention make the best neighbors. Japanese may think of Europeans as a little crazy, and maybe stupid... but that doesn't concern them because nearly none are in their midsts... White people are only people with whom they trade... that's all...

Japan would have done NO SUCH thing... they would have never permitted any resident non-japanese in their homeland... and they would have perhaps tolerated under a hazardous compassion the millions of non-japanese in their empire.

canada is 92% "white" btw.... And im sorry, could point out what specific strength is provided to the economy when a country has "diversity"? It seems that the examples you give (Qatar of all places) and Singapore... are pretty incidentally well off... Singapore is majority Asian (northern, south east), Indian and European... They do not have any crime prone minorities, and aren't helped at all by their diversity, in fact any economic report from Singapore will tell you that linguistic diversity alone is a huge cost to business that doesn't really help the economy in any way...

King's Trouble with the Law Prior to His Beating July 27, 1987: According to a complaint filed by his wife, King beat her while she was sleeping, then dragged her outside the house and beat her again. King was charged with battery and pleaded "no contest." He was placed on probation and ordered to obtain counseling. He never got the counseling. November 3, 1989: King, brandishing a tire iron, ordered a convenience store clerk to empty the cash register. The clerk grabbed the tire iron, causing King to fall backwards and knock over a pie rack. King swung the rack at the clerk and fled the store with $200. King was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon, second-degree robbery, and intent to commit great bodily injury. In a plea agreement, King pleaded guilty to the robbery charge and the other charges were dropped. He was sentenced to two years in prison, but was paroled on December 27, 1990. The Arrest of Rodney King on March 3, 1991 March 3, 1991: After being seen speeding on the 210 freeway by CHP officers, King led them on a chase at speeds estimated at up to 110 to 115 mph. When finally stopped, King refused requests to get into the prone position and appeared to charge one of the officers. He was beaten and arrested. King was charged with felony evading. Charges were later dropped. King's 3/3/91 Arrest Record (and people wonder why he was assaulted by the police!! its almost surrealistic) King's Trouble with the Law After March 3, 1991 May 11, 1991: King was pulled over for having an excessively tinted windshield. Although King was driving without a license and his car registration had expired, King was not charged. May 28, 1991: King picked up a transvestite prostitute in Hollywood who happened to be under surveillance by LAPD officers. King and the prostitute were observed in an alley engaging in sexual activity. When the prostitute spotted the officers, King sped away, nearly hitting one of them. King later explained that he thought the vice officers were robbers trying to kill him. No charges were filed. June 26, 1992: King's second wife reported to police that King had hit her and she feared for her life. King was handcuffed and taken to a police station, but his wife then decided against pressing charges. July 16, 1992: King was arrested at 1:40 A.M. for driving while intoxicated. No charges were filed. August 21, 1993: King crashed into a wall near a downtown Los Angeles nightclub. He had a blood alcohol level of 0.19. King was charged with violating his parole and sent for sixty day to an alcohol treatment center. He was also convicted on the DUI charge and ordered to perform twenty days of community service. May 21, 1995: King was arrested for DUI while on a trip to Pennsylvania. King failed field sobriety tests, but refused to submit to a blood test. He was tried and acquitted. July 14, 1995: King got into an argument with his wife while he was driving, pulled off the freeway and ordered her out of the car. When she started to get out, King sped off, leaving her on the highway with a bruised arm. King was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (his car), reckless driving, spousal abuse, and hit-and-run. King was tried on all four charges, but found guilty only of hit-and-run driving. March 3, 1999: King allegedly injured the sixteen-year-old girl that he had fathered out of wedlock when he was seventeen, as well as the girl's mother. King was arrested for injuring the woman, the girl, and for vandalizing property. King claimed that the incident was simply "a family misunderstanding." September 29, 2001: King was arrested for indecent exposure and use of the hallucinogenic drug PCP. In addition, there are other variables that need to be kept in mind as well, such as his serious drinking problem. According to King's parole officer Tim Fowler, King (left) was "a basically decent guy with borderline intelligence.... His problem was alcoholism." Let's get something straight right now. Alcoholism was not and is not an excuse; all it did was merely give him permission to do what he did. When the vehicle finally stopped, King failed to assume the prone position as directed by police. Sergeant Stacy Koon, the supervising officer at