Its about to begin.
Post here please.
Printable View
Its about to begin.
Post here please.
please everyone, lets be silent.
No one can now doubt the words of America.
Urm dude you lied, Cheney lied, Rumsfeld lied, Powell lied so WTF are you on about?
ROFLOL Dozens of WMD related discoveries found in Iraq.
The lies continue.
Almaci
This message is hidden because Almaci is on your ignore list.
That's the state of my Union.
Quit talking about yourself and listen. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Im listening.
Meanwhile feel free to direct me to those dozens of WMD finds.
What the hell good is:
If people quote his posts?Quote:
This message is hidden because Almaci is on your ignore list.
That's not what he said, you word-twisting lying sack of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
And I quote:
"We are seeking all the facts*already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations"
Program activities. Research. Contact with other countries in attempts to buy WMD's. Not "WMD finds".
The Kay Report is available on the web, I suggest you read it.
Heheh. Almaci does it to everyone. If I were you, man, I'd just put him on ignore.
I can't believe Bush was pounding so hard on the idea that 'not making the tax cut permanent' = 'increasing taxes'. That sunset clause was so unbelievably transparent...it's just sort of funny, the gall.
Bush really is a far better public speaker than anyone gives him credit for.
Ah, great, Bush starts talking about his senior drug plan, and the camera immediately cuts to some fat, sickly looking senior woman.
---
"We must give low income Americans a refundable tax credit so they can purchase basic health care" = bone.
He's actually doing a Republican universal health care system...I dunno man, some of this is pretty good.
Bush + Republican Universal Health Care + Condi Rice VP 2004 + Banning Gay Marriage = 70% of the country being happy.
Hahahaha yeah right, we havent heard the last of this yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
All the previous claims proved to be false, often even before his administration made them public.
You know full well that those lines of his are designed to quel doubts of the moderate doubters.
Oh and thanks for the personal attacks, I appreciate em, I really do.
Shows youre frustration and how much you feel cornered becouse for the last 9 months I have been vindicated by world events goin from increased amount of terrorist acts worldwide as a direct result of the war to lack of WMD to claims of the administration being disproven and outright lies being uncovered etcetera etcetera.
As for MVS, I think he must think I care as he has done that a couple of times now.
Almaci, why the hell are you so concerned with all American politics?
If you believe Iraq wasn't cheap shotting the UN in one way or another you're naive, maybe not as much as some want us to believe but it just seems highly unlikely that there was NO WMD in Iraq given Saddam's character and past history, you discount the fact in how easy it is to get rid of this stuff and/or destroy it. Maybe there was none to begin with but it just doesn't seem likely, Saddam isn't or never was rational, he's crazy.
On a lighter note, NO sex for you.
And isnt this like the first state of the union since the US was formed witout Strohm Thurmond present?
Wasnt he second in command to the troops of LaFayette?
It's like you started this just itching for a fight.
Once again, you ignore what you said and dodge the issue at hand. You are what you say you have contempt for. A liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
I harbor no frustration for GWB or the administration or its policies. Terror acts worldwide are down significantly, not vice-versa. Your facts are as consistently fabricated as are your quotations of public officials. Whether or not WMD's exist in Iraq or not, the war was just, the intentions of Hussein to acquire WMD's was clear, and you have your head buried in the sand.
But, I'm not going down this long and winding road with you again. Enjoy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Nope he was rational, rational in his cruelty, thats why he didnt go down in a blaze of flames as expected.
Most dictators are very rational and commit horrible acts in a rational way.
Urm no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
I started this to talk about the state of the union, in comes Haomaru with the personal attacks tough.
How many global Al Queda attacks the year before the war and how much since the war?Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
Where have i lied?
Seriously, Bush himself was listing all the countries where attacks took place, long and grim list.
I think you mean 70% of the Republican party. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
I'm liking what I hear about health care but not liking what he said about education (which he underfunded), first response aid (whose funding he cut), strengthening our borders (when he's only beefed up BP by 1,000 agents since 2001), and the fact that he just proved he lied about "I'll never veto a bill."
Sounds a lot like last year's speech, except the fact that he's shifted from Iraq having WMDs 48 hours from deployment to a report showing they were trying to buy some.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Maybe part of his thought train is rational but if he was overall rational he wouldn't have pissed the world off countless times and there never would've been a war or a second one, with bombings in between. Our boy Kim in N. Korea is not rational, if he was he wouldn't have started all this shit over nukes and blowing everyone up who fucks with him. They're rational in their means to stay in power for the longest amount of time possible but this often ends up being their downfall.
post no. 3
Before Haoh said anything. You know how you said what you said comes off as inflammatory, and you know who you can get a rise out of by being that way. Seems like itching for a fight to me, but hey...Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
You know who's awesome? DJ Q-Bert! That boy is sick. Have you heard Wave Twisters yet, Alamaci? It's the dog's bollocks.
