Yeah, I saw it again. Great movie, but again, it's not what really happened. Movies like this prove why there should be an oscar for ensemble cast though. If any movie in the world deserves that, this one does.
This weekend I won't even have time for fun:(. I have to do a project which will take up an entire day on Sunday. As for Saturday, I'm going to the library to finish up a group project in World History.... woo-hoo......
So the point is, I won't be on for most of Saturday and none of Sunday. So long.-Mike
gamewiseman Blog
Now, Here's What REALLY Happened to United Flight 93. You Need to Click This.
by gamewiseman on Comments
I was talking with my friend about this for like an hour until we realized that the plane had to have been shot down. There's really no other conclusion I can come to looking at the evidence. There was a trail of debris that started raining down from the sky 6 miles before the plane crashed. Around this same length away, an ENTIRE ENGINE from the plane was found. So obviously, the plane wasn't brought down by a fight in the cockpit. It's not even known if they passengers made it to the cockpit on their attempt to take over the plane.
Some say the debris trail was actually blown by the wind from the crash site. That's just idiotic. NTBS (National Transport Safety Board) however insists that's what happened. Pfft... as if. There's no way this debris trail could have travelled by the wind. There was much more wind at the Pentagon when the plane crashed into it, and yet no debris left within like a football field. All of this has NEVER been reported by the media. Nobody ever looked into the debris trail, or even the goddamned engine that fell very far from the crash site. Books and humans remains were found even farther away. An air traffic controller even insisted that a nearby F-16 must have seen the whole thing. Yet this has never been reported ever and has just flown under mainstream media's radar. Why?
This just doesn't add up. Now, I'm not 100% sure that the plane was shot down, although it very well could have been. The only thing that is certain is that United 93 had a mid air crisis that caused debris to fall from the sky as well as an engine. We are not being told what happen, but the Gov't knows EXACTLY what occured.
One of the most important things about this is the info locked inside the Flight Data Recorder. It wouldn't make any sense as to why the FBI wouldn't release this. It would in no way do any damage to anyone or anything if it was really just an act of heroism by the passengers on the plane. There's only one logical reason why they wouldn't release it:
It would show the plane depressurizing, losing an engine, flipping upside down and crashing in a way that would some how put a negative effect on the Government.
In November, the FBI actually provided a Cockpit Voice Recorder that shows that the passengers probably didn't make it to the cockpit, or didn't do much to crash the plane. I have a lot to cover here, and I want you to pay attention to all of it.
Here are some things that I have to wonder, and I have to think to myself why they haven't been explained and what could have really occured:
First, I'd like to talk about some F-16 fighter jets that were scrambled at 9:24 am, and were airborne over Washington D.C. by 9:40, 26 minutes before United 93 crashed at 10:06. By this time, the president OK'd a shootdown if neccessary, and the Secret Service advised fighters to protect the white house at all costs. United 93 was the only aircraft off course at this time. It would have taken about 10-15 minutes for the jets to reach United 93. So, what were those fighters doing between 9:40-9:55, which is when the jets turned towards Flight 93? And why is it that F-15s, scrambled to reach the WTC at 8:45, made it so much quicker? Hmmmm....
Second, why was an F-16 circling United 93 (reported by Air Traffic Controllers), in visual range of the crash? And why does the government deny this?! Also, the FBI has told the ATCs not to talk to the press or else be prosecuted. This makes sense regardless though, because they would naturally know a lot about military activity that they would hate for the press to hear. Now here's one of the big subjects here: A white jet was witnessed by dozens at the crash scene flying AT TREE TOP LEVEL. In fact so low that that the witnesses felt they needed to DUCK. No ATCs talked to the media about this jet, but civilians did. FBI said it was a civilian jet, but it would not be flying that low, nor would the FBI have let a civilian jet in the air after they had closed down all air traffic. This could have been outfitted with missiles. Okay, I don't have any proof for that, but it COULD HAVE BEEN. My guess though is that it was a Customs jet. They're generally white with no markings. They are also fast as hell. They can literally get airborne in less than 15 minutes and are usually equipped with video equipment. Also, they are usually unarmed, which would contradict what I said earlier, but they're both possibilities. They are all recon. Strictly for observational purposes. Personally, my guess is that an F-16 was deployed to take down the plane, and this Custom's jet was a chase plane to have video footage and make sure it completed its job. Now there had to be two jets. And just the fact that there were two jets following United 93 should already grant enough proof that it was shot down. I'll go into that later.
