Posted June 6, 200816 yr Ammy's is old German slang for Americans. Americans are, in a nutshell, scum. However, not all Americans are scum. Some are actually pretty cool. America formed when some guys thought that those English fags were being bastards, so some guys got together, wrote up a constitution and a declaration of independence, started a revolutionary war, and won independence. America started to rapidly grow, through luck, into a world superpower.Then president Wilson came. He passed an amendment to the USA constitution that legalized a federal income tax. Up until this time, USA farmers made large profits off of their products. With this new federal income tax, most farmers that had previously made lots of money, usually found themselves broke even at the end of a year. Wilson, in fact, when asked on his deathbed about income tax, said, "Oh my God, what have I done to our country?". America then experienced it's stock market crash of 1929, followed by years of poverty. Then FDR came along and started to establish many communistic institutions e.g. social security, federal department of agriculture, CCC, etc. this was easy because of the working class's desparation. I hate the average American because they are incompetent tv-addicted fools that are up to their eyeballs in debt. The married couples usually have no devotion to each other, and will easily partake in a sexual affair. The Americans call themselves a "Christian nation", however, the Christian book of Matthew tells all Christians to not practice usury, which is the lending or borrowing of money with an attached interest payment. Despite this, many self-proclaimed "Christians" will take out loans, even though it is not necessary. You do NOT need a loan for college or a house. If you are college material, you will acquire a scholarship or dip into your life savings. For a house, you can rent a house, or rent an apartment. Typical American women will fuck the next biggest dick they can find. America used to be full of bad-asses, until recently. Now, nearly every American is a pussy. Not all Americans are pussies, but most are. add to my flame if you please =)
June 6, 200816 yr Author i see no troll. I am simply stating my observations. Furthermore, i think your typing in all caps and accusing me of trolling are sure sings of rage. Perhaps you fit some of the descriptions in my first post. Edited June 6, 200816 yr by captainamerica
June 6, 200816 yr I also believe there is too much government (Australia). The bigger problem is that it seems to be getting bigger and bigger. To pay for this endless expansion of the role of governtment they invent new taxes and laws to fine us on. Like 2hr parking in the city, wtf, reeeeeeeeh. In Australia, we have 3 levels of government (local, state and national). Why not just have one level?. America seems much worse from what I have seen. They have CIA, NCIS, JAG, COPS (police), NSA ,Men in black (MIBS),Deparment of fisheries, Department of homeland security(LOL), Texas Rangers (Chuck Norris)............just to name a few. IMO get rid of all government except the military and immigration. Everything else should be privately owned and runned with minimum oversight.
June 6, 200816 yr Maybe it is just me, but it seems that everything in this country is going haywire. More and more we are being conditioned as a society to accept the demise of certain values that we have always held dear. I pick up the newspaper and read about sexual orientation being taught in the classrooms. It is nothing to hear about a famous actress or entertainer and her boyfriend expecting a baby with no mention of marriage. Music videos are abundant depicting women as objects, and women appearing to accept and enjoy the role. Our little girls are becoming worldly years before their time. An article that I read today, added to my woes. It was a little political in nature, however it resonated with me because it is something that I have observed myself. Harold Myerson of the Washington Post reports that as conservatives tell the tale, the decline of the American family, the rise in divorce rates, the number of children born out of wedlock all can be traced to the pernicious influence of one decade in American history: the '60s. He states that in Saturday's Post, reporter Blaine Harden took a hard look at the erosion of what we have long taken to be the model American family -- married couples with children -- and discovered that while this decline hasn't really afflicted college-educated professionals, it is the curse of the working class. The percentage of households that are married couples with children has hit an all-time low (at least, the lowest since the Census Bureau started measuring such things): 23.7 percent. That's about half the level that marrieds-with-children constituted at the end of the Ozzie-and-Harriet '50s. Which may explain why the Ozzie and Harriet family -- modified by feminism, since Harriet now holds down a job, too -- still rolls along within the upper-middle class but has become much harder to find in working-class America, where cohabitation without marriage has increasingly become the norm. Taking into account all households, married couples with children are twice as likely to be in the top 20 percent of incomes, Harden reported. Their incomes have increased 59 percent over the past 30 years, while households overall have experienced just a 44 percent increase. Myerson continues by stating that to be sure, the '60s, with its assaults on traditional authority, played some role in weakening the traditional family. But its message was sounded loudest and clearest on elite college campuses, whose graduates were nonetheless the group most likely to have stable marriages. Then again, they were also the group most likely to have stable careers. They enjoyed financial stability; they could plan for the future. Such was not the case for working-class Americans. Over the past 35 years, the massive changes in the U.S. economy have largely condemned American workers to lives of economic insecurity. No longer can the worker count on a steady job for a single employer who provides a paycheck and health and retirement benefits, too. Over