No word of Bin Ladin, extremely arrogant and at times seeming to compensate for his failures by acting as if they dont exist.
I think when I saw this "Most dictators are very rational and commit horrible acts in a rational way," steam shot out of my ears.
I can't help but comment. If a person thinks that, for instance, there was a 'rational' purpose for Hussein's rape rooms, and that the rape rooms were used in a 'rational' way, then you either misunderstand the word 'rational', are unbelievably fucking stupid, or are irredeemably evil.
The thought...the...so, fucking, argh, #%*($
I think I overestimate the worth of people.
Listen dont start with this shit again.
I explained before what I meant, as recently as the atomic bombs thread even.
I explained that while I find the bombings moraly wrong in their indiscriminacy(just like dresden or firebombing Tokyo) I understood the rationale behind it, the rationale being if we drop one they will think we used up the only one we had, if we drop both they will think we have a thousand of em and can obliterate Japan at will.
It might be morally unsound but its RATIONAL, just like the torture, rape and genocide can be a rational act.
Being immoral doesnt change the fact that it isnt an act of maddnes but cold premeditated rationality.
Raping woman is part of that, psychologicaly it sends a message to those who oppose you, the message being that you own them completely and you cant even protect youre woman and sadly it is an act often used in wars to demotivate the opponents or anger them in making mistakes.
Read up on war psychology and conflict psych before coming here and blasting me for things that are comon knoledge and well documented.
Atleast the State of the Union opened one person's eyes. That's Bush on all accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Q-Bert never fails to amuse me. Now I will listen to Daft Punk's Homework. Classic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
May I ask why 70 percent of the country gives a fuck whos taking what up their ass in their own private bedroom? Honestly, I don't see the problem with gay marrige as long as it's nota situation like MJ marrying a 5 year old. It's pretty sad when you care that much about other peoples sex lives you have to ban it.
Marriage shouldn't bestow extra privileges, regardless of who is doing what with whom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibbits
Stone, you're smarter than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
He's not trying to justify Saddam's atrocities, he's equating Hiroshima with Saddam's terror tactics.
It's an interesting comparison, not one that should be dismissed out of hand, but probably more appropriate for a different thread.
?!Quote:
Marriage shouldn't bestow extra privileges, regardless of who is doing what with whom.
Marriage does bestow extra privileges. That's why it exists.
Well, I miswrote - it's not "banning gay marriage", it's "not making up a new definition for the word 'marriage'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibbits
Marriage = between a man and a woman. It's important to the state because promoting marriage promotes childbirth, and making babies is good for your country. Yes, some couples choose not to produce babies - not important. Men and women getting together, staying together, and producing babies is good for the state. A man/women combination is better at raising a child (on average) than any other combination of sexes.
It'd be absurdly arbitrary to redefine the word "marriage" out of some misguided sense of inclusiveness.
'Civil Unions' are different. It's more difficult to say that a man and a woman should be able to share benefits, but a man and a man or a woman and a woman shouldn't. I think it's cool that people want to spend the rest of their lives with someone else, no matter who that person is. However, if homosexual civil unions make sense, then why don't polygamous unions make sense - pedophilic unions, what else. What about two dudes that aren't having sex but just really like each other? Eventually, the idea of 'civil union' will lose its meaning, and will stop existing - and then neither gay couples or real married couples will have its benefits.
Real married couples no longer having the benefits of a civil union is extremely problematic, and unfair to those married couples.
I think this is an issue of discriminating against one group or discriminating against everyone.
Wait, I thought the goal was to annoy the hell out of Alamaci, not talk seriously about politics. Whoops. My bad.
*bows out of thread*
I was at work, so I didn't get a chance to watch the address, so I'll have to make due with a blanket knee-jerk reaction:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Damn well said! I've been trying to put the same into words but havn't been able to do it.
"?!" ... Uh, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
Marriages are failing at a miserable rate. Being married actually provides for paying MORE taxes than for most filing individually. *Children* provide for privileges, not marriage. Marriage is, unfortunately, turning into an antiquated solution for this culture.
I'm married for seven years with two kids, a house, and all that. Truth is, I shouldn't be more or less equal than anyone else, hetrosexual or homosexual notwithstanding.