Third, what caused human remains and a giant chunk of its engine to be found a great distance from the plane crash. First, it didn't blow there... let's just get over that. They say the wind could have blowed some of the remains like papers and such, but large engine parts were found similar distances. The wind can't blow that nearly as far. Also, the debris is not continuous. This was not blown away. Something happen up there that caused the larger chunks to fly off.
Now second, it didn't fall off during its vertical spiralling descent. The plane fell at about cruising speed. Things don't just FALL OFF at that speed. These 757s can dive, pull up, and do a barrel roll quickly. It doesn't just have to do with the low altitude that this happened in. That doesn't affect this so much. There is nothing, NOTHING that could have been performed in the cockpit to make the plane lose several parts of itself and, more importantly, have its entire engine rip off. However, jet engines are designed to fall off before the wing does. However there were many examples in which more radical things occured and the plane was just fine. Alaska 261 flew inverted, dove, roll inverted, and continued such for a long ways and the engines had no problems.
Now, what I tend to believe, that the plane was shot down or blown up by a bomb. Though, more likely by air-to-air missiles. Some witnesses even said they heard an explosion, even some said they heard a series of explosions. Interestingly enough, there was actually debris falling from the sky mements before the plane crashed a few miles away. However, I believe this was light debris such as papers and other things that the wind could actually blow or hold up in mid air for a time. There are two things that could threaten this theory though: 1.) Wouldn't it fall down in a huge explosion? and 2.) Then how did the debris field occur. I can give accurate enough explanations of both. For the former, air-to-air missiles are not extremely powerful. They are for the most part used only to cause the plane to no longer sustain flight, like targeting a wing or engine or back of the plane. They don't blow the plane to hell, just shoot off a wing or something. AIM-9M Sidewinder is a missile specifically used to target engines and could have been used.
So there.....WHEW. I'm tired but I hope this dawned some truth upon what really happen to United 93.
Some say the debris trail was actually blown by the wind from the crash site. That's just idiotic. NTBS (National Transport Safety Board) however insists that's what happened. Pfft... as if. There's no way this debris trail could have travelled by the wind. There was much more wind at the Pentagon when the plane crashed into it, and yet no debris left within like a football field. All of this has NEVER been reported by the media. Nobody ever looked into the debris trail, or even the goddamned engine that fell very far from the crash site. Books and humans remains were found even farther away. An air traffic controller even insisted that a nearby F-16 must have seen the whole thing. Yet this has never been reported ever and has just flown under mainstream media's radar. Why?
This just doesn't add up. Now, I'm not 100% sure that the plane was shot down, although it very well could have been. The only thing that is certain is that United 93 had a mid air crisis that caused debris to fall from the sky as well as an engine. We are not being told what happen, but the Gov't knows EXACTLY what occured.
One of the most important things about this is the info locked inside the Flight Data Recorder. It wouldn't make any sense as to why the FBI wouldn't release this. It would in no way do any damage to anyone or anything if it was really just an act of heroism by the passengers on the plane. There's only one logical reason why they wouldn't release it:
It would show the plane depressurizing, losing an engine, flipping upside down and crashing in a way that would some how put a negative effect on the Government.
In November, the FBI actually provided a Cockpit Voice Recorder that shows that the passengers probably didn't make it to the cockpit, or didn't do much to crash the plane. I have a lot to cover here, and I want you to pay attention to all of it.