the past three decades, workers' individual annual income fluctuations have consistently increased, while their aggregate income has stagnated. In the brave new economy of outsourced jobs and short-term gigs and on-again, off-again health coverage, American workers cannot rationally plan their economic futures. And with each passing year, as their level of economic security declines, so does their entry into marriage. The right-wing ideologues who have championed outsourcing, offshoring and union-busting, who have celebrated the same changes that have condemned American workers to lives of financial instability, piously lament the decline of family stability that has followed these economic changes as the night the day. American conservatism is a house divided against itself. It applauds the radicalism of the economic changes of the past four decades -- the dismantling, say, of the American steel industry (and the job and income security that it once provided) in the cause of greater efficiency. It decries the decline of social and familial stability over that time -- the traditional, married working-class families, say, that once filled all those churches in the hills and hollows in what is now the smaller, post-working-class Pittsburgh. Problem is, Myerson points out, disperse a vibrant working-class community in America and you disperse the vibrant working-class family. Which is how American conservatism became the primary author of the very social disorder that it routinely rails against, and that Republicans have the gall to run against. Myerson ends the article by saying, "The party of family values? Please. If that's the banner that Republicans continue to wave, then they should certainly make Rudy Giuliani, who couldn't bestir himself to attend his son's high school graduation or his daughter's high school plays, their presidential nominee. No candidate could better personify the sham that is Republicans' and conservatives' concern for the American family. So goes the party of family values.
June 6, 200816 yr Maybe it is just me, but it seems that everything in this country is going haywire. More and more we are being conditioned as a society to accept the demise of certain values that we have always held dear. I pick up the newspaper and read about sexual orientation being taught in the classrooms. It is nothing to hear about a famous actress or entertainer and her boyfriend expecting a baby with no mention of marriage. Music videos are abundant depicting women as objects, and women appearing to accept and enjoy the role. Our little girls are becoming worldly years before their time. An article that I read today, added to my woes. It was a little political in nature, however it resonated with me because it is something that I have observed myself. Harold Myerson of the Washington Post reports that as conservatives tell the tale, the decline of the American family, the rise in divorce rates, the number of children born out of wedlock all can be traced to the pernicious influence of one decade in American history: the '60s. He states that in Saturday's Post, reporter Blaine Harden took a hard look at the erosion of what we have long taken to be the model American family -- married couples with children -- and discovered that while this decline hasn't really afflicted college-educated professionals, it is the curse of the working class. The percentage of households that are married couples with children has hit an all-time low (at least, the lowest since the Census Bureau started measuring such things): 23.7 percent. That's about half the level that marrieds-with-children constituted at the end of the Ozzie-and-Harriet '50s. Which may explain why the Ozzie and Harriet family -- modified by feminism, since Harriet now holds down a job, too -- still rolls along within the upper-middle class but has become much harder to find in working-class America, where cohabitation without marriage has increasingly become the norm. Taking into account all households, married couples with children are twice as likely to be in the top 20 percent of incomes, Harden reported. Their incomes have increased 59 percent over the past 30 years, while households overall have experienced just a 44 percent increase. Myerson continues by stating that to be sure, the '60s, with its assaults on traditional authority, played some role in weakening the traditional family. But its message was sounded loudest and clearest on elite college campuses, whose graduates were nonetheless the group most likely to have stable marriages. Then again, they were also the group most likely to have stable careers. They enjoyed financial stability; they could plan for the future. Such was not the case for working-class Americans. Over the past 35 years, the massive changes in the U.S. economy have largely condemned American workers to lives of economic insecurity. No longer can the worker count on a steady job for a single employer who provides a paycheck and health and retirement benefits, too. Over the past three decades, workers' individual annual income fluctuations have consistently increased, while their aggregate income has stagnated. In the brave new economy of outsourced jobs and short-term gigs and on-again, off-again health coverage, American workers cannot rationally plan their economic futures. And with each passing year, as their level of economic security declines, so does their entry into marriage. The right-wing ideologues who have championed outsourcing, offshoring and union-busting, who have celebrated the same changes that have condemned American workers to lives of financial instability, piously lament the decline of family stability that has followed these economic changes as the night the day. American conservatism is a house divided against itself. It applauds the radicalism of the economic changes of the past four decades -- the dismantling, say, of the American steel industry (and the job and income security that it once provided) in the cause of greater efficiency. It decries the decline of social and familial stability over that time -- the traditional, married working-class families, say, that once filled all those churches in the hills and hollows in what is now the smaller, post-working-class Pittsburgh. Problem is, Myerson points out, disperse a vibrant working-class community in America and you disperse the vibrant working-class family. Which is how American conservatism became the primary author of the very social disorder that it routinely rails against, and that Republicans have the gall to run against. Myerson ends the article by saying, "The party of family values? Please. If that's the banner that Republicans continue to wave, then they should certainly make Rudy Giuliani, who couldn't bestir himself to attend his son's high school graduation or his daughter's high school plays, their presidential nominee. No candidate could better personify the sham that is Republicans' and conservatives' concern for the American family. So goes the party of family values. copy/paste http://www.blogonevoice.com/2007/03/the_american_fa.html