Thought it was fine. Overall optimistic and I like optimism... No real issues with what he could've/should've said. Although, I thought it was odd to hear, "The steroid use in sports must stop..." Heh, I mean, I dunno what raised the priority of that issue going into the speech, but I don't think it's bad enough to have risen to the level of being added ;). Not sure I buy the illegal immigration proposal, but I pretty much agreed with everything else.
Also, it was fun watching Ted Kennedy pout like a little baby for the camera ;).
I missed the speech, is there any chance it will be re-run?
Marriage, civil unions, call it whatever the hell you want, but fact is there is a class of people entitled to an entire subset of rights that another class of people aren't. Rights to property, rights to retirement and disability benefits, hospital visits, etc. It's unconstitutional, and it needs to stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
The "where do you draw the line" argument is bullshit. There are plenty of separate, obvious public policy reasons for preventing pedophilic unions, polygamous unions, and the like.
Yes, replay on C-SPAN right now if you got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Best part of the whole damned speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
From Reuters:Bush used last year's address to make the case against Iraq, citing various charges that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and was trying to build a nuclear weapon.
This year, Bush said chief weapons hunter David Kay, while finding no actual weapons, had identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction programs. He did not mention that Kay has been considering leaving his job.
My comment, Kay says he doesnt expect to find anything of substance so the search would just be wasted time and resources.
See my other post. But I think we're actually on the same side of this argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
Despite what a few pundits are saying, I thought it was a good speech. I went into the event with a fear that I'd see billions and billions of dollars being spent, but his spending proposals were small and general ideas quite good.
I thought he got a few good slams in, tonight.
"Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. (Democrat Applause.) The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. (Republican Applause.)"
Priceless. "Hooray! Police will not be able to use, on terrorists, the means of law enforcement we've been using for years on mobsters and drug lords!" Followed by: "Thanks, I'll take that. And remember kids, terrorists don't follow rules or schedules."
The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act -- ( Democrat Applause.) -- unless you act -- unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged $300 more in federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase. What Congress has given, the Congress should not take away. For the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent. (Applause.)"
Again, priceless. "Hooray! Taxes are gonna go back up!" followed by "Heh, thanks again: you're gonna penalize people for getting married, raise taxes on families, and stick it to small businesses; way to walk into it."
Yes we are. WOOT. =)Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
Stone, thanks, I see what he means more now. That being said, we allow gay mrrige in Canada, without bennifits UI believe [though they might have benifits as of recently, I don't recall]. I understand what you're saying about pedophiles and whatnot, but why not let gays get married too, along with straight people, and then say "to hell with you pedophiles, aint no way we're giving you a tax cut!" I dont agree with a government saying "You like pussy, here's a rebate". Although I do like pussy, if it were "You like cock, here's a rebate" I'd be mighty pissed I wasn't getting one becauseI liked pussy, I'll tell ya that.
Fuck, my goddamn post got deleted.
Sleeveboy, you misread Almaci's post. He was doing nothing more than claiming that there was some sort of fucked-up moral calculus at work, guiding Saddam's choices. There was not. 100 kurds were not gassed in order to save 10 Baathists. 100 kurds were not gassed in order to save 1 baathist.
At a certain point, brutality IS JUST brutality, and to insist that there was some sort of rational system at work is to sympathize with murderers, and to become complicit in evil.
---
I'll play along, and pretend that the kid was cogitating some comparison between Hiroshima and Saddam's regime. To suggest a comparison IS to justify Saddam's atrocities.
Hiroshima was a bloody math equation - 200,000 Japanese civilians traded for the cost of a Japanese invasion: perhaps 500k Americans, just as many Japanese, if not more. Was the choice to drop nukes a decision any moral person could make? I don't know - it's worth talking about.
There was no equation at work when Saddam chose to rape-room (or pick your own hyped-up example of evil) some 14-year old daughter of a crony that looked at him cross-eyed. None.
---
No, I'm not. I know what the fuck I'm saying when I say it. Criticize me, or, fuck, call me an idiot, but do...not...fucking...patronize...me.Quote:
Stone, you're smarter than this.
Do it again and I'll ignore you, also. You're better than that.
I think someone's getting a little too worked up over an intarweb debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Idiot.
I agree with you, it's problematic.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
However, that class (I prefer group) of people you refer to is entitled to that "entire subset of rights" because they offer the state something that those other classes of people can't - that class makes new citizens.
There is a significant difference between a heterosexual civil union and a homosexual civil union. The heterosexual civil union can create kids.
I don't understand the relative constitutionality of this issue, but I think there's a significant, recognizable difference between, say:
1.) Allowing heterosexuals to marry/have civil unions, and not allowing heterosexuals to marry/have civil unions.
