| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#221
May 11th 05, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#222
May 11th 05, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#223
May 11th 05, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is wrong with correcting the law... instead of applying patches to a
worn out system? Write your congressman today!!! Most of these ancient institutions and methods were created when people were still afraid of electricity--thought it took a genius to use radio--INDEED--the ignorant masses viewed radio as almost "Magic!" Times have changed, kids run 10 watt Ghz transmitters on 2100 Mhz and tear up business wireless networks for miles--important business and public communications are affected--these kids need an outlet for their energies.... The world has changed drastically--the laws still reflect stoneage beliefs and structure... Warmest regards, John -- Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something... "I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message ... From: (Dave Hall) Yes, that it primarily the left who are spearheading an intensified effort to remove all signs of religion from government processes, even though most have been around since this country was founded. So has crime. What is wrong with seeking to remove that of which the law clearly defines? You are one of the most vocal in this group to redundantly invoke that just because something is practiced far and wide doesn't make it legal or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree with it. |
|
#224
May 11th 05, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh no, he is nothing special alright... I imagine your IQ has been tested
and blows him away... And, surely you have rubbed elbows with colleges such as he has, perhaps you even share many of the same friends--too bad about Carl Sagans' passing--I bet you miss him... and hold many as close personal friends--the rich exchange you have with them keeps you quite up to date--I can tell from your text... Nope, no one would ever confuse you with an "Arm-Chair-Genius." Warmest regards, John -- Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something... "I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message ... From: (John Smith) Well, that is certainly "YOUR OPINION"--I see little else there... Interesting you should cram Steven into such a small bottle--where are you lecturing this year--if it will be in a city close--I may come and see what you have to say... Warmest regards, John -- Sit down the six pack--step away!!! ... and go do something... _ He was a novelty in the eighties, but is nowhere near those who are considered tops in the field these days. He is no longer the "go to" guy regarding space philosophy and astro physics. The guy is more a cultural icon than definitive authority on any matter. |
|
#225
May 11th 05, 05:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 06:40:20 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Dave: You said, "So, while the FCC might not directly "own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does." This is grossly mis-leading!!! The gov't owns NOTHING!!!! Well then they are certainly operating as if they do. They collect the proceeds from spectrum auctions. That makes the government a de-facto owner of this commodity. They are a group of indivduals who are elected, appointed, and hired to do the citizens business. They have a job to do--if they either cannot or will not do it without becomming self-serving employees--they simply need fired. Evidently the "citizens",collectively, do not see the problem with the FCC administering the airwaves in the manner than they currently do. These public servants, from the president on down, need to be worried about what the citizens of this country need and want--and what the citizens of this country are telling them to do. By and large, the citizens are not screaming for mass chunks of radio spectrum to use. Just like if I hired an employee to help me in a private business--they are directly answerable to their employers... What the gov't needs to do is set aside a bit of the radio spectrum for use in conducing the citizens business--some for commercial use--some for hobby-expermental use... and the rest IS THE CITIZENS!!!!! To do what with? Besides, after you divide up the spectrum between legitimate commercial services (which are usually available to the citizens as in cell phone and wireless internet), public services (police, fire, EMS etc.) government entities (FBI, USGS, Forest service, military etc.) and hobby use (Ham and CB), there isn't much left. That's why the FCC operates as it does. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#226
May 11th 05, 06:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, yeah, property is pretty scarce out there .5 Mhz to tens or hundreds
of Ghz... hardly a spare megahertz anywhere... and yeah, a quick tune across just a 30 Mhz sw is proof this is all in use and quite congested... ....but, I don't think so... and the citizens do own the spectrum--even if a dicatator claims it in a foreign land--he is mistaken--and even if a whole gov't claims it--they are mistaken... even if the public servants of the USA think it is theirs--they are mistaken... Really, this truth is so obivious I can't even imagine anyone arguing it... although some may hold "religious views" on it, or be willing to wage "holy wars" over it to serve their self-serving reasons, beliefs... Warmest regards, John -- Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... | On Wed, 11 May 2005 06:40:20 -0700, "John Smith" | wrote: | | Dave: | | You said, "So, while the FCC might not directly | "own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does." | | This is grossly mis-leading!!! The gov't owns