the scene of the arrest sized up King's "buffed-out" appearance to be suggestive of an ex-convict who had worked extensively with prison weights and as such, correctly presumed King to be dangerous. Prior to the fateful night in 1991 that was forever immortalized on tape, King's arrest record was already well documented. In his first public display as a "real man" back in July 1987, King was arrested for beating up his wife while she was sleeping, dragged her outside and then put on a show for the neighbors and beat her up some more. Charged with battery, he pleaded "no contest", was placed on probation and ordered to get counseling. Suffice it to say, he never got the counseling. After a convenience store robbery in November 1989, King was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, Robbery 2, and intent to commit great bodily injury. In a plea agreement, King pleaded guilty to the robbery charge and the other charges were dropped. He was sentenced to two years in prison, but was paroled just over a year later. On March 3, 1991 - the night that everyone most associates with Rodney King, he reportedly charged the officers, and that is what led the officers to forcibly restrain him in the manner they did. Charged with felony evasion, that charge was later dropped. On May 11, 1991, King was pulled over for having an excessively tinted windshield. Despite having no driver's license and an expired registration, King was let go. Seventeen days later - on May 28th, King picked up a transvestite hooker and was being observed by LAPD undercovers having "illegal" sexual activity. When the hookers "made" the cops, King sped away and nearly ran down the vice squad. Explaining that he feared the vice cops were out to kill him, again, no charges were filed. June 26th 1992 - King's second wife called police saying he hit her and that she feared for her safety. Handcuffed and taken to the station, his wife later declined to press charges and he was let go. July 16th - same year - 20 days later, King is arrested for driving while intoxicated. No charges filed. In August of 1993, King crashed his car into a nightclub. Arrested again for driving while drunk, he blew a 0.19 into the meter, more than twice the legal limit. Busted for violating his parole, he spent 60 days in rehab and was given 20 days of community service. May 1995 - King is arrested - AGAIN - while enroute to Pennsylvania for driving while intoxicated. Failing his field sobriety test, he refuses to take a blood test and is acquitted in trial. See a common thread here? Less than two months later - July 1995 - Rodney King got into an argument with his wife while driving, pulled off the freeway and ordered her out of the car. When she started to get out, King sped off, leaving her on the highway with a bruised arm. King was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (the car), reckless driving, spousal abuse, and hit-and-run. King was tried on all four charges, but found guilty only of hit-and-run driving. Both this conviction and a subsequent one later on would each give him 90-day sentences in the local lock-up. In March 1999, King allegedly injured the sixteen-year-old girl that he fathered out of wedlock when he was seventeen, as well as the girl's mother. King was arrested for injuring the woman, the girl, and for vandalizing property. King claimed that the incident was simply "a family misunderstanding." - This fould criminal piece of filth remmber was awarded 3.8 MILLION DOLLARS after the incident... so please don't give me the liberal excuse that he was desperate and poor, and that social conditions made him act the way he did.. the man was simply a born criminal... to excuse such a person.... even to make him some sort of hero... is simply grotesque.

snip---- lictor616 Yesterday, 04:35 PM Post #10 Full Member Group: Members Posts: 1376 Joined: 21-March 09 Member No.: 4805 QUOTE (American Woman @ Oct 24 2009, 03:43 PM) I happen to agree with you. It's why I support Latimer. He didn't want his daughter to live a life of pain; a life most would consider not worth living. But I'm not sure what you're getting at with this thread. You think the parents made the wrong decision, but it's a free world. They had the right to bring her to life. What's wrong is that people are tying to take away freedoms; the right to decide otherwise. But again, for the sake of clarification, you're not suggesting forced abortions, are you? "I'm suggesting we stop respecting religion and deal away with political correctness. These kinds of situations can only happen to minds that have been blighted and crippled by the nonsensical cant of modern liberalism and egalitarian brainwashing. our strange toleration for these death cults is what's at fault here. "

we can be sure that any action taken by this administration will be designed to injure in some way the american people... possibly the whole world... our Orwellian nightmare seems to be upon us..

I'm suggesting we stop respecting religion and deal away with political correctness. These kinds of situations can only happen to minds that have been blighted and crippled by the nonsensical cant of modern liberalism and egalitarian brainwashing. our strange toleration for these death cults is what's at fault here.