2.) Allowing whites to marry, and not allowing blacks to marry.
I don't think this is a clear-cut issue, but I don't see anything wrong or unjust about the states giving more to a group that gives something back.
Could you explain to me why it is unconstitutional to withold marriage benefits from homosexual couples, but constitutional to withold marriage benefits from polygamous unions? (I'm not being snarky, I simply don't understand.)Quote:
The "where do you draw the line" argument is bullshit. There are plenty of separate, obvious public policy reasons for preventing pedophilic unions, polygamous unions, and the like.
Ah, fuck you, go eat a dick.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
The Patriot Act is a sickening piece of legislature that intrudes upon everyone's basic rights, it should be removed from the books completely. Holding people indefinitely without a trial and without notifying anyone should never be allowed, intrusion upon any citizens that they "suspect" of terrorism via unwarranted phone taps, and unnotified pulling of Library and Bookstore records are all steps into the 1984 direction and should not be allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
Some of you fuckers need to understand the difference between being caustic/aggressive, and being disrespectful. Online, in person, whatever, it's worthwhile to maintain a distinction. Go take a goddamned etiquette lesson.
Sleeve managed to degrade this thread in the exact same fashion as Almaci usually does - by making things personal. Do you want Sound Off to be the same thing as Fight Club or what?
Not in a country already burdened by overpopulation it isn't. I mean, come on, your conservative bias is so obvious. You're all pissy about allowing any immigrants to obtain citizenship (even though we're a nation historically comprised of immigrants) because of the drain they put on the economy for healthcare, welfare, etc. Yet you're perfectly fine with every couple pumping out another American mouth to feed just so long as they're wearing rings and wait to get divorced until after the baby's born.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
And this is based on what research? Yours? Pat Robertsons'? There is no credible psychological evidence that a homosexual couple is incapable of raising a child just as well as a heterosexual one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
In the end, this is just Bush pandering to his insane theocratic conservative base. The state shouldn't recognize or subsidize marriages anyway because they are a religious institution, and if they aren't then there is no reason why any two Americans of legal age to have sex (under the assumption that sex follows the first night of marriage) shouldn't have the right to enter into it.
I disagree... I don't think the fact of children being born is necessarily a benefit upon the state or society. More often then not it is just making the growing poor class of America even bigger. Which causes a burden upon states, not a boon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Personally I say either make Marriage a no longer state sanctioned act, and replace it completely with civil unions (you could combine a Marriage at a church with a civil union) or allow Gay marriages. The sanctity of marriage is just gov't sponsorship of the religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The police have already had these abilities for years. They've been able to use these same methods against organized crime forever; I think terrorism is just as, if not more, important to fight. But, I may be wrong and you may be right; maybe it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
"1984"!!! Read the book before you comment.
I still love you man... even if you are a conservative SOB. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
;), Just wanted to point that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
I don't think of myself as a conservative. I want a living wage and universal health care, for christ's sake. I'm pro-upping-taxes on the rich. I'd support Affirmative Action if I thought it did anything. I don't have an opinion on abortion since I don't understand whether a fetus is a life or a limb. I'm a smart conservative Democrat who likes bombs.
Gibbits - guilty, man, of course - I'd rather avoid it, but I'm happy to trash-talk if someone starts it.
We aren't burdened by overpopulation.Quote:
Not in a country already burdened by overpopulation it isn't. I mean, come on, your conservative bias is so obvious.
You've got the wrong guy. If anything, I'm worried about the way immigrants are turning into a source of American slave labor. I'm pro-immigration.Quote:
You're all pissy about allowing any immigrants to obtain citizenship (even though we're a nation historically comprised of immigrants) because of the drain they put on the economy for healthcare, welfare, etc.
It's based on my own observation of my own life and others - my single+ mother childhood, compared with the childhoods of friends who had structured mother-and-father families.Quote:
A man/women combination is better at raising a child (on average) than any other combination of sexes.
And this is based on what research? Yours? Pat Robertsons'? There is no credible psychological evidence that a homosexual couple is incapable of raising a child just as well as a heterosexual one.
A person's parents are the two most important people in their life. The way that a person deals with their own sex and the other sex is structured by the way that they relate to their parents. A person raised by one person or two people of the same sex is going to have more psychological problems (on average) than a person raised by a heterosexual couple.
Now, obviously, two nice gay guys would raise a son more effectively than an abusive alcoholic man-and-woman...but all things being equal, the kid produced by that man and woman is going to be better adjusted than the kid raised by those gay guys. That's all. Maybe I'm being overly hopeful/restrictive, given how few perfect families there are out there. I think a bit of conservatism when it comes to family structures might do wonders for improving the quality of families in general.
