Call me pessimistic or misanthropic all you want, but I do hate vegans.  By vegans, I don't mean the Hindu family down the way who believes that that cow really could be their uncle, or the person who quietly believes that not eating meat will reduce their body fat.  No, I'm talking about the morons who never fail to remind us that eating animals is torture equivalent to concentration camps.  Prime example: I love Between the Buried and Me; hell, they're one of my favorite bands.  But this ad they have for peta2 about vegans "shredding harder" makes me puke, but not as much as the Napalm Death peta2 ad about "#99", the chimp at the butt of scientific research.

Let me be clearer: I'm all for stances and such and such, but not overtly hypocritical ones.  Vegans value the life of animals over humans as long as it conveniences them.  They support the destruction of other's property (tossing blood on clothes).  They have no interest in aiding truly admirable causes like the hungry in third-world countries.  Plus, very few use absolutely no animal products whatsoever (Bam! As long as it conveniences them!).

Also, in the spirit of Maddox, those who don't eat meat don't take into consideration the enormous amount of damage done on the environment by farming.  Yeah, pretty sure there's a dead spot on the floor of the gulf of Mexico caused by those chemicals used in farming.  That brings me to question: if vegans really believed what they said, wouldn't they all have their own little farms like the Amish, without using chemicals?  You would think, but no...

The problem with making any lofty claims about the damage done to animals by humans if you're human is that you're human and are inherently damaging to them anyway.  We've destroyed environments that created vegans' homes, malls, doctor's offices.  Vegans use all of these at the expense of good ole' Peter Cottontail, Bambi, and Yogi, but are not saddened by it one bit.

Truth is, vegans are in it for some sense of communal guilt.  If everyone became vegan, I'm sure half of them would fall out simply for the fact that it wasn't controversial anymore.  Oh, and about metal, metal is macabre: you can't have metal without talking about death or blood or something like that.  Not eating meat doesn't make you legitimately "metal".

So glad to see you have overcome them.

Completely silent now

With heaven's help

You cast your demons out

And not to pull your halo down

Around your neck and tug you off your cloud

But I'm more than just a little curious

How you're planning to go about

Making your amends to the dead

To the dead


Recall the deeds as if

They're all someone else's

Atrocious stories

Now you stand reborn before us all

So glad to see you well


And not to pull your halo down

Around your neck and tug you to the ground

But I'm more than just a little curious

How you're planning to go about

Making your amends to the dead

To the dead


With your halo slipping down

Your halo slipping

Your halo slipping down

Your halo slipping down

Your halo slipping down [repeated]


Your halo slipping down to choke you now

Who is the maker of empty promises,
And whose love is that of fair condition?
I'm betting your premonition's correct,

For I will fail you in apathetic terms
With regards from hell to your pompous
Piety to think you could help me.
I can barely help myself.

So, using the advice to check out this Skillet album, I downloaded it to preview.  You guys...why?  What about this album is so great?  It's like pro tools extravaganza to cover up banal songwriting....argh...I'm exasperated...

I've decided more people would get saved if we told them they'd never have to go to another church service if they did.

I hate Michael J. Fox.  He couldn't have cared less about Parkinson's until the fateful day he was diagnosed.  Really, I hate celebrities.  They're all about the government stepping in and helping people as long as it's not them, unless, of course, there's a camera crew available, in which case it's an honorable cause.  Everyone of them has an idea as to how the world should be run, how war should be illegal, how no one should be poor, and how the life should always be happy and non-confrontational.  What sacrifice have they made?  Bono is a prime example of this idea.  While he purports giving to charity and all that humanitarianism, I lost all respect for him when I found out he spent millions of dollars to transport a hat.  Yes, folks, a favorite hat on first class.  He's such a hypocrite.  I dare him to give all his money away: all his clothes, all his "accessories", all his guitars, and whatever else should be given away, if he's a real man, but he isn't.  He's a liar, just like every other celebrity.  A bold-faced liar...

