ugghhhh
discrepancies make hypocrites of us all

btw, there wasn't enough room for "Sarah" in the summary, which is obviously why it isn't there.

why is it that whenever musicians try to talk about politics they just sound stupid

I'm assuming he's a vegetarian?

Killing wolves is not cool, like, at all. Same for seal clubbing but I pretty much agree with Geeze.

what a fucktard. "pro all-life"
humans have dominion over animals, it's the way life is. I love animals but there's a difference between human life and animal life. this fruit should be more worried about Obama's killing of babies then Sarah Palin's "allowance" of hunting for sport.

He's totally correct. Pro life bla blah blah. Umm, what the fuck is the Iraq war. With all the money the Americans have forked into that, they could have given a fridge and television to every Iraqi.
And, similarly, killing animals for sport is ridiculous. Religion (which is usually what seems to dictate what goes on in US foreign and local affairs) and the state are not compatible, nor should they be encouraged as similar entities. They both have their place, and should be separate. It's already been proven in the past, and during the present.

[QUOTE=taylormemer]He's totally correct. Pro life bla blah blah. Umm, what the **** is the Iraq war. With all the money the Americans have forked into that, they could have given a fridge and television to every Iraqi.[/QUOTE]
Umm, it was about WMD's that Saddam said he had. It is about protecting us from Islamic terrorists. Have you heard the news? Things are going pretty well over there and there haven't been any attacks here. But what does that have to do with pro-life? Are you just anti-war? What about the revolutionary war? So you're just against wars you don't like? It's not really about the sanctity of all life after all?

I don't get your second paragraph at all.

Geezer, I love you dude, but shut up!

Umm, it was about WMD's that Saddam said he had. It is about protecting us from Islamic terrorists.

why is it that whenever musicians try to talk about politics they just sound stupid

lol @ natey

[QUOTE=natey5280]Umm, it was about WMD's that Saddam said he had. It is about protecting us from Islamic terrorists. Have you heard the news? Things are going pretty well over there and there haven't been any attacks here. But what does that have to do with pro-life? Are you just anti-war? What about the revolutionary war? So you're just against wars you don't like? It's not really about the sanctity of all life after all?
[/QUOTE]

It's really simple. Saddam didn't have WMD's, your own government finally admitted this. The invasion of Iraq was merely put down to two things:

1. Financial and dictatorial pickings through Iran's oil pipelines, and similarly, in Iraq

2. The fact that terrorism has been bloated to the point where its ok to simply invade a country who had nothing to do with 9/11, and that their actually ties to terrorism are more nestled in inferior groups who went onto to gain support due to the poor displays of discipline by American soldiers on occassions.

The current situation in Iraq could have been resolved through better negotiations, and considering the fact that Saddam regime was in its last hours anyway.

In addition, simply putting this whole debacle of terrorism down to one man (Osama Bin Laden) is stupid. Killing him (which is what McCain said he'd follow to the "gate of Hell") wont achieve much. First of all Bin Laden most likely has not much to do with the Taliban as you probably seem to think. The Taliban are an organization (once funded and supported by the US govt. btw) who run a lot of their own accord, and support most of their militarisation through the financial depositories in the Afghani poppy plantations.

For one, the War in Afghanistan is justified, the war in Iraq is not, because after 5 years, over 1 million civilians are considered to have died, your own forces have suffered substantial losses mainly because of the lack of logical logistics in the basic trained force that occupies most of the US military, the subsequent effects of un3xploded shells, and uranium tipped ammunition mean for further losses of civilians, which by now you should have learnt from the poor results after the Vietnam War.

The fear mongering that went on in the US during 2003 to justify the Iraq invasion also goes to the heart of moronic and blatant desires by the Republicans to have this ideal of a cleansed society. It's unbalanced, unjustified and obviously not as successful as Bush claims it to have been.This Message Edited On 09.08.08

I don't get your second paragraph at all.

what taylor said

Financial and dictatorial pickings through Iran's oil pipelines, and similarly, in Iraq

Yeah, you know all that oil we stole makes gas prices shoot RIGHT up.

[quote=natey5280]Umm, it was about WMD's that Saddam said he had. It is about protecting us from Islamic terrorists.[/quote]
hahahahaha

lol at natey, steerpike, and taylormemer being trolled

Let me direct you guys here:
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=551912

Geezer once tried to knife Malcolm Young of AC/DC. Let's just hope that he does the same to Sarah Palin.

Sputnikmusic.com, your home for political debate and abuse!

I'm with Geezer...that's horrible. Leave the fucking wolves alone you bastards.

i'm not pro-life

but i do support vegetarians.

The current situation in Iraq could have been resolved through better negotiations, and considering the fact that Saddam regime was in its last hours anyway.

It's really simple. Saddam didn't have WMD's, your own government finally admitted this. The invasion of Iraq was merely put down to two things:

ron paul '08

I find people who get worked up in their anti-abortion (not pro-life, they don't mean the same thing) crap really funny, and can't pay them enough respect to finish their posts.

That said, I also find how big of an argument this new item is causing in the comments pretty funny too.

My only real point was that Geezer's pretty stupid if he says he's "pro-all life" yet cares more about Palin's allowance of hunting for sport and less about Obama's allowance of abortion.

Yeah it can lead to abuse but it's also an extremely TRUE. You don't see us walking up to lions and feeding them with our bodies. Humans eat meat daily. Tell me who is boss.

I disagree with everything Natee has said...

In Sweden you get the same jail time for killing a wolf as if you would kill a human. And the sentence is far too short.

pro-choice is where its at.

I'm pretty sick of all the ignorant Palin bashing from liberals. Of course she should be dissected and questioned, as she is a candidate for VP, but so many attacks against her that I see online are ridiculous personal attacks not based in the idea that Palin is an unfit leader, but just the fact that the attackers are liberal and Palin, the staunch conservative she is, must be an irrational, extremist nutcase. I'm leaning Obama anyways. I want this election to be over.

All mentally challenged arguments aside, I agree with Butler's animal-protection stance, along with his bass player and work in the Ozzy-era Black Sabbath.

I really don't care about American politics. Either way it's fucked.

Not that it's any better here in the UK.

EDIT: I don't agree with hunting either, especially wolves.This Message Edited On 09.09.08

Interesting topic.This Message Edited On 09.09.08

i always found it weird how liberals hate death penalty, but support abortions, and it's reverse for conservatives
that's why i'm moderate, i'm for abortions and death penalty, so pretty much i'm prodeath.

omg people abortions aren't even done past the second trimester. Killing animals for food is okay, but don't get fucking excessive.

Simple answer: treating miracles with such contempt = fun and money to those who partake in such acts.

"Of course she should be dissected "

WTF Timbo... I think thats illegal dude. Least whilst shes alive anyways. Besides, the mess from Frogs is bad enough, can you imagine a whole prospective vice president?

"Fetuses"
Isn't the plural of fetus, fetus? This Message Edited On 09.09.08

I'd slam Sarah Palin

jesus fucking mohammad

can't you just lol and move on steerpike?

Timbo
duh, that's the problem with liberals. palin is unfit to be in charge of course, but repeatedly i see liberals talking about her encouraging teaching of creationism in schools, never bothering to mention how she's changed her position on that now, and how even initially, she was simply encouraging teaching of both evolution and creationism.

but stil, palin hates polar bears.

^^^^^^^^^
I guess it's a good thing that the VP isn't in charge then amirite.

Creationism is ridiculous.

about as ridiculous as evolution tbh. they are both pretty far fetched bullshit in my mind

lol proof

[QUOTE=John]How is evolution far fetched? Species change to adapt to their world. We do the same thing on a intellectual scale every day, so why can't your genes do the same?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, like pretty much what I was going to say...
Forever, I don't see how you could compare creationism and evolution as being from the same ball park in terms of validity.

Atheism ftw

well you aren't going to be reading this now, but genes evolving over a period of time is not far-fetched. what is far fetched is the origin of life in the evolutionary theory. big bang? i mean come on. they are both theories and are both stupid ones at that

Man, that's stupid.
Firstly Big Bang theory isn't as simple as just an explosion from nothing. It is far far more complex then that. The Big Bang is quite plausible because of the observations of the cosmic background radiation that was observed by two radio astronomers during the 1960s in New Jersey. Their findings complete the idea that the universe is expanding, and that this expansion is likely to have occurred at a singular point. In addition this is what the Hadron Collider is part of this on going problem. The physics and mathematics behind all this is quite well understood.
The actual theory of evolution devised by Darwin mentioned nothing around the actual Big Bang. The Earth's oldest rocks date back around 4.5 billion years. The universe is known to be about over 12 billion years old. How do they know this? Because you can use a telescope (of decent power such as Hubble) to look at the oldest galaxies which are over 12 billion light years away, thus the light from these galaxies is 12 billion years old. Now Darwin's models begin after the Earth's formation, at around 4 billion years old. After this the first initial signs of life is said to have been some kind of micro organisms. How they got here is under ongoing debate. A comet carrying water particles (essential for life) crashed into Earth; volcanoes thus creating the know atmosphere (clouds etc.) After this, life just went on, changing and evolving each period at a time. They use radiometric dating to look at various skeletal fossils to witness how life changed during these periods.
It's all completely logical.