NOTHING!!!! | | Well then they are certainly operating as if they do. They collect the | proceeds from spectrum auctions. That makes the government a de-facto | owner of this commodity. | | | They are a group | of indivduals who are elected, appointed, and hired to do the citizens | business. They have a job to do--if they either cannot or will not do it | without becomming self-serving employees--they simply need fired. | | Evidently the "citizens",collectively, do not see the problem with the | FCC administering the airwaves in the manner than they currently do. | | These public servants, from the president on down, need to be worried about | what the citizens of this country need and want--and what the citizens of | this country are telling them to do. | | By and large, the citizens are not screaming for mass chunks of radio | spectrum to use. | | | Just like if I hired an employee to help me in a private business--they are | directly answerable to their employers... | | What the gov't needs to do is set aside a bit of the radio spectrum for use | in conducing the citizens business--some for commercial use--some for | hobby-expermental use... and the rest IS THE CITIZENS!!!!! | | To do what with? Besides, after you divide up the spectrum between | legitimate commercial services (which are usually available to the | citizens as in cell phone and wireless internet), public services | (police, fire, EMS etc.) government entities (FBI, USGS, Forest | service, military etc.) and hobby use (Ham and CB), there isn't much | left. | | That's why the FCC operates as it does. | | Dave | "Sandbagger" | http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#228
May 11th 05, 07:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:38:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) Yes, that it primarily the left who are spearheading an intensified effort to remove all signs of religion from government processes, even though most have been around since this country was founded. So has crime. What is wrong with seeking to remove that of which the law clearly defines? Nothing, if that's indeed the case. But those religious influences are adorned all over our government buildings and in our government business. Why is it only now do certain people find exception to it? You are one of the most vocal in this group to redundantly invoke that just because something is practiced far and wide doesn't make it legal or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree with it. When it's not illegal, I agree with it. The fact is that despite recent misinterpretations of the establishment clause in the constitution by left wing zealots, we have had religious influences in our government from the very beginning. I would argue that it was those influences which made this country one of strong moral and ethical principles. It's no coincidence that the decline in governmental ethics and morality correspond with efforts to eradicate religious influences from our lives. There was once a day when democrats and republicans practiced a little thing called compromise. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#229
May 12th 05, 12:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:29:58 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:43:50 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: (Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous. ) Being monogamous with your wife/husband/partner has nothing to do with your past. Never said that it did. * You said one will not likely catch AIDS if one practices monogamy. This would only hold true if both were virgins when getting married..,not practical when applied to present reality, as the vast majority have a sexual past history. And the less promiscuous that past is, the less likely that one will catch AIDS. Besides, you imply that it's next to impossible or, at the very least, unrealistic for someone to wait until marriage to engage in sexual relations. There is nothing honorable or otherwise noteworthy about becoming sexually active in your teenaged years, despite the image that the major media outlets try to paint to those overly impressionable teenagers. _ *There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for years and years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS. Which means nothing if you've never been exposed to it. Monogamous doesn't mean act like a slut throughout your "formative" years and then decide to "stay with one person at age 30. That you consider a past sexual history equals "acting like a slut" reveals several interesting facts of your beliefs regarding this topic. Yes, it reveals that I don't believe that sex should be engaged as a casual activity. Sex is a part of an act of love, to be shared with someone who you have a much deeper emotional bond with. Not something for two people, who are barely friends, who are simply looking to kill a few hours. The ONLY "cure" is found in the prevention..in other words, abstaining from pre-marital sex then both parties getting a thorough CBC (complete blood count) prior to tying the knot. Now you are finally seeing the light. I've known this since 1980 when the disease was traced to a cave in Africa and suspected of being contracted from bat guano (the initial host.....believed by scholars) or a rhesus monkey. Google "The Hot Zone" and the parallels are there for the reading. Better yet, read the book. Now if only you could understand that monogamy today does not discount one's past, as the majority of people have a sexual past history prior to marriage and monogamy. That's part of the problem. Your claim that monogamy decreases the chance of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past history. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition. While total abstinence before marriage is a concept that's lost on this latest hedonistic generation, the simple truth is that the less partners you have had, the less your chances of catching AIDS. The type of partners you have had also affects your chances. Frequent patronage of prostitutes, for instance, greatly increases your chances of getting the disease. The "clean" mark was originally 5 years, then 10, then 15,,,it's now believed that 20 years is the "safe" mark regarding past sexual activity..in other words, if you have been monogamous for 20 years with your partner, and your partner has also been monogamous for that amount of time, the likelihood of contracting the virus decreases substantially, but is -still- not discounted totally. Better that than hooking up with someone who's rear end has seen more bedsheets than underwear. My wife and I recently celebrated our 20 year wedding anniversary. So I guess we're safe ;-) Congratulations! I'd like to say the same regarding your beliefs of contracting this disease, but I think your moral beliefs are heavily biasing and preventing you from obtaining the facts regarding such. The facts are quite simple. The less sex you engage in, the lesser your chances of getting AIDS. Those who contract the disease have only themselves, by virtue of their activities, to blame in most cases. I am quite certain that my risk of contracting AIDS is less than my chances of getting hit by a meteor. I am far more concerned with cancer and heart disease as these pose a much greater risk to the members of my family. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#230
May 12th 05, 12:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 09:45:42 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:13:37 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous. And virgins. And your point? My point is that you are an idiot if you think AIDS is limited to sinners. snip Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens, maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration. Why? Carter's administration has no relevance to this discussion. Sure it does. You made a reference to the Democrats. Yes, that it primarily the left who are spearheading an intensified effort to remove all signs of religion from government processes, even though most have been around since this country was founded. Like I said befo Better late than never. But if you want to know why -now- instead of 20 or 100 years ago, just take a look at the demographics of the Republican base. They have turned their party into the "unofficial" party of the conservative Christians because it's an easy crowd, and they are trying to make every election a vote about religious convictions instead of government issues. The idea is certainly creative, but it will eventually fail because people don't want the government meddling with their religious freedoms. Carter is a Democrat, isn't he? Ok, so he doesn't hold an office right now. But how many Democrats currently holding office are athiests? By their own admissions, not many. Your argument is bogus -- I think Jeanine Garafalo (sp?) had it right: The conservative's definition of 'liberal' is any judge that upholds the law. Or something like that. Jeanine Garafalo is a hopelessly biased liberal on a liberal radio network which is failing miserably. True on both counts. But her statement was still accurate. snip There is no mandated "separation of church and state". Only an establishment clause prohibiting a state sponsored religion. Since you refuse to read it yourself, here's that clause from First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Sounds to me like that is a mandate defining the seperation of church and state. No, it's an establishment clause that states (quite plainly) that congress shall not establish an "official" religion, That's only part of the scope. Read it again: The Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that would -respect- any religion. More specifically, they can't help create a religious institution, nor can they prevent them from existing. If some people want to establish a religion that worships Satan, or Baal, or even Thomas Edison, there's nothing the government can do to about it one way or another. THAT'S what it means. And that -includes- prohibiting Congress from making the US an "unofficial" Christian state whether it be by tradition or by majority. Seperation of church and state is the -only- way to preserve the right of religious freedom for everyone, and the First Amendment does exactly that. and may not prevent anyone from exercising their own personal religious beliefs. At least you got -that- part right. Nowhere can you state accurately that that statement implies that there shall be no religious influences in the day to day operation of the government. Influence is not law, nor is it a majority vote (as exampled on a regular basis by corporate lobbyists and SIGs). Maybe you did read the constitution, but you don't seem to understand it. I think this page says it best: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues Too liberal for ya, huh Dave? Much. They are taking this to an extreme. And here again, you are displaying yet another of your contradictions. You who claim to support the constitution and the wisdom of our forefathers (who were all religious people), All of them? Careful, Dave..... yet now advocate that we go above and beyond the definitions called for in the constitution, and to totally eradicate all religious influences from our government, even though they have been intrinsically intertwined in it from the start. Despite the horrendous grammatical construction of your claim, what part of the Constitution requires, or even -suggests-, that religious influence should play any role in the government? There is ONLY ONE reference that could even come -close- to what you claim, and that would be in the final Article, where the date of its ratification is written as "...the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord...". That's quite a stretch, Dave. What passage have you quoted? Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution? Yes, have you? What passage are you referring? The same passage I have been referring to all along -- Article VI. Since you haven't read it, let me quote if for you, and in full: "All Debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation. "This Constituion, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. You now have no excuse for such stupid questions. You've never participated in a jury trial have you? As a matter of fact I have. I have been sworn as a juror twice, a few times as a witness, four times as a complaintant, and even a couple times as a defendant. I also swore an oath when I enlisted. And every time I took an oath it was an oath that was administered to atheists. Usually, the phrase "so help me God" is replaced by something along the lines of, "under penalty of perjury in the State of so-and-so", or something along those lines. I have also heard Jews and Muslims take oaths that are different than those taken by people calling themselves Christians. And if -you- haven't heard these oaths then -you- haven't spent much time in a -real- courtroom. So get your face out of the TV and learn about the -real- world instead of accepting as fact anything you see or hear on "CSI Fargo", "Jury Crossing" or whatever Hollywood rendition of 'forensics' you waste your time watching. And how does that diminish the fact that swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning? Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation. No, but it is used in every court case, to "swear in" a witness. Once again you demonstrate your ignorance by talking of things about which you know little or nothing: An oath on the bible is used in every court but not for every person. There are different oaths for different faiths -- there is even an oath for athiests and agnostics. I've never seen any such offering. At least in the court trials that I've been a part of. I imagine if someone made enough of a stink about it, the "PC" police would provide an acceptable substitute. Unless you are an idiot and are handling your case pro-se, you will be called by an attorney who will ask you, prior to the hearing, if you have any problem with swearing an oath on the Bible. That's his/her job. Even in small claims court where you don't have an attorney, the court gives you an instruction pamphlet that tells you about different oaths that are used depending on your religious beliefs; all you have to do is mention it to the court clerk and they will give you the appropriate oath. No "stink" required. The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly what you claim. Then why is it still being done on a daily basis? Because you watch too much TV. No, I participate in the REAL world. That's why you don't know **** about what happens in a REAL courtroom, huh? snip If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, Not true. You are not keeping current. http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the rate of marriage: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf You should read the link I posted again. The very first line tells the story. The divorce rate is only 9.6%. You sure did sleep a lot in school. It's clear that you don't understand statistics either. When you're under the gun, you insult your opposition. It's not an elegant debate tactic Frank, and it sure doesn't buy you any points. I don't have Excell (well, I have it, I just don't have it installed because I never used it when I did), so I downloaded the equivalent PDF file: http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.pdf This is nothing but a breakdown of marriage -status-, not the marriage and divorce rates. Marital status is a more accurate reflection of the institution of marriage. You can't calculate marriage and divorce rates from this data for the simple fact that many people are, or have been, married more than once. And some people remain married for 50 years. Once they are married, they are not counted again in "marriage rates" but they still count as a matter of marital status. Marital status gives a much better picture of the state of marriage as it is. You really -are- an idiot, aren't you? Heck, and I thought I was just being snotty..... I made the statement that "nearly half of all marriages end in divorce". This is easily verified by any kid that watched two or more episodes of Sesame Street: Compare the marriage rate to the divorce rate. If you have 100 marriages and 50 of them end because of divorce, it is obvious -- even to the most casual observer -- that half of those marriages ended in divorce. What the marriage status data -can't- tell is the number of times a person gets married in a given year, or the number of people who are married and divorced within the same year. But I would really like to see how you divined a 9.6% divorce rate from that data -- it should be good for a laugh. You are also ignoring the fact that the divorce rate says nothing by itself. According to the CDC, during the year 2003 there were 7.5 marriages per thousand people. There were also 3.8 divorces per thousand people. This means (to anyone that can handle 5th grade math) that the divorce rate is half (50.7%) the rate of marriage. But that doesn't take into consideration the marriages from previous years who are STILL married, but not counted as a new marriage. If people married in previous years have a lower rate of divorce then the divorce rate is -higher- among recent marriages. Or vice-versa. The figures are still valid no matter how you slice it -- half of all marriages