Circular motion, a pacing--
A fillip would have to stop it,
And you would have to be.
Sense of touch, most discreet,
Smells of intimacy, rapport;
Your inveterate influence
Most felicitous, most discreet,
Trembles at your feet.
The fallout brings life;
The glory eradicates darkness...

"Dozens of Republicans, both candidates and
supporters, have pounced on Kerry for his remark to Pasadena City
College students Monday. The 2004 Democratic presidential candidate
said if the students make the most of their educations, "you study
hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can
do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."" from this link.

Now, as I've said before, I'm not a fan of the Iraq War on several counts, but to try to cover up the obvious error this moron makes by blaming Bush's bad handling of the war is unbelievable.
If you read the article, he continues to blame the Republican party for the grievous malfeasances he believes they've made against the military.  Yeah, Kerry, that's right: it's Bush's fault you didn't clarify the difference between Bush and the military in your statement.
What's so incredible is his obliviousness to how his statement sounded. 

1.  I am a white male; therefore, I must be racist.
2.  I am from the South; therefore, I am racist.
3.  The ad on this link is so blatantly racist that my thinking that it is not racist is indeed proof of my racism.
4.  I am a white male from the South; therefore, my ancestry dictates that I will be ahead of all minorities in my area.  Nevermind that both sets of my grandparents barely finished high school just to work construction for their entire lives, and both of my parents had to work to pay for college.
5.  I can not refer to blacks in a derogatory way, by such words as nigger; but blacks can refer to me in a derogatory way by my race, for I am white and clearly at an advantage.
6.  All inappropriate behavior I have toward blacks is a result of my racist heritage, of which I should be ashamed (again, I am white and therefore a manipulative former slave-master).  All inappropriate behavior by blacks is a result of their deprived circumstances, ultimately the government's fault.
7.  No matter what I do, I will always be racist.  Blacks cannot be racist, for they are a minority.
8.  My parents are conservative, and on the relative scale of politics, I am conservative, moreso proving I am a racist.

9.  This post just goes to show how racially biased I am for challenging the common misconceptions people have.

Here's an article I found...

Actor and NRA President Charlton Heston is taking film star George
Clooney to task after Clooney's reported wisecrack over Heston's
Alzheimer's disease.

New York Post columnist Liz Smith wrote Sunday that while Clooney was accepting an award from the National Board of Review last week,
he said that "Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's."

When Smith asked the actor if he went too far with his remarks, Clooney
-- who's against the gun lobby -- responded, "I don't care. Charlton
Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association; he deserves
whatever anyone says about him."

According to the Internet Movie Database, Heston responded to Clooney's
remarks by noting the "class" of the actor's late aunt, singer-actress
Rosemary Clooney.

"It just goes to show that sometimes class does skip a generation,"
Heston was reported as saying.

When cable news show host Bill O'Reilly got wind of Clooney's remarks
this week, it re-ignited a war of words that began when O'Reilly
criticized the actor for not following up on the distribution of monies
from Sept. 11-related fundraisers.

"If this had been George Clooney's first mistake I'd just mock him and
forget about it, but he's clearly out of control," "The O'Reilly Factor"
host said Monday. "I believe most Americans will find these remarks
mean-spirited."

In addition, O'Reilly sounded off about the press' apparent lack of
reporting Clooney's comments.

"Just imagine if someone mocked Christopher Reeve's paralysis," O'Reilly
added. "The Hollywood press and the elite media would go nuts, but very
little has been said about Clooney's insensitivity."

Check This Link

The Destruction of the Wicked
Seriously, it talks about what I'm talking about.

To add clarity to this discussion, check this out...

10And the devil that
deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the
beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night
for ever and ever.

 11And
I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the
earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

 12And
I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were
opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the
dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books,
according to their works.

 13And
the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered
up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man
according to their works.

 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Now, here's the question: is the "second death" everlasting for the unsaved, or is it the simply the end to their existence?