That's all.
I've read the book, and I say these types of gov't intrusions upon private lives is a step towards that type of totalitarian society. I'm not saying it is a large step... just that it's a step in that direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
They hold people in organized crime indefinitely without a trial or notifying anyone? I think not. And they have to get warrants for their wire taps and records of suspected mobsters, so they need to have a reasonable cause, to get said warrant.
Just caught half of it on CNBC, I was pretty motivated by a lot he had to say and overall I think it was a decent speech. His plans for health care are a good start on what needs to be done.
I think the Patriot act is a good thing because the government already has the ability to do what they need, the Patriot Act just opens it up and makes it public so at least people know that it's a possibility for that stuff to happen rather then have it happen unsuspected.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Something's wrong with this picture.
Look man, if you're conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues, then you're really more of a moderate Republican than anything else.
I lived in a broken home from the time I was five and I still grew up pretty well-adjusted (if I do say so myself), whereas there are many friends of mine who I know grew up in abusive and neglective two-parent heterosexual homes. So, really it shows that it doesn't matter what the sexuality of the parents are as much as what kind of people they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
For the love of all that is good, these baseless claims of "lost rights" are frightening. I've not had one right taken away since 9-11-01; I live the same way today that I lived on 9-10-01 (albeit with more of a proactive stance on terrorism).Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
The comparisons to 1984 are even more alarming; I've not, nor have you (I'm very sure), been impeded on in any way because of the Patriot Act. Neither of us have had to speak in guarded voices; we've not had to hold secrets.
Don't plot terror, and you won't be watched.
No I haven't... but the pandora's box is open and it's always a possiblity. I personally would prefer to make sure my rights are protected. Do I think I'm in danger now? Oh hell no. But I worry about slippery slopes of legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
Eh, a lot of the left seems to think that guys like Clinton and Lieberman basically are moderate Republicans. I believe what I believe for liberal reasons. I vote for Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I'm an old-school Scoop Jackson Democrat, like Lieberman. If I really don't belong in the Democratic party, then the party is going to have some trouble winning elections in the future.
If you're a Scoop Jackson Democrat then you have a hardline environmental stance, and we can still be friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
I wasnt too impressed with the speech. It kinda felt too much like Clinton's old SOTUs: "no matter what problem there is, we'll just throw a few million at it and it'll work itself out".
Except that's not a requirement for getting a marriage licence in any state I'm aware of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
That may be a clever post-hoc economic justification, but it hardly supports the denial of civil rights to an entire class of Americans.
Homosexual relationships are not illegal. Polygamous relationships are.Quote:
Could you explain to me why it is unconstitutional to withold marriage benefits from homosexual couples, but constitutional to withold marriage benefits from polygamous unions? (I'm not being snarky, I simply don't understand.)
The decriminalization of homosexuality does not necessitate the decriminalization of polygamy, bigamy, bestiality, buggery, or other sexual offenses that remain criminal offenses for independent reasons.
So it doesn't follow that if homosexuals are entitled to the benefits of marriage, polygamists/buggerers/furries/other freaks are as well.
Would you have felt better if I put in a smiley?Quote:
Ah, fuck you, go eat a dick.
I wasn't "making things personal", I was trying to spin your discussion with Almaci in a positive direction. As for turning Sound Off into Fight Club, I think you do a fine job of that yourself.Quote:
Sleeve managed to degrade this thread in the exact same fashion as Almaci usually does - by making things personal. Do you want Sound Off to be the same thing as Fight Club or what?
As for calling you an "idiot", I was only doing as I was told.
:) ;) :) :) ;) ;) :) :) :) ;) ;) :) :nod:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
I'd be lying if I said I didn't myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Oh look a personal attack.
And no I am not saying anything like it was done to save 10 baathists or whatever.
What it does is instigate fear.
The atombombs made the japanese frightened enough to do what they werent prepared to before, total submision, it was a calculated move, not a moral one but a rational one.
Same with terrorists blowing themselfs up and saddam his reign of terror.
Its a cold calculated and rationalised move.
Someone who is crazy doesnt wait for years for the right moment to blow himself up , someone who is crazy cant do that, it needs cold rationalisation to be able to do that so YES Saddam was verry rational in his use of force, Halabja was an example for others so others wouldnt rebel, it was a message oppose me and none of you will be left standing.
Mobutu did something similar before the rumble in the jungle in 74.
Coruption in his police force was strife, he knew that, he allowed that up to a certain extend, he knew that criminals payed of police members to be left alone.