Here are some things that I have to wonder, and I have to think to myself why they haven't been explained and what could have really occured:
First, I'd like to talk about some F-16 fighter jets that were scrambled at 9:24 am, and were airborne over Washington D.C. by 9:40, 26 minutes before United 93 crashed at 10:06. By this time, the president OK'd a shootdown if neccessary, and the Secret Service advised fighters to protect the white house at all costs. United 93 was the only aircraft off course at this time. It would have taken about 10-15 minutes for the jets to reach United 93. So, what were those fighters doing between 9:40-9:55, which is when the jets turned towards Flight 93? And why is it that F-15s, scrambled to reach the WTC at 8:45, made it so much quicker? Hmmmm....
Second, why was an F-16 circling United 93 (reported by Air Traffic Controllers), in visual range of the crash? And why does the government deny this?! Also, the FBI has told the ATCs not to talk to the press or else be prosecuted. This makes sense regardless though, because they would naturally know a lot about military activity that they would hate for the press to hear. Now here's one of the big subjects here: A white jet was witnessed by dozens at the crash scene flying AT TREE TOP LEVEL. In fact so low that that the witnesses felt they needed to DUCK. No ATCs talked to the media about this jet, but civilians did. FBI said it was a civilian jet, but it would not be flying that low, nor would the FBI have let a civilian jet in the air after they had closed down all air traffic. This could have been outfitted with missiles. Okay, I don't have any proof for that, but it COULD HAVE BEEN. My guess though is that it was a Customs jet. They're generally white with no markings. They are also fast as hell. They can literally get airborne in less than 15 minutes and are usually equipped with video equipment. Also, they are usually unarmed, which would contradict what I said earlier, but they're both possibilities. They are all recon. Strictly for observational purposes. Personally, my guess is that an F-16 was deployed to take down the plane, and this Custom's jet was a chase plane to have video footage and make sure it completed its job. Now there had to be two jets. And just the fact that there were two jets following United 93 should already grant enough proof that it was shot down. I'll go into that later.
Third, what caused human remains and a giant chunk of its engine to be found a great distance from the plane crash. First, it didn't blow there... let's just get over that. They say the wind could have blowed some of the remains like papers and such, but large engine parts were found similar distances. The wind can't blow that nearly as far. Also, the debris is not continuous. This was not blown away. Something happen up there that caused the larger chunks to fly off.
Now second, it didn't fall off during its vertical spiralling descent. The plane fell at about cruising speed. Things don't just FALL OFF at that speed. These 757s can dive, pull up, and do a barrel roll quickly. It doesn't just have to do with the low altitude that this happened in. That doesn't affect this so much. There is nothing, NOTHING that could have been performed in the cockpit to make the plane lose several parts of itself and, more importantly, have its entire engine rip off. However, jet engines are designed to fall off before the wing does. However there were many examples in which more radical things occured and the plane was just fine. Alaska 261 flew inverted, dove, roll inverted, and continued such for a long ways and the engines had no problems.
Now, what I tend to believe, that the plane was shot down or blown up by a bomb. Though, more likely by air-to-air missiles. Some witnesses even said they heard an explosion, even some said they heard a series of explosions. Interestingly enough, there was actually debris falling from the sky mements before the plane crashed a few miles away. However, I believe this was light debris such as papers and other things that the wind could actually blow or hold up in mid air for a time. There are two things that could threaten this theory though: 1.) Wouldn't it fall down in a huge explosion? and 2.) Then how did the debris field occur. I can give accurate enough explanations of both. For the former, air-to-air missiles are not extremely powerful. They are for the most part used only to cause the plane to no longer sustain flight, like targeting a wing or engine or back of the plane. They don't blow the plane to hell, just shoot off a wing or something. AIM-9M Sidewinder is a missile specifically used to target engines and could have been used.
So there.....WHEW. I'm tired but I hope this dawned some truth upon what really happen to United 93.
