Lawnman's Waterfall
The illegal Mexican immigrants who have sought and found refuge in the U.S are not fleeing the debauchery that plagues Mexico. They are spreading the debauchery into the U.S. Consequently, they are debauching, following invasion, the U.S. to make it just like the land they left.
Do they not fly the Mexican flag in the U.S.? Yes, just like the fly it in Mexico, in the front of a vermin infested residence wherein twenty people split the cost of rent of a two room and bath shack which is owned by some moronic liberal seeking to prevent a foreclosure from his favored WallStreet Bank! (There are some conservatives who are equally guilty of the same. Maybe they are closet liberals who are too afraid of being hostile toward foreign invaders. All for the sake of exploiting a gaggle of illegal, Mexican immigrants to protect their social status and a cherished ‘Credit score’!)
Do you know why the Mexican president, California, and Washington DC. oppose Arizona’s immigration law?
All of them are fearful of a half-million Dora Explorers, which now reside in Arizona, migrating to their lands.
(Have you heard any of them inviting Arizona’s illegal population? Personally, I would have thought the president of Mexico would have wanted his citizens back in his country to do the same wonderful job they are doing in Arizona. But I guess he too realizes his country is better off without them.)
If I am the Chief, yes. I can differentiate betwixt necesssary abuse and blatant,unnecessary insult.
Furthermore, I am for spanking! But I also think it is prudent to recognize the process of correction even when it means appropriate ad-hominem.
If this is true, it is not the remedy for a problem that is the result of inadequate moderation by the authors of the debates wherein we participate.
Solution:
Moderators, as responsible authors, can either A: start moderating their debates and banning the abusers therefrom, or B: lose the authorization to create debates. And thusly the enforcement of these measures shall create a debating atmosphere that is intolerant of abusive argument which is abusive for the sake of being abusive.
Furthermore, let’s not abandon the advancement of the pursuit of greater intelligence because of quasi problems with quasi solutions for the sake of quasi intelligence. And let it be known any attempt to now negate ‘hasty generalizations’ because of an uncomfortable ‘hasty generalization’ (and it is about sentiment towards certain generalizations) will lead to the slippery slope of more negations of other categories of generalizations. All of which concluding with the last generalization: There is truth!
Do we not think some truths are offensive?
But whatever is decided, take heed:
Don’t ban generalizations; ban moderators who derive some sense of pleasure from the un-restrained intellectual sadists who get their rocks off by practicing intellectual sadism. For if it is decided to ban one category of generalization, that decision sanctions intellectual sadism in all other generalizations.
(We can’t ban stupidity, but intellectual abusiveness must be moderated.)
Like this:?
Kuklapolitan(4252) Disputed 5 points
Since when did being Patriotic become an accusation? You drinking that hula-whoop-whoop juice again or what?
506 days ago | Tagged As: Liberals
Support | Dispute | Report Really? YES|NO Report Submitted
This is the second highest rated post in the "Who's more patriotic?" debate. The highest vote count is 6!
Liberals have the highest vote count as of today!
You will note the post is two questions. No argument!
Upvoting questions is another example of a retarded response.
Why on earth do we keep getting these broad generalization over and over again.
There is no broad generalization. Why? There is no reason to think Joe is thinking of all, most, or all but a few liberals.
He did not affirm:
a) All liberals…
b) Most liberals…
c) All or most female liberals…
d) All of most male liberals…
e) Blah,blah,blah.
The term ‘liberals’ only allows us to infer: at least two liberals…
To claim it is a broad generalization is to fall prey to our assumed and imputed distribution of the subject, not his. So, we might care to ask him of the number of liberals he speaks of. Albeit, the truth of the matter is that there are many liberals and conservatives who resort to name-calling. And yet if it is found that most of these groups do resort to that tactic, the real question would then be:
Why is it broadly true that both liberals and conservatives resort to name-calling?
"Think outside the box", lol. What an excellent solution. Right up their with "shifting the paradigm" and "achieving greater synergy".
Actually, it is identical to “Change you can believe in.”
The fact is that under my proposal the welfare system will either add 5 million people to the bourgeois or save 50 million people from proletary within the first year.
Do you like the Obama-esque nature of my arguments on this subject?
Were you equally as critical of Obama’s campaign speeches as you have been of my arguments?
That is enough jesting for now.