June 7, 200816 yr At least they don`t let muslims do whatever the fuck they want unlike us. Other than that, yeah, americans= cocksmugglers
June 7, 200816 yr At least they don`t let muslims do whatever the fuck they want unlike us. Other than that, yeah, americans= cocksmugglers K YOU EARNED IT PUNK
June 7, 200816 yr This letter is going to be a book of revelations to many readers. In particular, many will be surprised to learn that I am horrified by Mr. Captain America's devotion to the idea of a benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite. In the first place, Captain's statements are not witty satire, as he would have you believe. They're simply the intolerant ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking. Captain doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. Captain always cavils at my attempts to challenge his apolaustic assumptions about merit. That's probably because untrustworthy mafia dons in general, and Captain in particular, intend to marginalize the traditions and truths upon which our nation's greatness sits. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that I've heard him say that he can walk on water. Was that just a slip of the lip, or is Captain secretly trying to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of his catty, obstreperous précis? The answer is rather depressing but I'll tell you anyway. The answer begins with the observation that I don't just want to make a point. I don't just want to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. I'm here to give an alternate solution, a better one. I don't just ask rhetorical questions; I have answers. That's why I'm telling you that Captain needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake up and realize that he, with his craftiness and gin-swilling press releases, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches by the next full moon. He will then use those riches to formulate social policies and action programs based on the most vexatious classes of phallocentrism in existence. The moral of this story is that he yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Captain, "attract attention" usually implies "grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly parasitic ways to trick academics into abandoning the principles of scientific inquiry". Be always mindful that we must draw the line somewhere. Let me recap that for you because it really is extraordinarily important: Captain would not hesitate to lionize repulsive, frightful rabble-rousers if he felt he could benefit from doing so. To state it in stark and simple terms, he recently got caught red-handed trying to provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say. While this country still has far to go before people are truly judged on the content of their character, purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Captain's unbridled sound bites. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how Captain has no conception of our moral and ethical standards. Still, I recommend you check out some of Captain's tricks and draw your own conclusions on the matter. Considering that Captain respects nothing, honors nothing, and values nothing beyond himself, I offer that I have never been in favor of being gratuitously foolish. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to create and nurture a true spirit of community. He has the nerve to call those of us who open students' eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them "conspiracy theorists". No, we're "conspiracy revealers" because we reveal that Captain is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how bad-tempered Captain is. You can't do it. Not only that, but I call upon him to stop his oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon him to be a man of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon him to forgo his desire to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue. Captain is absolutely determined to believe that his editorials provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. Don't give his jibes a credibility they don't deserve. Perhaps if he thought about it, he'd realize that his artifices have reached a depth of degeneracy that was virtually unknown in the past. No joke. A recent series of hearings, lawsuits, and media reports demonstrates that Captain, already oppressive with his vindictive, fastidious accusations, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought then consider that the falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. When he made his puppy-dog torchbearers wag their little tails by promising to let them progressively enlarge and increasingly centralize the means of oppression, exploitation, violence, and destruction, I realized for the first time that all the deals Captain makes are strictly one-way. Captain gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. The "facts" he has often stated contain some serious distortions. Some are blatant; others are subtle. One of the most uncontrollable is his discussion of litigious, lamebrained prophets of authoritarianism. We should treat Mr. Captain America's mingy den of thieves for what it is, a disorganized group of effete libertines. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.