I'm BACK....with WEAPONS. Planes, Soda, and Mice and Men.
by gamewiseman on Comments
Four days I've been gone from home and it feels like a year. Well, I've got a lot to talk about I'm happy to say. First of all... I read a book. Damn good book, too. Sure you've heard of it, Of Mice and Men. Great book. The ending is really sad but it works. It's probably my favorite ending of any book, though Catcher in the Rye remains my all time favorite book. Not sure why. Ah well...
Also, what is the deal with soda flavors? Have you noticed them lately? I remember way back when cherry coke was a big new thing. Then, couple years later, Vanilla was huge. Only tasted so-so to me, but a lot of people loved it. Then, of course, every flavor of soda was also made into a diet version. But now...I suppose we're starting to run out of ideas, but we're combining flavors, and it's starting to taste weird. Black Cherry Diet Vanilla. Now what the hell is that? Just because it sounded so mutated I decided to taste it... eh...... not so good. Kind of like mixing together a bunch of good things hoping to get something better. Note to self: Don't mix peanut butter and grape juice.
Most importantly though...
Anyone who says this movie has come out too soon, or will not appease the memories of those lost on that fateful day needs to see this movie to understand how well Paul Greengrass has made the movie. The screenplay is so well done as it makes all of the characters humane, and realistic above all else. Many of the characters portrayed in this movie were actually acted by the real people involved. United 93 captures the heroics of the passengers on board and their fight to disband the terrorists and take control of the plane. You have to understand that, what happens on the plane aside from the phone calls, is fictitious. Of course it would have to be, but I'd like to think it was what really happened since it was done so well.
But while this is occuring on the plane, military leaders and those on the ground communicating with the airplanes are trying to understand whether or not planes are being hijacked and if they have anything to do those that crashed into the World Trade Center. Acting is great, performed by no names yet acted better than most of the big names. Alan Basche in particular acts fantastic. The impact felt when the credits roll is so shocking it's almost horrific. I'm almost certain that this movie will win the oscar, but I wouldn't care at all if it didn't. This is a great memorial to the people on United 93, and an even better movie.
Also, after taking these past couple of days off, I have a **** load of homework to make up. So, I won't be on much after tonight. At least for a few days. Ta-ta. -Mike
Also, what is the deal with soda flavors? Have you noticed them lately? I remember way back when cherry coke was a big new thing. Then, couple years later, Vanilla was huge. Only tasted so-so to me, but a lot of people loved it. Then, of course, every flavor of soda was also made into a diet version. But now...I suppose we're starting to run out of ideas, but we're combining flavors, and it's starting to taste weird. Black Cherry Diet Vanilla. Now what the hell is that? Just because it sounded so mutated I decided to taste it... eh...... not so good. Kind of like mixing together a bunch of good things hoping to get something better. Note to self: Don't mix peanut butter and grape juice.
Most importantly though...
Anyone who says this movie has come out too soon, or will not appease the memories of those lost on that fateful day needs to see this movie to understand how well Paul Greengrass has made the movie. The screenplay is so well done as it makes all of the characters humane, and realistic above all else. Many of the characters portrayed in this movie were actually acted by the real people involved. United 93 captures the heroics of the passengers on board and their fight to disband the terrorists and take control of the plane. You have to understand that, what happens on the plane aside from the phone calls, is fictitious. Of course it would have to be, but I'd like to think it was what really happened since it was done so well.
But while this is occuring on the plane, military leaders and those on the ground communicating with the airplanes are trying to understand whether or not planes are being hijacked and if they have anything to do those that crashed into the World Trade Center. Acting is great, performed by no names yet acted better than most of the big names. Alan Basche in particular acts fantastic. The impact felt when the credits roll is so shocking it's almost horrific. I'm almost certain that this movie will win the oscar, but I wouldn't care at all if it didn't. This is a great memorial to the people on United 93, and an even better movie.
Also, after taking these past couple of days off, I have a **** load of homework to make up. So, I won't be on much after tonight. At least for a few days. Ta-ta. -Mike
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Lightbulb Is Now OBSOLETE.
by gamewiseman on Comments
Oh yes. The airplane is being revolutionized into the graviplane, why not the lightbulb? It's been essentially the same design for 120 years or so. Time for a change...