If you think what I have submitted is fantastical then you have by prejudice alone formed a conclusion. Instead of asking how exactly I aim to accomplish these goals, you judge my objectives as “fantasy land nonsense”.
Now, what reason would I have to explain the means to my objectives to a person who has clearly demonstrated unrestrained prejudice?
Shall I entrap myself by your prejudice? I do not think so!
Helping the poor live long enough to collect the next month's welfare check and consume next months food stamp purchases is nothing more than the tender mercies of cruelty.
Either give them prosperity or shut-down the current welfare system.
Funny, I despise taxation without representation, and yet I am arguing for the prosperity of paupers. Yet, the compassionate liberals insist that subsistence is good for me and the paupers.
Who's cruel and hard-hearted?
I think many people, like yourself, need to put away their antiquated devices for helping the impoverished and think outside of the box!
So, you simply think we ought to maintain the status quo concerning the public welfare system?
Why are you opposed to an alternative public welfare system that instead of helping the poor be less poor it is salvation for the poor. Will the welfare system I am proposing change the fact that we dislike welfare? Nope! Will the welfare system I am proposing stop poverty? Nope! Will the welfare system I am proposing foster subsistence? (Subsistence: the condition of being or managing to stay alive, especially when there is barely enough food or money for survival.) Nope! What the welfare system could accomplish under my proposal is far less shameful than the current form.
(My proposal doesn’t require any increase in taxation. But it certainly requires a re-prioritization of tax dollars.)
I hope you see that your opponent has changed the subject of the debate!
He is now talking about automatic firearms which in deed do require licensing. What he failed to understand is that we can own and buy single-action and semi-action firearms without a license. And if he thinks he is correct that you cannot own a gun without a license then ask him to produce an e-image of this license that doesn't exist. Hell, I own enough guns that any right-minded liberal might call my safe a weapons cache. I simply call it inventory. But, one thing I don't have is a license to own any gun. Why? Because the guns I own do not require a license to buy or own.
His argument is completely fallacious.
Does anyone honestly have a better solution?
What is the problem? According to my observations the only problem being addressed in debates such as this is the problem of the welfare system. If the current welfare system is a solution to poverty then poverty as a problem is solved. But as self-evidently demonstrated by debates of this subject, poverty has not been solved by the welfare system. Moreover, the welfare system has become a problem in and of itself.
Now don’t misunderstand my position. The welfare system of the US is not a solution to poverty, but it certainly is a problem for the welfare of working Americans, i.e. the cost in income taxes. But, simultaneously I concede that charity is a necessary responsibility. My complaint is not predicated upon charity, my complaint is predicated upon some politician or bureaucrat deciding for both you and I how charitable we shall be this tax year and to whom we shall be charitable to this tax year. (I am digressing.)
Back to the question at-hand, how can any person argue that the welfare system is a solution when the welfare system only maintains poverty. The words “The maintenance of poverty” come to my mind when public welfare is mentioned. How can we be so cruel and yet so blind concerning welfare? Well, each man ought to answer that question for himself. What am I alluding to?
Firstly, no man has the right to determine when, how much, and to whom any man is charitable. Secondly, if some politicians or bureaucrats think that they have the authority to determine for myself and 300+million Americans why, when, how much and to whom we shall be charitable then I suggest that they pull their heads out of their asses and stop maintaining poverty. If we are going to suffer the burden of taxation for our charity, which is assumed and governed by politically motivated persons, then I suggest that they stop servicing poverty and start pulling the poor out of poverty. What?
Yes! If someone is dying of thirst shall you give them only enough water to stave off death, or shall you give them enough water so that they are made strong and healthy again so that they too can water not only themselves but other as well? If someone is starving of food, shall we prolong their starvation by bits of food? If someone is overcome by disease shall we nourish the disease or cause health to overcome?
The answers to those questions are not universally applicable to all of the problems that plague humanity. But they certainly hint at a better response to poverty than our current welfare system (problem). Consider the following example as an efficacious use of charity (taxation).
Thanks to the charity of the taxpayers, the federal government is the only employer who seems to be always hiring. Therefore tax dollars most certainly assure the prosperity of the federal government. Why don’t we assert our authority and insist that our charitable taxation dollars are spent for the purpose of pulling the impoverished out of poverty and into prosperity. And then those who are consequently prosperous can afford to pull the impoverished out of poverty and into prosperity as well.