June 8, 200816 yr This letter is going to be a book of revelations to many readers. In particular, many will be surprised to learn that I am horrified by Mr. Captain America's devotion to the idea of a benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite. In the first place, Captain's statements are not witty satire, as he would have you believe. They're simply the intolerant ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking. Captain doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. Captain always cavils at my attempts to challenge his apolaustic assumptions about merit. That's probably because untrustworthy mafia dons in general, and Captain in particular, intend to marginalize the traditions and truths upon which our nation's greatness sits. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that I've heard him say that he can walk on water. Was that just a slip of the lip, or is Captain secretly trying to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of his catty, obstreperous précis? The answer is rather depressing but I'll tell you anyway. The answer begins with the observation that I don't just want to make a point. I don't just want to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. I'm here to give an alternate solution, a better one. I don't just ask rhetorical questions; I have answers. That's why I'm telling you that Captain needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake up and realize that he, with his craftiness and gin-swilling press releases, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches by the next full moon. He will then use those riches to formulate social policies and action programs based on the most vexatious classes of phallocentrism in existence. The moral of this story is that he yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Captain, "attract attention" usually implies "grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly parasitic ways to trick academics into abandoning the principles of scientific inquiry". Be always mindful that we must draw the line somewhere. Let me recap that for you because it really is extraordinarily important: Captain would not hesitate to lionize repulsive, frightful rabble-rousers if he felt he could benefit from doing so. To state it in stark and simple terms, he recently got caught red-handed trying to provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say. While this country still has far to go before people are truly judged on the content of their character, purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Captain's unbridled sound bites. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how Captain has no conception of our moral and ethical standards. Still, I recommend you check out some of Captain's tricks and draw your own conclusions on the matter. Considering that Captain respects nothing, honors nothing, and values nothing beyond himself, I offer that I have never been in favor of being gratuitously foolish. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to create and nurture a true spirit of community. He has the nerve to call those of us who open students' eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them "conspiracy theorists". No, we're "conspiracy revealers" because we reveal that Captain is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how bad-tempered Captain is. You can't do it. Not only that, but I call upon him to stop his oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon him to be a man of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon him to forgo his desire to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue. Captain is absolutely determined to believe that his editorials provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. Don't give his jibes a credibility they don't deserve. Perhaps if he thought about it, he'd realize that his artifices have reached a depth of degeneracy that was virtually unknown in the past. No joke. A recent series of hearings, lawsuits, and media reports demonstrates that Captain, already oppressive with his vindictive, fastidious accusations, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought then consider that the falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. When he made his puppy-dog torchbearers wag their little tails by promising to let them progressively enlarge and increasingly centralize the means of oppression, exploitation, violence, and destruction, I realized for the first time that all the deals Captain makes are strictly one-way. Captain gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. The "facts" he has often stated contain some serious distortions. Some are blatant; others are subtle. One of the most uncontrollable is his discussion of litigious, lamebrained prophets of authoritarianism. We should treat Mr. Captain America's mingy den of thieves for what it is, a disorganized group of effete libertines. Period, finis, and Q.E.D. tl;dr: :sleep2:
