peace*out

disagree with 1, 2, 5, and 6; i agree with 4. i have no idea about anything else.

ok: the debate topics: Topic #1: The government should ban the sale of candy and soda in all schools. Topic #2: The United States is justified in its use of torture to combat terrorism. Topic #3: The market is more efficient than regulation in determining fuel efficiency. Topic #4: Marijuana should be legalized. Topic #5: The death penalty should be abolished. Topic #6: All illegal immigrants should be deported. Topic #7: The United States should break its alliance with Pakistan. Topic #8: The government should provide healthcare for all of its citizens. also some phillyD news (or what he says is news - i havent read it yet) from today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/fema-to-demand-that-hurri_n_869584.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/31/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-mon http://tribune.com.pk/story/179484/hrcp-expresses-grave-concern-over-journalists-disappearance/ http://istyosty.com/tmp/cache/be1f992817340ecf4bccb30cfd5e246648a7342b.html

i hope you have a baddie roll just so i can be right.

ok then. explain why i should switch to chrome. other than the picture editing site that only works on it...but i just use my freinds computer for that.

...i also still have my list of debates from history somewhere, if you need more topics.

that. is. amazing. ok. on a more serious note, i agree, so this wont be off-topic. but that line...I started cracking up.

1) yes 2) yes 3) yes ~i dont aprove of it as a method of birthcontrol/"plan c", but what about all the other children in the orphanages? What does adding in more kids do? just saying. ~"delightful" <_< ~so yeah, i agree (except for one thing), but i wanted to reply anyways. just to reply to the questions, and bring up that one point.

ill watch it! and i love watching religous debates... Im not good with ideas, but something to think about is looking at other youtuber-news things. Philip Defranco, for one, has a lot of randomness. however, he also has some good stories, and provides links. if you go back to those sites again and again, you may find some topics. also: westboro baptist church vs. kkk. I dont know why i find it hilarious (ok, i do), but i do. so yeah.

yep. sorry.

handcuff foribid searched younger garbage champion brave conciliatory internet ping-pong tear scarred telephone

that made me laugh.

so a water dance party?

they may go out and conquer teh world someday. i never said they wouldnt. but this kind of goes back to the point of using every bit of DNA. Say the mom doesn't want the baby. then who gets to decide? the unborn baby? the dad? Who should make the decision? My point is NOT about the wealth. i was using that as an example, and i guess it was a bad example. Its more of a, "If unborn baby X was unwanted and a burden to their parents, why is unwanted baby x, before s/he was a baby, any different from all the other little bits of lovely-ness floating around? they never knew life, and (most likely) never affected anyone other than the parents. Granted, im not saying use this as another form of birth control, or a "Plan C," but what about the abandoned kids, and kids in orphanages. what if the kid goes there? sure, s/he may go out and do something great, but you could argue that the potential of it is just as likely as the potential of all the bits of dna that didnt get used. Why add to the numbers of kids in orphanages? Im not saying that that WILL happen, im just saying that if the mom doesnt want it, who are YOU to say that she needs to go through nine months of pain and the possibility of dieing or injury to give birth to a kid she doesnt want? Say likely. not "will." theres no "will." you make me sound like a murderer. this may sound really cruel, im warning you, but think of it like this: will they be missed/did they ever make an impact on someones life/will they feel it? coma patient: 1) i assume, yes 2) i assume, yes 3) no unborn baby: 1) if the mom and dad dont want the baby, then no. 2) the KNOWLEDGE of they baby maybe, the its not alive yet. so ill say no. feel free to disagree. 3) no unwanted kid that never knew someone: 1) maybe. maybe not. lets say they're 100% unwanted. then no. 2) probably, but even if you argue no, theres number 3 3) yes. unless they're the one whos almost dead on the streets, in which case, they'll probably be dead anyways, since no one knew them I add that last one in there to show similarites/differences between that and the second thing. if the mom/dad doesnt want it, then they'll probably not want to tell about it or brag. this is me guessing, i have no knowledge of how it works. i know if it were me, i would brag about having an unwanted baby in my belly. if the unwanted kid knows no one, then they may die anyways. but the odds are that the kid has made an impact, good or bad, on someones life. there are a gazillion kids that are like that in orphanages and on the streets today. Why should anyone other than the mom be able to say if they want to add to that number?? If they can feel it, than immediatly no. after a certain age, when the brain starts functioning in the kid, i say make a deadline for abortion. but if its unwanted from the start, if getting it aborted makes no difference at all, except to the parents, then why should anyone else have a say??

cooked broccoli with artichoke sause - good. other than that, meh. awwwww... cute wittle kid

I never said she was a baddie. my point was her "signature" should have been "go liquids and whoever else happens to win!" just saying.

o.O minecraft mafia. you were a LIQUID!

dont forget ROFLMAOAITIGTDUISCAIREIOWTW

ok. sounds good. im sorry if i sound like "its all about me!" but exams. bleh. thanks!

my point is that what if it was better that they never had. Im not trying to say that people who are poor dont deserve to live. my point is that there are cases where its better for person X to have not entered a situation. ok. so weve talked about the "what if, by being born, the baby and the mom would (probably) die? what then?" situation. and by "probably" i mean that theres some sort of complication wehre they KNOW. im not talking about the regular dangers of childbirth. but what if 1) that baby was born in a place where there wasn't any medical care so the mom and the baby have a liklyhood of dieing (and, just saying, this is for people who would WANT ABORTIONS. this isnt a "im in this part of society so i have to do ____), and the mom had the option, and she WANTED TO. what if the baby would be unwanted, and would grow up in a home where they had to live a not-so-good quality life in an unwanted home. Its not about the poor. its a "waht if." what would be better? this doesnt mean we need to pass a law saying you HAVE to get an abortion, this is for an OPTION. but i understnad your point. im sorry it sounded that way. this is why controversial topics are controversial. many people who are in a coma, and its known that they wont wake up will go off life support. and remember - its not a WILL, its a LIKELY. theres never a 100% change that the baby will survive. things happen. they do. if they're likely to wake up, most people will keep them on life support. but someone has to pay. if you nor your family can pay for you to be on life support, then who pays? the government? do you think that THEY'LL keep you on life support for as long as necessary? I dont know. from what i understand, it comes down to almost a "survivor of the fittest." but at the same time, what if the fittest doesnt get used for that purpose...im just going to hope you understand what im saying.