For the rumble in the jungle he wanted none of it tough becouse it would give him international prestige to host the boxing event and he couldnt afford any embaressments.
So he had an elite force round up a few hunderd known criminals, lock them up under the soccer station and have em randomly executed.
The message was clear for the others who had not been arrested nor executed, Mobutu´s message was I dont care who you have bribed and who from my forces protects you, im the man here and you no one can protect you if youre stupid enough to attempt annything during the coming month.
The message was loud and clear and worked.
Again its a rational decision, not a moral one but a rational one by a cold hearted dictator.
A rarity -- unlike yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
I suggest you look at past threads where Stone and I have participated in.
Count the attacks and check who starts em.
Youd be surprised about the results.
Almaci, your life would be easier if you just let some things slide instead of constantly defending yourself in such an aggressive matter. You bring up old things in threads just to keep the gas in the fire and you flare everybody up. Why do you do this? I think you enjoy it, and that's just fucked up.
Numerous. You.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
We don't create legislation for 250 million individuals, we create legislation for categories. One category can create kids, the other categories can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
Fair enough... I don't really know how a focused attack on anti-polygamy laws would go if homosexual marriage was allowed.Quote:
Homosexual relationships are not illegal. Polygamous relationships are.
The decriminalization of homosexuality does not necessitate the decriminalization of polygamy, bigamy, bestiality, buggery, or other sexual offenses that remain criminal offenses for independent reasons.
You guys don't seem to get it. Almaci enjoys getting people pissed at him... he does it all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
In FC:
Brisco:Max Weber rambles a lot.
I've noticed the boards to be a little more civil lately.
Bbobb:It won't last.
Gohon: Nothing too big has been brought up, we're having a break after the political arguments of last month:P
Brisco: These new political debates have been pretty nice in the last bit. Gun control, health care... all decent.
Gohon:Probably because Almaci hasn't been involved as much, in all seriousness that guy is just good at making arguments turn bad.
Brisco: Nah, a few of us are capable of doing that without him.
Gohon: Haha, I guess so but he's usually the one to bring up such things that cause arguments to go sour, his opinions are pretty extreme and I guess they piss people off (have pissed me off on a few occasions).
No I didnt, I reacted to someone who was making a false claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
That's my point, you always have to go at everything that concerns you even know it doesn't matter and the thread has gone away from that argument. You screw up the progression of the thread to fight your own personal vendatta's that would go away if you just took some time to ignore some of the comments directed at your opinions or your persona.
It would help if people stopped deciding for me what my position on any given subject is or stopped dragging in things that dont concern them.
Stop side-shooting the issue at hand damnit! This kind of shit wouldn't happen if you wern't so defensive and overbearing! If you can't offer anything reasonable to an argument other then name calling along with a little info then stay the hell out. If you want to stay in the arguments don't de-rail the thread with your own personal conflicts and grow the hell up. You have a right to your opinion but you have an utermost obsession with enforcing it on others and going off on those that don't believe you or have something else to say. I don't give a fuck what other people do, this is about you, not about Stone, DifX, or Hero. You!
Urm no one lives in a vacuum, check the things I reacted upon.
Seriously what am i supposed to do, just say nothing and letting people continue to say in threads I didnt even participate in that I would defend Saddam or that I think Bin Laden aint that bad while those things couldnt be further from the truth?
Look up a few posts, there are deliberate and constant attempts to piss me off, during all that all I do is defend my stances and arguments in ways I feel fitting of the situation.
Fine no more personal attacks, I was allegedly put on ignore and blasted for that by the person who now once again starts em against me and others in this thread.
Why then shouldnt I be allowed to reply to that sort of hipocrasy?
My point is that you interject it into threads that've moved beyond that point of discussion, if you come in late too bad, participate in the thread with reasonable info. Stop making excuses for all of this, you're not completely innocent of all this anyway. I've said my piece.
Wich is what i did, I patiently explained for the third time to someone who was using personal attacks against me and others what I meant becouse he was yet again going for low blows.
Thank God most of the semi-trained chimps that have posted in this thread cannot vote in the US.
Here is a mirror, go look at yerself a bit.
Im sure you will find it amusing.