June 8, 200816 yr http://peoplesgeography.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/arab-quisling-with-us-mouth-kerchief.jpg http://www.dvfer.com/galeria/jornais/islam/economist/original/eurabia.jpg
June 8, 200816 yr In December of 1998, the House impeached President Bill Clinton on charges that he had lied under oath and obstructed justice in order to conceal his past sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. From the time accusations were first made against Clinton in early 1998 until he was finally acquitted by the Senate in February 1999, the scandal drew a frenzy of media attention. News shows provided 24-hour coverage, The Starr Report disclosed intimate details about the affair, and Lewinsky’s photograph was a ubiquitous sight. Opinion polls offer an intriguing glimpse at the public’s reaction to Clinton’s behavior. Most Americans—70 percent as of August 1998—felt that the president lacked high ethical or moral standards. However, a December 1998 Gallup poll conducted during the impeachment proceedings found that Clinton’s approval rating was at 73 percent, the highest of his presidency. According to a Washington Post poll, half of Americans agreed that as long as the president does a good job, “whatever he does in his personal life is not important.” Some analysts say that the public’s reluctance to judge Clinton’s behavior is symptomatic of society’s moral relativism— the belief that morality is a matter of individual choice. John F. Kavanaugh, who teaches ethics and religion at St. Louis University, summarizes moral relativism as the attitude that “Who can be so arrogant as to tell others that they are right or wrong?” Critics assert that the philosophy of moral relativism, because it refuses to support definite moral rules, makes it difficult for people to condemn any behavior, no matter how evil. Philosophy professor Francis Beckwith writes that “If . . . moral and religious life is only a matter of personal tastes, preferences, and orientations . . . , then we cannot tell young people it’s wrong to lie, steal, cheat, abuse drugs, or kill their newborns.” Furthermore, claim Beckwith and others, moral relativism depends on the belief that God does not exist. As writer Cheryl Borrowdale explains, “Most major world religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, traditionally rely on the supposition that God exists and has set forth moral rules. If, however, God has set forth moral rules, then morality cannot be relative.” According to critics of moral relativism, the laws set down by God provide a code of morality that is absolute and unwavering. Writer John Hamerlinck contends that relativists are not atheists, but simply believe that moral issues have few absolutes. He offers one scenario as evidence that morality depends upon circumstances: Suppose a murderer were stalking your friend—should you lie to the murderer about your friend’s whereabouts? Hamerlinck asks: “How many people, Christian or otherwise, would not lie in that situation? Is lying therefore an absolute moral wrong? No, because ethics are inescapably situational. Although there is general agreement across the ideological spectrum that lying is wrong, there are still situations in which it is the morally correct thing to do.” The contrasting philosophies of morality posed by scholars such as Beckwith and Hamerlinck play a role in a wide spectrum of issues. For example, on the issue of sexuality, moral absolutists argue that homosexuality, premarital sex, and adultery are always wrong, since they are prohibited by the Bible, while moral relativists believe that sexuality is a question of personal choice and that individuals are accountable to their own consciences. While individuals ultimately decide what ethical system, if any, they choose to follow, society plays a strong role in determining which values are upheld and which are discouraged. The authors of American Values: Opposing Viewpoints, in the chapters What Values Should America Uphold? Is America in Moral Decline? How Do the Media Influence American Values? and What Measures Would Improve American Values?, provide a variety of perspectives on the state of moral values in American society.