I need your help, I'm looking up verses with the "Second Death" and "Lake of Fire" using Bible gateway, but so far, I've only found where the devil and his minions burn forever in it, not the unsaved.  So I was wondering: will the unsaved burn forever in the lake of fire?  I'm trying to address a question put forth by Karissa.

(Note: I'm using the KJV exclusively for now.)

Imagine, you're in Heaven in the beginning as an angel.  Heaven is a glorious place and God has just unveiled a new plan, Creation.  In charge of you, besides God, is Michael, Gabriel, and Lucifer, all of which are great.  But Lucifer, despite his greatness and beauty, has a problem.  He has become corrupt and jealous of God.  He is poisoned by selfishness and desires to overthrow God.  So, he begins to gather an army of angels, creatures once friends with God deceived by Lucifer's lies and hatred for God.  God sees all of this and is saddened, for He loves all His angels.  But then, enough is enough; Lucifer attacks with those he has deceived to claim the throne of God, but fails.  Bitter from his failure, Lucifer sulks before an Almighty God, and God asks him, "What do you think I should do with you?"  Lucifer, in his hatred for God, responds, "I never want to see you, hear you, or feel you ever again!"  So God gives it to Him.  He gives him his own place, to Lucifer's surprise, but God is sad the entire time.  Then finally, once Satan and his posse are used to this, God says, "Goodbye," to which Satan replies, "Good riddens."  But then, something strange happens.  Satan begins to realize that light is dimming ever so slightly, making him curse God even more.  He feels that existence is slowly being stripped away from him: he feels nothing but darkness.  His mind races around for thoughts other than his failures.  He can not live, and he can not die.  He's burning, from the inside.  It's everything he's ever wanted, but worse.  The darkness is like a parasite, a fire.  He is separated from God's love.  Life has no meaning; death has no meaning.  This is an abyss, a chasm where nothing good ever happens.  It's like dying without an end: to exist without life (which only the Almighty can create) is to burn in a thousand fires.  He is on fire, but not by a temperature: it's a fire that endlessly whittles down his atoms.  It's like being entombed: his paranoia dilutes what his personality once was.  He knows nothing more than what he knew.  There is no perception, simply some meagre form of existence off of which to feed, a pain that lasts forever.  Hell, in my opinion, is giving the fallen exactly what they think they want: no God.  You have a choice: to be with God, or to be without.  But if He sustains life, I'd be careful about my choice.

Then why don't we kill all the poor?  Or all the incompetent?  Or all those who might suffer?  Instead of donating money to third-world countries, why don't we get them out of the way of progress?  Don't you see what you're saying?  You couldn't possibly because you're fixated on being thought of as "progressive" or "modern".  We don't know what people in poor situations will do because they've done great things and terrible things.  Just as many people who are rich, like celebrities, do bad things, like kill, steal, and destroy--such is the nature of man, I'm afraid.  If we arbitrarily decide who is good enough and who's not before they're even born, what is the limit?  I say that limit is to let the individual decide whether he or she (themselves) wants to live, not someone else.

Let me give you an example: let's say I went back in time, say around 1925.  If I were to tell all the Jews in Austria that they were going to suffer immensely at the hands of a cruel dictator, what would they say?  That may not be.  They wouldn't all go kill themselves!

You keep stating that abortion is a bad solution but that prohibiting abortion is no better because of the problems it would cause.  In essence, you cite that abortion is a solution to a lack of responsibility, but I contend that that irresponsibility was exacerbated by the same "logic" that created abortion in the first place.  Do you claim that the world before abortion was a messy place where children only saw suffering?  I don't see that, and quite frankly, I don't think most reasonable people see that either, except to justify their argument.  Children will be abused regardless of
abortion: any decrease of which I doubt the existence does not justify our destroying life.  But back to my example, that's like saying to
the Jews before the Holocaust, "Well, you're gonna suffer anyway, so how about we shoot you now and get it over with?"  Would the Jews agree with such a demand?  No! 