end up in divorce. Period. And here's the fun part, Dave: Since half of all marriages end in divorce, and if the majority of citizens are right-wing conservative Christians that hold marriage to be a sacred value, then there sure are a lot of hypocrites that call themselves Christians. Half of all marriages do not end in divorce. Only 9.6% of the population is divorced. Let's assume for a moment that your figure is accurate: Ok, then what percentage of the population is still married? And how did you calculate those numbers? As for the "tradition" of marriage, remember that the filibuster has been an American tradition for almost 200 years. IOW, you are a hypocrite, Dave. As are you Frank. You're just on the other side of the coin. I knew you couldn't address that statement directly, but I -didn't- think you would toss it off with a comment so abstractly stupid as "You're just on the other side of the coin". Shame on me. Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors. It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave. No, it's a logical fallacy. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm You are trying to build an inductive argument using information that only tells one side of the story (and heavily biased in favor of your conclusion). I merely presented some information that you conveniently overlooked. And it so happens that your premise loses almost all of it's weight when -all- the facts are known. But your method is still drawing a false analogy. My method didn't "draw" -any- analogies. Or don't you even know the definition of 'analogy'? If the foundation of your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that would affect the value of marriage. Not if they have little in common, other than the idea of marriage itself. The common denominator is the value of marriage. That alone makes such issues relevant to the discussion and exposes your argument as nothing more than an exercise in bigotry. Based on your own hypocritical bias. Based on the facts. The fact is that the Bible (God) not only allows polygamy, but quite literally -encourages- taking of more than one wife -as well as- ****ing any receptive concubines. That "tradition" dates back to well before Abraham and continues to this day in many cultures, including some factions of Christianity. That's a fact, -not- the product of my "hypocritical bias". And that's no different than KKK tactics which use the very same type of lame justifications to defend racism (religion, tradition, morality, etc.). Another false analogy fallacy. You're just full of them. Nothing false about it. You wear the same feathers. You can take any of your arguments, substitute the word "gay marriage" for "******", and you sound just like a klansman without a pillow-case hiding his face. Yet you are whining about it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant factors. So, because there might be other factors which may be more significant, we should ignore the small ones? That's the same sort of twisted logic that freebanders use to justify illegal radio pirating. If what you say were true then CB radio would be all over the news. It isn't. OTOH, opposition to gay marriage -is- all over the news, and that's because of all the attention it's given. If gay marriage is getting all this attention because it threatens the value of marriage then there would be much -greater- attention to the divorce rate (and there would probably be a few right-wing fanatic groups lobbying to outlaw divorce). But, in fact, there -isn't- any political outcry against divorce. Because it's only 9.6% of the population. Your conclusion is erroneous because your premise is flawed. Your statistics are flawed, and so is your argument: If all of those alleged 9.6% divorcees were Christians (which they are not, but let's assume for the moment that they are), then that's at least 9.6% of the church that doesn't value marriage as much as you claim. OTOH, if all those 9.6% are -not- Christians then that's a significant chunk of the -rest- of the population that doesn't share your concerns. Either way, if 9.6% of the population were rapists or arsonists, you can bet that there would be a HUGE ruckus from the other 90.4%. But I don't hear a huge ruckus, Dave -- only a few very loud, obnoxious, holier-than-thou zealots trying to force -their- interpretation of 'morality' on the majority. The only reasonable conclusion is that these factions of "Christianity" (at least one of which I'm sure you are a member) are hypocrites that are practicing church-sponsored bigotry. Had enough of the false analogy fallacies, so you've switched to the false dilemma fallacy? Keep reaching for the stars, Dave -- maybe some day you'll catch one. Bad is bad no matter how large or small it may be. Well, what's worse, Dave: A couple homos getting married? or a large group of bigots trying to subvert the Constitution under the guise of Christianity? The only people trying to subvert the constitution are left wing liberals who are attempting to derive new meanings from words which the rest of us have understood and upheld for the last 200+ years. Which words are those, Dave? The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals. Once again, your chain of logic is based on flawed conclusions based on fallacious logic, and your own internal bias. When will you get it through your thick Republican head that bias has nothing to do with it, Dave? Because it does Frank. Even if you won't admit it (even to yourself). I'm not homo, I don't have any friends that are homo, I don't like "Queer Eye" or "Will & Grace"..... and personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle somewhat repulsive. And you call me a bigot? I do. You are. But there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits two gays from getting