June 8, 200816 yr In December of 1998, the House impeached President Bill Clinton on charges that he had lied under oath and obstructed justice in order to conceal his past sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. From the time accusations were first made against Clinton in early 1998 until he was finally acquitted by the Senate in February 1999, the scandal drew a frenzy of media attention. News shows provided 24-hour coverage, The Starr Report disclosed intimate details about the affair, and Lewinsky’s photograph was a ubiquitous sight. Opinion polls offer an intriguing glimpse at the public’s reaction to Clinton’s behavior. Most Americans—70 percent as of August 1998—felt that the president lacked high ethical or moral standards. However, a December 1998 Gallup poll conducted during the impeachment proceedings found that Clinton’s approval rating was at 73 percent, the highest of his presidency. According to a Washington Post poll, half of Americans agreed that as long as the president does a good job, “whatever he does in his personal life is not important.” Some analysts say that the public’s reluctance to judge Clinton’s behavior is symptomatic of society’s moral relativism— the belief that morality is a matter of individual choice. John F. Kavanaugh, who teaches ethics and religion at St. Louis University, summarizes moral relativism as the attitude that “Who can be so arrogant as to tell others that they are right or wrong?” Critics assert that the philosophy of moral relativism, because it refuses to support definite moral rules, makes it difficult for people to condemn any behavior, no matter how evil. Philosophy professor Francis Beckwith writes that “If . . . moral and religious life is only a matter of personal tastes, preferences, and orientations . . . , then we cannot tell young people it’s wrong to lie, steal, cheat, abuse drugs, or kill their newborns.” Furthermore, claim Beckwith and others, moral relativism depends on the belief that God does not exist. As writer Cheryl Borrowdale explains, “Most major world religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, traditionally rely on the supposition that God exists and has set forth moral rules. If, however, God has set forth moral rules, then morality cannot be relative.” According to critics of moral relativism, the laws set down by God provide a code of morality that is absolute and unwavering. Writer John Hamerlinck contends that relativists are not atheists, but simply believe that moral issues have few absolutes. He offers one scenario as evidence that morality depends upon circu? No, because ethics are inescapably situational. Although there is general agreement across the ideological spectrum that lying is wrong, there are still situations in which it is the morally correct thing to do.” The contrasting philosophies of morality posed by scholars such as Beckwith and Hamerlinck play a role in a wide spectrum of issues. For example, on the issue of sexuality, moral absolutists argue that homosexuality, premarital sex, and adultery are always wrong, since they are prohibited by the Bible, while moral relativists believe that sexuality is a question of personal choice and that individuals are accountable to their own consciences. While individuals ultimately decide what ethical system, if any, they choose to follow, society plays a strong role in determining which Would Improve American Values?, provide a variety of perspectives on the state of moral values in American society. Pro-Life. Such a small word, with that awkward hyphen, and yet it is a word that is made of layers of meanings and different connotations, like the petals of the rose that is its symbol. Say that you are pro-life among some of the people I know, and they will spring at your throat, claws extended, ready to tear all that you may believe to shreds. Other people smile condescendingly, whip out their label-maker and stroll on, leaving you behind with "IDEALIST" stamped on your forehead. Some will argue intelligently with you about pros and cons, admitting at least that your opinion is valid. A few will tell you that you are right, and then pull dynamite out of their pockets and say, "Which clinic first?" Maybe several will tell you that they are pro-life too, and then turn back to their papers, where they decide how best to exploit the poor of Nicaragua, or execute the condemned criminal. And finally, having torn all of these dried, dying petals from the rose, you reach the living rose, the people who are at the heart of the movement, those who will kneel down with you and bind the wounds of a bleeding world. The people who struggle sincerely to make the word "pro-life" their way of life are a motley crew, drawn from many different faiths and viewpoints. For me, however, being pro-life is the same as being Catholic. When I say that I stand for the right to life, it is as much of a lifelong commitment and challenge as it is to say that I stand forever as a Christian. In the deepest part of my soul, I believe in the indestructible humanity of the unborn child, the criminal, the elderly person, the suffering. That precious humanity cannot be removed under any circumstances because my God’s incredible love thrives in every living soul; his fingerprints are impressed on humanity. Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago once spoke of the necessity to honor "the seamless fabric of life." That seamless fabric is a complex weave of billions of souls, each born with a purpose and vocation, each worthy of honor and love. I have founded that the sanctity of life has nothing to do with my opinions or with society’s perception of the value of an individual life. It has everything to do with a person who is very much wanted in the world by the creator of that world. I understood for the first time how little the beautiful mystery of life has to do with any power that I might possess to proclaim it when I participated in a Pro-Life Youth Rally sponsored by the Diocese of Arlington. The diocese had invited a musician named Bob Rice to come and play at the rally. I remember how I stood with my friends in the pro-life club, laughing as we struggled to master the hand motions that were meant to accompany one of the songs. We were still suppressing smiles when the musician slowed down the music and strummed his guitar gently until the auditorium was quiet. Then, without a silly smile or a tap to his foot, he leaned toward the microphone and sang softly and serenely. "It’s all for the kingdom/It’s all for the King/You are my all and all/You are my everything…" The audience picked up the refrain quickly and soon some of us were humming along, all for the King. I looked up at the huge wooden cross that stood tall up on the stage and realized that I wanted to be the sort of pro-lifer who is nothing but a channel for the truth. There is so much shouting, arguing, and name-calling when it comes to the pro-life controversy, especially over abortion; I wanted to be nothing but a prism through which a real light could shine. Light belongs to everyone; the sun doesn’t decide that some people must live without its illumination. In the same way, the truth about life has to spill out of me everywhere I go. It certainly cannot be restricted to the lives of people who I will never meet; a vital part of being pro-life is to see what is loveable in a person who is repulsive. If I cannot find the worth in the people I know, how can I begin to find the worth in an unborn child who may not survive until birth? If I believe that that every life is loved and that every life has a purpose, then I have no choice but to search for the real person to love in everyone I meet. No matter how annoying she is, no matter how cruel he is, I have to squint to see the real person who is or might come to be. Once that picture begins to come into focus, then it is possible to stretch my arms out to the rest of the world. It is a dangerous business to stretch your arms out to the world. There is at least one person who had nails pushed into his hands when he spread his arms wide, and I have finally begun to realize that I have to be aware of what I am embracing when I reach out. Madeleine L’Engle wrote that "it is dangerous to be both a pacifist and naïve." In addition, it is dangerous to be both pro-life and naïve. It is vitally important to be aware of the ugliness that is perpetrated by humans at times. Sometimes, children are born addicted to cocaine because their mothers were slaves to the drug. Sometimes, a girl is raped and becomes pregnant from that act of violence and hatred that was completely beyond her control. Sometimes, a criminal commits a crime so heinous that it is difficult to imagine letting him or her live. Sometimes, an old woman is suffering terminal cancer without support of a loving family. So many "sometimes", and it can seem that the only possible way to answer the devil pain that rides the back of the world is to introduce a sleep of death, to annihilate pain. The people I know who are most sincere in their respect for life, however, recognize those awful circumstances that may appear to make death a better choice than life, and they attempt to minister to them. They know that death marks only the victory of brutality and inhuman behavior; injustice cannot be ended by further injustice. They choose to resist violence with life and hope in the potential for renewal and redemption in every person. I am trying to learn from them.
June 8, 200816 yr IM NOT GOING TO READ HALF THE SHIT YALL TYPED UNLESS U GIVES SOME KFC note: the USA is badass, we are the best, we pwn everything yeah we have better movies/japan/chine and al lthat kung fu shit. the USA is full of psychos and kool people we do almost whatever the hell we want in this land of freedoms1 !!! WE GOT FUCKIN DISNEY WORD
June 8, 200816 yr IM NOT GOING TO READ HALF THE SHIT YALL TYPED UNLESS U GIVES SOME KFC note: the USA is badass, we are the best, we pwn everything yeah we have better movies/japan/chine and al lthat kung fu shit. the USA is full of psychos and kool people we do almost whatever the hell we want in this land of freedoms1 !!! WE GOT FUCKIN DISNEY WORD You're the reason everyone thinks we're fucking dumb. Niggers. Wait, was I just trolled? OH GAWD.
June 8, 200816 yr IM NOT GOING TO READ HALF THE SHIT YALL TYPED UNLESS U GIVES SOME KFC note: the USA is badass, we are the best, we pwn everything yeah we have better movies/japan/chine and al lthat kung fu shit. the USA is full of psychos and kool people we do almost whatever the hell we want in this land of freedoms1 !!! WE GOT FUCKIN DISNEY WORD We dont' have the pagani zonda...
June 8, 200816 yr Myriad;566787']wtf' date=' you're still here?[/quote'] he started becoming active again
June 8, 200816 yr http://peoplesgeography.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/arab-quisling-with-us-mouth-kerchief.jpg http://www.dvfer.com/galeria/jornais/islam/economist/original/eurabia.jpg http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/wtc-9-11.jpg LOLOLOLOLOL America -> America