This simply isn't true. The fastest growing age bracket in the US is 85+. Our population curve has been turned on it's ear. The number of new child births every year is minimal compared to aging Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Overpopulation is an argument used by those who don't actually look at the numbers. :p
The problem is, you're assuming that the government will always act justly and never abuse those powers. How do you know some people won't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
I don't understand why the ability to bear children is relevant here. Polygamous marriages can have kids. Why then aren't they legal? Also, have you considered that gay unions are statistically longer lasting and more successful than traditional marriages? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1998, there were at least 1.6 million same-sex cohabitants in the United States. Despite the fact that same-sex marriage is generally not legally recognized, 90% of those couples described their relationships as "long-term committed." This, in a country where the heterosexual divorce rate is literally 50% of all marriages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
I wouldn't argue about overpopulation, but I would argue that new child births in America largely contribute to the growing poor class of Americans, as it is the lowest income families that in most cases have the most children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
I'm sorry, you're partially right. Overpopulation isn't a national problem, it's a worldwide epidemic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
That's always been the case though, in every country, all across the world. It's really weird how that happens. The Indian government now is preaching birth control hardcore because it can't develop as a nation when you have 200 million poor mothers giving birth to 10 kids in their lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
But can you produce any data that shows the "poor class" is growing faster than the middle or upper classes in the US? I would be interested in seeing that - and I mean outside of you know, them having more kids.
I seriously don't know why anybody expects any sort of rational, civil discussion from Almaci. He's not built for that sort of thing. Never was, never will be. Look at any thread he has heavy participation in, it always degenerates into stupidity and name-calling and mindless, circular arguments. And of course he will take no blame for such things (kind of like the guy who doesn't understand why every relationship he is in is bad). I will give him credit though, he's a master at convincing people that flamebait is legitimate discussion, and he's very, very good at putting on that whole innocent "what, me?" thing when someone calls him on it.Quote:
My point is that you interject it into threads that've moved beyond that point of discussion, if you come in late too bad, participate in the thread with reasonable info. Stop making excuses for all of this, you're not completely innocent of all this anyway. I've said my piece.
Good challenge... maybe I'm wrong, but I'll do some stats digging.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Here's one piece, but it's only circumstantial, not direct proof. http://www.census.gov/population/pro...ry/np-t7-a.pdf
It shows projected fertility rate for Hispanic and African Americans to be higher then Whites, and unfortunately a large part of Hispanic and Black individuals are part of the low income class in America. This stat backs that up: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/in..._avg_race.html as it shows the African American and Hispanic Median incomes being significantly lower then White or Asian. As I said, that's only circumstantial though, and does not prove anything. I'll continue to look though.
Stat from the US Census Bureau:
Still looking for birth rate stats though. I'll try to do some more searching today and see what I come up with.Quote:
At 16.7 percent, the poverty rate for children did not change between 2001 and 2002, but remained higher than that of 18-to-64-year-olds and seniors aged 65 and over. However, the number of children in poverty increased to 12.1 million in 2002, up from 11.7 million in 2001.
So much good discussion in this thread! :)
Number 1: I don't like religion. I don't begrudge people who do, people who believe in God, or whatever their beliefs. I don't think we should end all religion or anything like that. However, I do not want my fucking tax dollars going towards anything with any religious ties. Elected leaders should not be mentioning God or Allah or Buddah or the Nature Spirit, or whoever. Religion is private, and should be kept private, and should not receive public money unless the public wants to donate.
Number 2: What the hell was up with that steroids things?
We have decided that polygamy is against the law. Maybe somewhere down the road we will change our minds, but it is illegal (and sometimes a felony). We feel it is wrong. Personally, I have no opinion on the matter. We have also decided that pedophilia is wrong, and have made it illegal. I don't see us changing our minds on this because a child isn't mature enough to give consent (as in, understanding the consequences, whatnot).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Is homosexuality wrong? Idiots say yes, but normal people realize that it's a natural occurrence and there's nothing wrong with it. Aside from that, though, is homosexuality against the law? Is it illegal for a man to be in love with another man or a woman to be in love with another woman? No. Hands down, it's not. And it shouldn't be.
So there's no reason to deny same-sex couples the same rights that married couples have. They can already get married, that's not the issue at hand - one of my two bosses became a woman fifteen years ago and got married at some church to her wife - the issue is the rights. The government does not recognize my boss and her wife as together legally. She doesn't get to make medical decisions for her wife, and is denied other things I can't think of at the moment. That's bullshit. They love each other truly, which is more than most heterosexual married couples can say.
That's an assumption based on your own observations. You sound like Spo. Does anyone actually have any statistics to back this sort of thing up? I mean, it very well could be the case, but I've just never seen the case studies.Quote:
Men and women getting together, staying together, and producing babies is good for the state. A man/women combination is better at raising a child (on average) than any other combination of sexes.
Wait a second... you're a Democrat again? :)Quote:
I don't think of myself as a conservative. I want a living wage and universal health care, for christ's sake. I'm pro-upping-taxes on the rich. I'd support Affirmative Action if I thought it did anything. I don't have an opinion on abortion since I don't understand whether a fetus is a life or a limb. I'm a smart conservative Democrat who likes bombs.