It's called an OLED (Organic Light Emmiting Diode) able to be printed into wafer thin sheets that could transform entire walls or furniture into brilliant lights. They also do not heat up:shock:
Killer Sweet
Lightbulbs waste a lot of energy, and these would cut back a lot on that. It produces white light by layering blue, green, and red layers of dye on top of eachother and then lighting them up. These would be 100% efficient, using up all electricity instead of the waste of energy that is lost from being converted to heat.
The only thing holding back this beautiful invention is the fact that they're especially sensitive to moisture. If this could be overcome, than that would allow more efficient, stylish, and environmentally safe ways to, well, light things up. It's especially inventive because white light is more expensive than any other light to use for light bulbs so we usually use yellow, whereas white lights light up so much more.-Mike
It's called an OLED (Organic Light Emmiting Diode) able to be printed into wafer thin sheets that could transform entire walls or furniture into brilliant lights. They also do not heat up:shock:
Killer Sweet
Lightbulbs waste a lot of energy, and these would cut back a lot on that. It produces white light by layering blue, green, and red layers of dye on top of eachother and then lighting them up. These would be 100% efficient, using up all electricity instead of the waste of energy that is lost from being converted to heat.
The only thing holding back this beautiful invention is the fact that they're especially sensitive to moisture. If this could be overcome, than that would allow more efficient, stylish, and environmentally safe ways to, well, light things up. It's especially inventive because white light is more expensive than any other light to use for light bulbs so we usually use yellow, whereas white lights light up so much more.-Mike
Saw a movie, and am enjoying a rainy day.
by gamewiseman on Comments
So, I saw a movie today. Heat. Very good movie with Al Pacino and Robert de Niro. You should definitely see it, the direction is spectacular. No formal review, though. Not many people seem to read them, and I've decided to only review new releases.
It's still friggin raining. I popped the movie in (it's three hours long), and it's still raining. Can't do much, but I like the sound of rain don't you? Kind of relaxing, the sound of rain bouncing against the window. Hopefully, I'll see a movie this weekend in the theater. Probably Ice Age 2, since my theater isn't going to end up playing Thank You for Smoking (damn them). -Mike
It's still friggin raining. I popped the movie in (it's three hours long), and it's still raining. Can't do much, but I like the sound of rain don't you? Kind of relaxing, the sound of rain bouncing against the window. Hopefully, I'll see a movie this weekend in the theater. Probably Ice Age 2, since my theater isn't going to end up playing Thank You for Smoking (damn them). -Mike
One Day Left of Spring Break for Me. Suggestions?
by gamewiseman on Comments
I'm gonna go with being interactive right now, and ask what you think I should do for tomorrow, my last day. I'm proably just hang out with a friend all day, but some nice suggestions would help.
Luck Number Slevin: Witty and Fun
by gamewiseman on Comments
What's a Kansas City Shuffle? Everyone looks left, and you look right. I know it doesn't make sense now, but after seeing the movie, it starts to have its meaning. Lucky Number Slevin is sleek, witty, well written and even very fun. It's about a man named Slevin (Josh Hartnett) who is caught in the middle of a complex string of events taking place in a huge gang war. This involves "the boss" (Morgan Freeman) and Schlomo the Rabbi (Ben Kingsley).
This movie will con you. When I say con, I don't mean pull a smart twist because that's not this movie's style. It will tell you things, but they may or may not have happened. The acting is great though. My hat's off to Josh Hartnett for making a cool customer. He seemed so lame in Cinderella Story, but it just goes to show you that writing can make or break a character. It kind of struggles at the end to explain the events that preceded. And another problem with this movie is that its con on the audience makes you feel left out of the game that you were so happy to watch over. However, I recommend you see it. It's my personal favorite film of the year (April) thus far.
Tired...real tired.
by gamewiseman on Comments
Been walking around all day with friends, and I'm tired. I just need to get some sleep, so I'm gonna. Then later, I'm probably gonna end up playing some party poker with a friend at 21:00.
I Just Have One Thing To Say: Fuel-Less Gravity Planes.
by gamewiseman on Comments
I was reading an article today, and I came across a very smart idea for an airplane that would not need to use anything for power but the air around it. It pretty much operates on gravity, and the whole "lighter than air" thing.
You Say You Want a Revolution?
It's something, eh? It certainly makes sense in theory. The plane makes itself lighter than air by using helium, then it starts to gradually decsend until it drops below a point at which it can again use helium to make it rise again. Technically, this could allow it to travel unlimited distances without using fuels of any kind.
Well, that solves airplanes. Now how about applying something like this to cars? It's friggin $2.50 a gallon over here:evil:.
You Say You Want a Revolution?
It's something, eh? It certainly makes sense in theory. The plane makes itself lighter than air by using helium, then it starts to gradually decsend until it drops below a point at which it can again use helium to make it rise again. Technically, this could allow it to travel unlimited distances without using fuels of any kind.
Well, that solves airplanes. Now how about applying something like this to cars? It's friggin $2.50 a gallon over here:evil:.
Life Is Worth Losing, There Is No Such Thing as Morals, and Life Isn't Special.
by gamewiseman on Comments
Well now let's think about this. People really are just the same as cro-magnons when you get right down to it. Sure, we can build things now. We can fly, we can go underwater, we can, I don't know, paint a masterpeice. But our brains haven't at all changed. Psychologically, we're basically the same. Barely out of the jungle. If somebody dies, it makes literally no difference. It doesn't. Even if it is someone close to you, well, then your emotional survival methods kick in, and you move on. It's just that simple. The only way something like that would affect you is if you build up a mass of thoughts that convince your mind that you cannot live without, I don't know, your wife or something. Really, we will always result to base natures of the mind. In a sadistic way, it's fun to think about these kind of things. Everyone runs on their own needs to better their lives, thus, selfishness. Like, as before, if your wife died. You don't really care about the state your wife is now sadly in, you care about the state that you are now in.
So what do morals mean than? Manners? Ok, then. But in a sense, isn't that also just to better yourself. Makes you feel like a nice person right? Well you'd like to be a nice person, so you act polite. It betters everyone around you, but you don't care about them, you care about whether or not you have good morals and are nice.
So what are "religious morals"? I love that. Religious Morals. Nobody calls them that anymore though, they just shorten it to the word "morals", which really screws over people that don't believe in religion I guess. Anywho, religious morals pretty much revolve around one of the most stylish and maybe even well sounded terms to come across this 21st century: Sanctity of Life. Rolls off the toungue. Personally, I think it's just a giant load of BS. What makes life sacred? What could possibly make life sacred?! You can't tell me. No one can tell me. But for some reason, God can tell me without telling me. What do I mean by that? Well we have to assume that a lot of people that believe in this twisted sanctity of life are Christians. I asked one of them once what that speical term means. They said it meant that life is sacred. I said "Well, how?" Then he said "I don't know" and walked away. Religious people believe strongly that, especially in the whole abortion debate, life is sacred and should not be ended. Well afterall, in the bible as like 2000 years ago women were pretty much used for birth and taking care of the kid. Also, back then, your job in life was to have a kid, and make sure it grows up. That was pretty much it. Everyone back then had a wife. EVERYONE. You can't blame them though. The world needed people. Well, the Earth is really overpopulated right now. Dangerously in fact. Even if life really was sacred, it's getting to the point where we need to stop making so much of it. Wow, I'm babbling though. Life is no more than a sperm meeting an egg, at least in the case of humans. The only real negative affect things like abortion can have on people is the absense of what may have been an intelligent person in the community. Ok, yeah, that's certainly true. However, the compelte opposite could also be true. You could have just killed off the next neo-nazi terrorist supremist evil scientist one step away from growing a wacky mustache and taking over Poland (I'd say the name of who I was actually talking about, but GS has censored the word....don't even get me started on censorship). Morals....well I guess my topic name is misleading. There is such thing as morals, but it's a VERY deceptive term to say the least. I also think it is very funny that while many believers in God think sanctity of life is important those very same people's ancestors were fighting and killing hundreds of other people in the name of God. In fact, many conquerors or generals after victorious battles declare said mass slaughter of individuals in the name of God. Hmmm...