If we arbitrarily decide who can and cannot live, then we set ourselves up for society run on some idea of perfection, by a fallible creature, mankind.  Everyone, when created, should have the right to experience life before someone else decides for them, even if that someone else decided that they live, because by nature all man is created by someone or something else, depending on what you believe.  If I can
arbitrarily decide what lives and dies while in the womb, why not outside the womb?  Why can I not kill someone I don't believe deserves to live, even if they are a "parasite" to society?  That's because each of us depends on that society, so that destroying life would only serve to condemn ourselves.

I don't believe in abortion, and I don't believe in the death penalty, because things change.  Life is not static suffering, unless we let it become just that.  Many of those children in third-world countries have far better outlooks on life than children in the United States.  We have gotten too familiar with some sort of "bed of roses" mentality, where the statistics dictate who will do what and when, and anyone not in the certian margins will have terrible lives exclusively.

As I said, life is not suffering, unless you're Buddhist, in which case, whatever; but it's not.  Take it from someone who has had everything from birth handed to him yet wanted to kill himself.  You can't predict what struggles people will have, and claiming that you have some sort of system to predict either way what will happen is, quite frankly, blowing hot air into your argument.

You actually surprised me with your first remark in this debate, and for that, I thank you.  I need a surprise every now and then.  But as for this debate, this post is the last in this argument for my side.  If I cannot convince you that an absolute standard of upholding life no matter what might happen, I don't feel I've lost because I've made a declaration as to where I stand.  Ask the Jensens.  Ask them if they thought, had their mother known she would have cancer twice and experience tremendous suffering, that she would take her own life.  I'm fairly sure she wouldn't have.  I'm sure her family alone was enough to compel to keep on living.

Life will never be ideal, but that doesn't mean we should avoid it.

Who decides who must suffer and when they definitely will?  There are many parents who, though at first did not want children, found incredible joy in that new life, while other parents who wanted children and had them abused them.  So then, is the government to condone the destroying of life based on suffering?  No!  Each one has the right to determine whether they want life or not: that's called freedom.  Even then, the suicidal are often locked up into institutions to be convinced not to destroy themselves.  Society, even from a purely evolutionary perspective, needs to uphold the value of life, for if it doesn't, anarchy ensues.  It is no more moral to kill a child based on convenience, even if that child was created mostly by a woman who deems it inconvenient.  For us to presume that its existence would merely be suffering therefore is foolish.  We don't know, and a society held up to a standard of responsibility--the sanctity of life--would very well change its promiscuous ways with that responsibility in mind.  If it didn't change, then what's the point of sexual education to begin with!  Why should we inform someone of any form of sexual responsibility if there is no one will change their mind anyway?  Destroying the child is by no means a solution to this either, only a degradation into ungratefulness and worthlessness.  Life is a gift to be cherished.

Check this link Parental Notification

Weird...Check this...Bug Chasers

Also Fraudulent Abortion?

And China Attacks!

Seriously, check all of these...

October 6, Norma Jean, Between the Buried and Me, Fear Before the March of Flames, Misery Signals play at Rocketown.

Read this first...State-Funded Sex Change

All of you need to read this...

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514170

I offer money for an assassination...

Check this link...http://newsbusters.org/node/7577

Sitting around wishing things weren't as they are isn't going to help anyone or anybody.

Well, I bet you hadn't seen me on the way,
Dealing with my own decisions,
Yet I didn't realize that you would stray
Quite as far as I might have.
Yes, the "You don't where I've been"
Has come to mind at least a thousand times,
But I don't know how else to reach you.
I'm never the best example,
Reaching into my magic bag to pull out
Another imbroglio of a conversation,
More awkward than the last.
These demons perpetuate such foolish ideas,
And how desire can hardly be fought!
There are two who can save you,
But one must be saved again from his own pride.