(If anyone feels disposed to disagree then speak your mind.)
I think there are many liberals who need a liberal dose of reason and maturity. (I am not excluding members of other parties.) Furthermore, I think that as the aging liberal and conservative electorates near death, they are being replaced by younger and dumber members. And as this process continues we shall bare witness to an ever-increasing promotion of stupidity and mental illness that is manifested in both the Congress and the White House of the United States.
Pussy:)
Hmmm, then I guess owning a gun is not a "right", since one usually needs to own a license or a permit to own one...lol...checkmate...
Propaganda or ignorance from a Liberal?
I think a bit of both.
ATF form 4473 is merely a transaction record that indicates a Federally licensed gun-dealer has sold a specific firearm to a person who is not a criminal. For example:
If Joe Cavalry has not been convicted of a felony, Joe Cavalry can buy as many guns as he would like. He needs neither a license to own nor buy a firearm from an FFL dealer. ATF form 4473 is merely a record of a firearm transaction, OTC. The form amounts to little more than a Federal document which serves as a record of registration that a firearm has been sold to a law abiding citizen.
May it be clearly understood that I despise piss-poor thinking, not the piss-poor thinkers.
Perhaps if people were more discerning and a whole lot less selfish, Obama may have helped make the US a better country. But, it seems as though Obama has no choice other than to help the majority who want to help themselves by everyone, globally.
Would someone grant me the intelligence that is required to understand how a man who is equally black and white is black?
Or am I the only person that knows he is a halfrican-american?
Moreover, why do people dishonor both him and his mother by ignoring his white heritage? Would that be because they (typical americans) are racist?
BLAH blah bl b!
The question ought to be: Who do americans think he is? Not who does he think himself to be.
Silent prayer that is!
And yet when that prayer is not so silent, shall the little children be suspended? (I think it is obvious where this argument shall lead!)
(Hint! Public schools have no policy for the punishment of students who pray. Christian schools do not punish students who pray. So, whether public or Christian no policy enforcer punishes the students because of prayer.)
As an aside, should the NFL have a policy regarding a players homage after a TD? (It's public!)
Agreed! And I would also add:
If we are driving our vehicles down rough roads, do we redesign the wheel or do we fix the roads? (Is not the gov. responsible for the rough roads anyway, i.e. the extensive regulation of the healthcare industry?)
Or, if we are chewing our hands off, do we stop chewing or do we take more pain killers to stop the pain?
BLAH! Blah!
I could list dozens more examples, but what I find extraordinary is the fact our words are largely ignored.
Glad to see your presence at CD!!!!
Curious!
What new form of accounting is being used that enables a country which cannot afford the ever-rising expense of healthcare to add 40 million healthcare patients to the expense and thereby not only make healthcare less expensive but profitable for the federal government.
Or said this way: If 300 million people cannot afford their healthcare with health insurance and government assistance then how will the same 300 million pay for the added expense of 40 million more subsidized patients? And when 340 million people can’t afford healthcare why is it that they can afford to pay more in taxes. (Don't overlook the soundness of that example. For the fact remains that 40 million people are currently subsidized by their fellow americans.)
Healthcare reform that increases the coffers of the federal government is governmentcare. I mean goddamnit- Do we the people of the United States need another fucking insurance company that is beholden to a board of directors and investors who seek greater returns on their investments? (Oh, I forgot, politicians and bureaucrats are political, not accountable.)
Finally, do we need healthcare that indeed is healthcare that is affordable for low-wage workers, or do we want healthcare that requires a sugar-daddy?
Hell. I am only ranting. And why shouldn’t I, was it not the government who has regulated the entire healthcare industry of the US right up unto the day when the government declares that healthcare reform is now necessary. Talk about steering the ship over a waterfall and then using the same captain to direct the fall. We even go so far to say that we should listen to the captain and consent to his plan about how we should fall!
I’m not disputing your argument, I am taking an opportunity to speak plainly of what ought to be obvious to us all. What are your thoughts?
Healthcare reform that seeks to trample upon both liberty and freedom is the antithesis of the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
HR 3962
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/
Subpart A--Individual Responsibility
SEC. 501. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:
`PART VIII--HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
`subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
`Subpart A--Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
`Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
`SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
`(b) Limitations-
`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
`(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium' means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
`(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (d) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage' for `self-only coverage'.