No, but we are burdened by people who keep producing children for the wrong reasons. The only time people should have children is when they are 100% capable of supporting the child and genuinely want to take on the responsibility of raising it. Not, "I feel I would make a good Dad," or two people who only think they are financially stable. Sapphire works with a woman who makes $10.00 an hour. She's having a child with her boyfriend/husband (I forgot which one he is), who works in the production plant at the same place she works. He probably makes $14.00 an hour, maybe $16.00 or $17.00. That's not enough money to support a child properly, especially here in California. We need to stop crap like this, but the government encourages it by saying, "Hey you get benefits for getting married and having kids!" I understand we need people to have kids, but who disagrees that this child will probably grow up disadvantaged? Not to mention, the woman does EVERYTHING at her job. She can't ask for a raise because she can't back up a claim that she'll find work somewhere else - she's got to have a steady income to support her child. It's terrible.Quote:
We aren't burdened by overpopulation.
Same here. And I agree with your idea on military service for the immigrants. Everyone wins in that situation.Quote:
You've got the wrong guy. If anything, I'm worried about the way immigrants are turning into a source of American slave labor. I'm pro-immigration.
I had a "structured mother-and-father" family, correct? I turned out somewhat okay. But what about my sister? How did she turn out so wrong? She grew up the same way many other kids are growing up in structured mother-and-father families: spoiled and over-medicated.Quote:
It's based on my own observation of my own life and others - my single+ mother childhood, compared with the childhoods of friends who had structured mother-and-father families.
There might be. You're making a guess here, too, I suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Stone can call himself whatever he wants. He could be like, "I'm a Green!" if, for some crazy reason, he wanted to.Quote:
Something's wrong with this picture.
Look man, if you're conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues, then you're really more of a moderate Republican than anything else.
The only way for us to avoid turning into the situation from 1984 is to BUY APPLE COMPUTERS!!! NOW! BUY A G5!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter
Same here. I liked Clinton, but his SOTU's were boring. Imagine Howard Dean SOTU's, though! See the Democratic Primary thread to find out what I mean. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Hehe. Buggery. Buggery isn't illegal, is it? There's a lot of buggery in pr0n. Are pr0n companies breaking the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
There wasn't a personal attack in what you quoted from Stone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
Quote:
I suggest you look at past threads where Stone and I have participated in.
Count the attacks and check who starts em.
Youd be surprised about the results.
Couldn't have said it better myself. And that's going into my sig. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisco Bold
I didn't know there was actually evidence to back that claim up... wow. That's crazy. I mean, I knew about the divorce thing, but I just assumed that same-sex couples were more certain of their love for one another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
If he lives up to this, I shall doff my hat to him. That's if he comes to my barbeque and hangs out for a while this summer. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by George W. Bush
No, it isn't. Check the numbers, man. The birth rates have been steadily decling in most, if not all countries of the world. First and foremost among them are the developed countries (ie. US).Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Overpopulation is a sham.
Yeah, and lemme guess, so is global warming. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
Provide some facts to back-up your opinions.
They aren't opinions. Check any recent world population poll. They're easy enough to find, so you're going to have to look it up yourself. :p
Besides, I'm in class right now and have to keep my replies relatively short.
Oh, and make sure the poll is recent. :p
Does that mean you won't be explaining quantum physics to me like you promised?Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
You... bastard... :(
Did I promise that? If I did then I'll do my best to address it. PM me. If you're just joking and throwing a humorous light on this discussion, then I'm sorry for ruining it. :p
Bush is an idiot
Well that was a fine piece of insightful political commentary... :\Quote:
Originally Posted by Psx
The most staggering thing I've heard in a decade, for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Yeah, you jerk. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
Why, could you actually explain quantum physics for someone if they asked?
I'm honored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
I even spelled it the American way and everything.
At common law, buggery = man/boy sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Overpopulation is something that is FAR MORE the fault of third world nations than anybody else. The United States and other first world countries who have growing populations are generally doing so at a safe, sustainable level. It is third world nations who's populations are skyrocketing faster than the society can support them. If we ever experience incredible overpopulation that leads to a massive drop-off in population (similar to what happens in bacteria), you can blame many, many places before you blame the US or Japan or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Ahhh. Sodomy of the young boy. I get it now. Doesn't NAMBLA say that young boy sodomy is a beautiful thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
I think last year the population might have even had a minor decrease. I think abortion might have an impact in that as teenagers arn't having these kids like they used to, but that is nothing new.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx