letters to the editor
Submit a Letter
sports & rec.
spring break deals
Work @ The Auburn Plainsman
« GOODTEA wrote on Sunday, Apr 28 at 03:30 PM »
This is a horrible review.. Isaac Brock is brilliant, and a perfect choice for a heart-filled adventure. The music choice probably lacked a little Mumford and Sons or nickelback in your choice. Learn a little about the bands before you look silly.
« Edward_May wrote on Friday, Apr 26 at 11:05 AM »
I have always been fond of my mornings, afternoons, and evenings spent in the Gnu's Room, working on studio projects, playing open mic nights, or just hiding from all of the cacophony of football Saturdays. It was a wonderful exhibition of local pride when everyone came together to 'Spread The Gnu's" a few years ago, and made an effort to sustain the Gnu's. As a counterpoint to the typical Auburn establishment, it was refreshing to see local culture, meet interesting people, or just have damn fine conversation. They also served the best damn coffee. Hands down! Tina, you are wonderful, and I have always thought the world of you.
« segfault wrote on Thursday, Apr 25 at 02:54 PM »
"of entire human groups" is the key phrase there. What group is being targeted? Even if there were a movement to pressure certain groups to have abortions, the problem would be the racist pressure, not the abortion itself. In other words, most people who have abortions are not trying to wipe out any groups. They simply cannot or do not want to support a baby at that time. You claim that all fetuses are huamans, but the point at which a fetus becomes completely human and gains human rights is debatable. Many if not most fertilized eggs don't make it until birth. Birth is also a bad marker because the baby has been viable outside the womb for quite a while. The answer is somewhere in between, but where? This is the core question of the abortion debate, and I'm not sure that there is an answer. I am pro choice by default because I don't consider it my place to impose my view of this philosophical question on others, but I think that more focus on sex education and birth control is more useful than bickering over a philosophical question. To answer your question, even if the pro-choice argument was correct, the incidences of abortion would be separate incidents of murder, not even mass murder and definitely not genocide. We're talking about many individual cases, not a top-down directive. That's why people are upset. The abortion debate is relevant to the event, but the offense comes from how lightly the campaign uses the word genocide on a day set aside for remembrance of actual genocide.
« FletcherArmstrongBlog wrote on Thursday, Apr 25 at 12:13 AM »
Nazis called their victims useless eaters and non-human (rats, pigs, vermin, "untermensch," etc.). So the government took away their rights, experimented on them, and killed them. Today, abortion promoters call their victims non-human (products of conception, blob of tissue, parasite, potential life, etc.) and a burden. The Supreme Court took away their rights. Medical practitioners experiment on them and kill them. Many of the same people who say "never again" turn around and destroy their own children, for very similar reasons. They are "outraged" when we point this out. It is easy to oppose an injustice committed by somebody else, a long time ago, an ocean away. It is much more difficult to oppose an injustice that we ourselves are guilty of, right here and right now.
« FletcherArmstrongBlog wrote on Thursday, Apr 25 at 12:06 AM »
Responding to segfault, UN General Assembly Resolution 96 defines genocide in broader terms. Resolution 96, adopted in 1946, defines genocide as “a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings….” Resolution 96 goes on to say genocide is a crime “whether committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds …” (Note the phrase, “any other grounds”.) Clearly, abortion denies millions of unwanted preborn children the right to live by systematically killing them. In 1948, the UN promulgated a more narrow definition for the purpose of prosecuting the crime in international court. The UN was forced by the Soviet Union to exclude mass murders of political and social groups from consideration, because they did not want to be hauled into court to defend Stalin’s genocidal acts. Hence, the more narrowly-written legal definition that included only national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups. Under the 1948 Convention, the killing of 1.7 million Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge would not be called genocide, because the victims were not selected based on nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion. Yet most everybody refers to this as an act of genocide. Of course, abortion is neither murder nor genocide if each preborn baby killed by abortion were something less than a living human being. But if each abortion kills a living human being — science tells us that the preborn child is both human and alive — then abortion kills 1.2 million human beings every year in America. If not genocide, what else would you call it?
« iamroy wrote on Wednesday, Apr 24 at 03:46 PM »
I saw Gene in Gadsden not long ago and thanked him for his time at Auburn. Even then I could tell this article got to him and he was upset. Thank you Geene for setting the record STRAIGHT! SELENA ROBERTS IF YOU ARE READING THIS STICK TO "BLOGGING" WHATEVER THAT EVEN IS
« iamroy wrote on Wednesday, Apr 24 at 03:44 PM »
Just tried to get the Toomers app with Louis but don't see where on his phone to get apps?
« PunkyBruiesr wrote on Wednesday, Apr 24 at 02:37 PM »
The title of this article...I'm sure employees at any of these places would be offended by the fact that you've dubbed their merchandise "trash". Maybe reconsider your phrasing next time? I'm sure consignors wouldn't appreciate their items being compared to something that is usually found in a dumpster either. How does that make people want to shop at any of these places? Just a thought.
« segfault wrote on Tuesday, Apr 23 at 01:32 PM »
Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group One abortion proponent being racist does not make abortion an inherently racist act. If you really are trying to make the ridiculous claim that all abortions are an attempt to wipe out a certain race, you are going to have to provide citation. Keep in mind that if a woman has an abortion, it is her own race's genes that are being eliminated, so if it were genocide, she would be committing genocide on her own race. The bottom line is that using the term genocide litely on holocaust remembrance day was incredibly offensive to victims of actual genocide, and using shock tactics and misinformation as arguments makes the pro-life movement look bad. They have a right to free speech, and the concourse is a legitimate area for them to have their display. However, words have consequences, and the other side has free speech, too. If they weren't prepared for angry backlash (verbal, the death threats were inexcusable), they shouldn't have been so offensive.
« iamroy wrote on Tuesday, Apr 23 at 11:18 AM »
I was not married under the Toomers oaks but I was married on my second marriage under a Magnolia tree in Lee County which I consider my own "personal Toomers Oak." In a related event, that tree also died a few years later and I got married again shortly thereafter but I always have those memories. WDE to these two
next 1000 results
Software Copyright © 2013
. Content Copyright © 2013 The Auburn Plainsman. Business listing data provided in part by Localeze.
This software is in a public beta.
The Auburn Plainsman - A spirit that is not afraid is in Auburn, AL