BLAH,BLAH,BLAH
Sorry for the long-winded citation.
Also read the JCT letter:
http://
(Note the date stamp)
I think it is fair to allow you an opportunity to evaluate the evidence I presented.
If those documents do not support my inference of the violation of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then we’ll debate my assertions.
Do you know at what time of day the polls were executed?
The source fails to provide that data. I mean if they were contacting welfare recipients and the un-employed during daytime working hours I could argue the poll is biased.
Polls have very little importance to me, when any.
As an American I am nauseated, and not a little, about the typical Americans’ sentiment of US holiness. And I find it quite extraordinary that an Englishman has a better sense of discernment about the US than most citizens of the US.
America is wrongly held up as a beacon of hope and liberty and something to strive for for developing nations, and that annoys the crap out of me. It annoys me that what is considered the most powerful and free country in the world..
And yes, it annoys me that citizens of a country that continually talks about freedom and liberty can't be bothered to give a few dollars out of their pay packet (though, they would be paying less, but we'll ignore that for now and assume that it would cost you a bit extra) to ensure that everyone, rich or poor, can get healthcare treatment when they need it.
Healthcare reform that seeks to trample upon both liberty and freedom is the antithesis of the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If group A decides that its happiness is Sample B of Healthcare reform, they have no right whatsoever to use their rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to trample everyone else’s right of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to not consent to sample B of Healthcare reform. Or stated another way, no man has the liberty and freedom to trample another man’s liberty, freedom, and pursuit of happiness. Ergo, that is why the proposed legislation of Healthcare reform is so hotly debated in the US.
The people of United States of America should never seek to impinge another man’s rights of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, by imposing their will upon their fellow man for the sake of legislated compassion. And any people who take upon themselves this god-like mandate of legislating ‘loving thy neighbor’ better take in to account that their version of altruism may be the pinnacle of tyranny.
My solution to the healthcare issues that plague the US:
Eliminate health insurance! It’s simple and subtle, but far reaching.
I’ll explain in greater detail if you so request.
The article refers to 'climate change'.
The global warming fallacy is nothing more nor less than a whole lot of hot air.
When the climate of the Earth is in a cooling phase, it is man- made when it is too cool. When the climate of the Earth is in a heating phase, it is man-made when it is too warm.
Climate Change means this: I will be taxed when the climate is cooling. I will also be taxed when the climate is warming.
Now that my friend is WHY politicians no longer use the term Global Warming, and instead prefer Climate Change.
(Oh my government, we are all gonna die if we don't stop climate change!!! Help us we pray thee! In the name of the legislative, the executive and the judicial ---AMEN)
The object of the question is Global Warming, not climate change. (Your rebuttal is falacious)
Sex education and Evolution are not related to global warming.
(Red-herring fallacies)
I find it funny that you have 4 up-votes and you didn't even begin an attempt to make a case for your view! If Gore is a busy man why do you fail to prove that point?
CD is going the way of CB. B=BS
Wow!
So, Ted Kennedy is one of the main reasons why $7.25 worth of purchasing power is less than $3.35 of purchasing power?
Ted K. is also one of the reasons why we were paid $3.35 per hour instead of $10.50 an hour. Again, T. Kennedy is one of the main reasons some are paid $7.25 per hour instead of $15.50 an hour.
Your argument of wages only demonstrates T. Kennedy's main role in impoverishing minimum wage earners. Yea, you failed to realize the economic realities of subsistent wages of which T. Kennedy is a main reason.
BTW, you refer to him as a champion!
Forget the "I taught logic" bs!
Although, you can assert that you taught BS for $7.25.
I'm baffled at how a sentence that barely contained two propositions could in anyway be logically inconsistent
Consider the contrary sentence:
I’m convinced at how a sentence that barely contained two propositions is logically consistent. ( I think you see the problem)
However, in this instance, you are baffled that the quantity of the propositions contained within a sentence does not determine the quality of the sentence. Quality is not inferred from the quantity of propositions contained within your sentence.
Moreover, there are many sentences that are fallacious. Here are a few examples of grammatically correct sentences that fail to meet logical standards:
The local bookstore sells all classes of books. (What does a bookstore sell? Books! Not classes of books)
I cannot argue. (No man can arrive at this conclusion without arguing within himself)
“The money belongs to the people, and I think we should give some of it back to the people.” -G.W. Bush on tax cuts (circa 2002)
I will forego listing countless other examples that demonstrate illogical sentences.
Now, before I continue my analysis of your post, are you willing to concede that some sentences, regardless of the number of propositions, are fallacies of self-refutation or inconsistency? If so, I will continue my analysis of your post.
There will not be any productive dialog betwixt us for one simple reason: Exploring unfamiliar ways of thinking simply means to consider new ideas with the necessity of an open mind -- because we can't judge a priori the validity of a dialectic, belief or piece of evidence without first giving it a fair trial.
I will give you one opportunity to revise your answer. And if your answer still fails to demonstrate sound reasoning I will in-turn demonstrate your failure to reason. And until you can prove to me that you are reasonable I will not waste any additional time in reply to your babble.
I've personally studied logic in school and in my spare time by reading Russel, Popper and just basic logic primers. I also am a big fan of Skeptic Magazine and debunking, both of which demand a keen understanding of fallacy.
That is certainly no argument from which I would infer you have satisfactorily learned logic. Reading, studying, and being a big fan of any subject, are not the equivalent of knowing any given subject, competently.
On the contrary, it is your replies that seem to me to be fallacious. From false dichotomies to unsupported inferences,
Which is it, either my replies are fallacious or they are not fallacious? Are you using the word seem to suggest your uncertainty of the qualities of my replies?
you worsen your hypocrisy by being incredibly condescending and dismissive.
A hypocrite,yes, incredibly condescending and dismissive,yes, knowingly both,yes I am. Now, the hypocrite part of my behavior is true of all of us, but the condescension and dismissiveness of my replies is always a reciprocation of the same by my opponents, although I may at times be more assertive in that regards.
I'll gladly accept any challenge you off me and without the highfalutin patronage -- on the one condition that you are actually open to expanding your knowledge and exploring unfamiliar ways of thinking. If you aren't then it will only me an exercise in pretense.
TU QUOQUE
This is your first challenge: How can one explore unfamiliar ways of thinking? Please explain.
You rejected my challenge and then proceeded to rely upon even more fallacies. I suspect that you are ignorant of much concerning deductive and inductive reason as well as the possible fallacies that occur in discourse. And as a consequence of that ignorance you will fail to recognize both valid and invalid inferences. These facts disqualify you from engaging in what you refer to as an intelligent conversation. Ergo, you are guilty of that which you accuse me, ie your own incredulity (unbelief) of evolution is further evidence of your ignorance on the subject.
You think I am incorrect, I know. I certainly won’t contradict myself in thinking otherwise concerning your ability to validly reason.
However, there is another possibility that I can’t eliminate. The possibility is that you are capable of logical discourse, but prefer to be deceitful and dishonest.
I did not down-vote your post.
Does the faq explain this:
(pasted from my argument)
Disputed -92 points
The faq you referred to does not explain why one up-vote actually equals two up-votes, one for each side!
Agreed, points are meaningless, i.e. to you and I, my contention reaches beyond our petty figures!
Oh, and for the record, one vote that equals two votes is fraud and is not democratic.
The facts and not the faqs are my metric of honesty.
10mins 31secs ago | Tagged As: I've always thought that
The faq you referred to does not explain why one up-vote actually equals two up-votes, one for each side!
Agreed, points are meaningless, i.e. to you and I, my contention reaches beyond our petty figures!
Oh, and for the record, one vote that equals two votes is fraud and is not democratic.
The facts and not the faqs are my metric of honesty.
Your statement is hands down the most arrogant and ignorant statement I've read or heard in my lifetime.
So, which is it, you are that intelligent or you are that moronic.
If I have misread your reply as being hostile please accept my sincere apology.
This process has been observed over shorter time periods by scientists in both controlled experiments and nature, and observed over much longer periods of time in the fossil record.
All of these finds have been validated by the fact that we now have the ability to sequence DNA, proving (beyond any reasonable doubt) the fact that evolution is the absolute best explanation for the evidence, and, despite over 100 years of study, has not been shown to be invalid in even one instance.
So now I would like to ask you a question. How do you account for the evidence (fossils, DNA, morphology, embryology, observed instances of evolution etc...)? It sounds like you either don't understand the evidence, don't understand the theory or (most likely) both.
Those five sentences contain no less than five fallacies in reasoning. If you can correctly identify two of them I will give an account of my understanding of what you are calling evidence.