For some reason, I've gotten severely angry at people for not understanding psychology or how it affects things around you, which got me thinking about morals, which inevitably lead me to think about what could possess people to believe in a God.
And then, it hit me. It hit me like a roundhouse kick from Chuck Norris. People that believe in God, ok I'm not gonna be so general, many people that believe in God have never thought about it. I think that's generally something that's wrong with people, no one ever really thinks about what they do or what they believe in or so and so.
Man....I'm really tired...g'night guys, hope this didn't offend too many people. I'm in a kind of depressed mood for some reason. Had a good day too:-(. -Mike.
So what do morals mean than? Manners? Ok, then. But in a sense, isn't that also just to better yourself. Makes you feel like a nice person right? Well you'd like to be a nice person, so you act polite. It betters everyone around you, but you don't care about them, you care about whether or not you have good morals and are nice.
So what are "religious morals"? I love that. Religious Morals. Nobody calls them that anymore though, they just shorten it to the word "morals", which really screws over people that don't believe in religion I guess. Anywho, religious morals pretty much revolve around one of the most stylish and maybe even well sounded terms to come across this 21st century: Sanctity of Life. Rolls off the toungue. Personally, I think it's just a giant load of BS. What makes life sacred? What could possibly make life sacred?! You can't tell me. No one can tell me. But for some reason, God can tell me without telling me. What do I mean by that? Well we have to assume that a lot of people that believe in this twisted sanctity of life are Christians. I asked one of them once what that speical term means. They said it meant that life is sacred. I said "Well, how?" Then he said "I don't know" and walked away. Religious people believe strongly that, especially in the whole abortion debate, life is sacred and should not be ended. Well afterall, in the bible as like 2000 years ago women were pretty much used for birth and taking care of the kid. Also, back then, your job in life was to have a kid, and make sure it grows up. That was pretty much it. Everyone back then had a wife. EVERYONE. You can't blame them though. The world needed people. Well, the Earth is really overpopulated right now. Dangerously in fact. Even if life really was sacred, it's getting to the point where we need to stop making so much of it. Wow, I'm babbling though. Life is no more than a sperm meeting an egg, at least in the case of humans. The only real negative affect things like abortion can have on people is the absense of what may have been an intelligent person in the community. Ok, yeah, that's certainly true. However, the compelte opposite could also be true. You could have just killed off the next neo-nazi terrorist supremist evil scientist one step away from growing a wacky mustache and taking over Poland (I'd say the name of who I was actually talking about, but GS has censored the word....don't even get me started on censorship). Morals....well I guess my topic name is misleading. There is such thing as morals, but it's a VERY deceptive term to say the least. I also think it is very funny that while many believers in God think sanctity of life is important those very same people's ancestors were fighting and killing hundreds of other people in the name of God. In fact, many conquerors or generals after victorious battles declare said mass slaughter of individuals in the name of God. Hmmm...
For some reason, I've gotten severely angry at people for not understanding psychology or how it affects things around you, which got me thinking about morals, which inevitably lead me to think about what could possess people to believe in a God.
And then, it hit me. It hit me like a roundhouse kick from Chuck Norris. People that believe in God, ok I'm not gonna be so general, many people that believe in God have never thought about it. I think that's generally something that's wrong with people, no one ever really thinks about what they do or what they believe in or so and so.
Man....I'm really tired...g'night guys, hope this didn't offend too many people. I'm in a kind of depressed mood for some reason. Had a good day too:-(. -Mike.
Log in to comment