By the way, the first parts of your reply are intellectually superior compared to your last BS.
Personally, I don’t care what you or any other person thinks about any given subject, what I care to address is the irrationality of believing the incredible.
I hope you accept the challenge!
I care not for points! But, it is self-evidently true that someone or someones other than ourselves does care about points!
Integrity of a debating format is of greater importance. In fact we no longer can presume that CD is about debating, but rather justification of the un-justifiable.
Pardon my anger!
I up-voted all of your arguments and guess what? Lo and behold, my up-vote added points to the opposing side! What the fuck is goin on? The over-all tally is accruing up-votes on both sides of the argument when your side is up-voted. But, the up-votes are added only to your opponents when your opponents are up-voted! This bullshit has been going on for a long time and I'm now pissed!!! What a fucking joke!!! I hope you take the time to confirm the facts.
Exercise In PregnancyBradley Goldberg, MD
It is not always necessary for pregnant women to give up their exercise routines. In fact, studies have demonstrated that mild to moderate amounts of exercise could result in certain benefits such as shorter labors, less preterm deliveries, less cesarean deliveries, and less fetal distress during labor. Proper exercise programs could also increase your daily energy levels, and improve your quality of sleep.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that women who exercised before pregnancy can continue to exercise with some restrictions. Specifically, ACOG recommends:
Regular exercise (at least three times per week) is better than intermittent programs.
Avoid exercises where you lay flat on your back after the 12th week of pregnancy.
Do not exercise to the point of exhaustion, instead, stop when fatigued.
Make sure you do not overheat. Drink plenty of fluids and maintain a proper diet.
Avoid activities that require precise balance.
Avoid activities that have the potential for abdominal trauma.
Don’t worry, the above list does not exclude all activities. Recommended regimens include walking, swimming, bicycling (stationary bikes are best in late pregnancy), and low impact aerobics. Walking is ideal, especially for women who did not exercise much before they were pregnant.
Sounds good so far, but you must keep in mind that there is the potential for problems. High-impact exercise, with excessive bouncing or jarring should be avoided. In addition, women who exercise too vigorously on a regular basis could have babies with low birth weights. It is also prudent for women who were inactive before pregnancy to limit new exercise programs during pregnancy to mild or moderate programs, such as walking or swimming.
Certain groups of women should not be exercising at all when pregnant. This includes high-risk pregnancies such as women with high blood pressure related to their pregnancy, women with premature labor, and women with twins. As a rule, you should always check with your physician before beginning any exercise program during pregnancy. Grocery shopping is physical exercise
Bibliography
1. The Athletic Woman, Part II: Concerns During Pregnancy, The Female Patient, Vol. 23, July 1998, pp. 34-40.
2. Exercise During Pregnancy, ACOG Pamphlet # AP119, 1998.
3. Williams Obstetrics, 20th Edition, F. Gary Cunningham,M.D. et.al., Appleton & Lange, Stamford, Connecticut, 1997.
4. Exercise During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period, ACOG Technical Bulletin #189, February 1994.
How many tons of Co2 do think we should produce to control the temperature of the Earth’s climate?
Are you prepared to be held accountable when we are too hot or too cold?
Are you bold enough to enforce your will upon all Co2 producers of the world?
Are you prepared to regulate human breathing and farting?
Are you a large person?
How large a person are you?
All kidding aside, this popularity contest of J.C. is humor in practice. Don't take it too seriously. Consider it comic relief.
Joe's debates are more for entertainment. Midget tossing is a term that most people recognize as entertainment; consenting, if not acquiescent, midgets of course.
There are some midgets who are not offending by the name "midget", I respect them as well.
Midgets have the right to be tossed. Who are we to deny a midget of his/her desire to be tossed.
Show me a midget who wants to be tossed and I'll show you a man who can toss a midget.
Don't our children (under 150 lbs.) love to be tossed?
Hypocrites, you toss your children because they like it, yet you refuse to toss a midget who likes it. lol
What would it mean for God to be corrupt?
That God would infinitely add to and revise His law. Oops, that's what Kings and governments do. Well,,, my answer would then be: That God would infinitely add to and revise His law.
God's law: the natural immutable law between man and man: what is mine is not thine, and what is thine is not mine. (toddlers demonstrate this law) Have you seen a toddler bite or strike another toddler whom has stolen his/her toy?