married if that's how they get their kicks. There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits you from marrying Dolly the cloned sheep either. But other "rules" would have a problem with it. I'm pretty sure they would since I think beastiality is illegal in every state (except Texas, and maybe Montana). Your problem is that you see the constitution as the be all and end all of all rules and laws. It is the "Law of the Land", like it or not. The constitution does not address each and every life situation that could have been foreseen 200+ years ago. That's why it has a provision for amendment. That's why it's considered to be a "living document". And I can't believe you slept through -that- in school -- did you sit in the back of the class? Have a learning disorder? Home-schooled by ignorant parents? I mean, come on Dave -- this is **** that immigrants are required to learn before they can become citizens. Or do you still have your green card? So it's not my place to judge. And that would be even -more- true if I was a Christian, the doctrine being that you should forgive others of their sins (assuming you see homosexuality as a sin), and that judgment should be left to God. It's one thing to forgive sin. It's totally another to condone and encourage further participation in it. "It's one thing to allow inter-racial marriage. It's totally another to condone and encourage further participation in it." See? A Christian would forgive someone who stole their car. But that doesn't mean the law should be changed to allow theft. Does gay marriage deprive you of your car? Come to think of it, you are still avoiding the big question: how does gay marriage deprive you of your rights, Dave? You hate gays. No, I don't. If I hated gays, I'd want them exterminated. You basically want to 'exterminate' any legal homosexual marriage. So you hate legal homosexual marriage. But the only difference between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage is the sexual preference of the partners. Therefore, the source of your hatred can -only- be attributed to homosexuality. You hate gays. You are a bigot, Dave. So do a lot of other people. Big deal. But my "bias" leans towards the Constitution, not my aversion to homosexuality. They have the same rights as me, and I treat them with the same amount of respect that I do anyone else whether I like them or not. So then based on your "faith" in the constitution, you'd have no objection to pedophiles having the right to marry? Pedophiles have rights, too. If they can live their lives without violating the law or infringing on the rights of others, great, I couldn't care less what they do. So how does gay marriage infringe on -your- rights, Dave? That's the difference between tolerance and bigotry. I am tolerant. No, you are not. You are a hypocrite. You "tolerate" things you have a personal agreement with or indifference to. But you have little tolerance for those who do not share your viewpoint. The reckless assigning of vitriolic names like "bigot" is proof of that. But you -are- a bigot. Other people live their lives in a way that is none of your business. Yet you feel that some of their choices are intolerable and that they should be prohibited from exercising the same rights and freedoms you enjoy simply because they don't comply with your definition of 'tradition'. In a nutshell, they are different and you want them to stop being different because you don't like it. If that doesn't fall within the definition of 'bigotry' then I don't know what does. And for the record, I have great tolerance for just about everything; even Bush, and even stupidity. But I have little or no tolerance for ignorance. You are not. You are a bigot. No, I am someone who values traditional morality. I'm sure the same has been said by many klansman in defense of their racism. snip The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does not mean that a gay marriage should be now. I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical. So we should abandon all moral values now since they may change sometime in the future? Well gee Dave, we probably should, now that you suggested it, huh? That's basically what you are proposing. Once you start down that slippery slope of justifying deviant, abhorrent behavior, it becomes only a matter of subjective degree where you draw the line between acceptance and rejection. That line is drawn by society. It is not drawn by me, by you, or by a few poorly-educated homophobes that would probably draw a bead on some other 'deviant' behavior if they were to win this battle. The problem is that if they are allowed to get their way, nobody knows what group will be next or where they will stop. And if you think that "ethnic cleansing" or some other form of genocide is ridiculous, go to the library and study up on pre-WWII Germany, or Eastern Europe after the fall of the USSR -- or read about Africa in the news of today. You propose to allow a few fanatic groups the ability to dictate religion, morality, or even tradition -- now THAT'S a slippery slope! Idiot. You are certainly acting like one. You are acting like a third grader that's losing an argument in the schoolyard -- complete with witty comebacks that I haven't heard since the day I watched that Pee-Wee Herman movie. snip Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of the gate -- than someone with a lesser education. But YOU will have to prove that. Easy enough. It's called a "diploma". But you will have to go to the pains to prove it. It will not be readily apparent. Perhaps you can wear your diploma on your head so everyone would see it. Wouldn't it be much easier to include a copy with my resume? And wouldn't it be much easier to admit that you are wrong instead of trying to come up with ridiculous scenarios in an attempt to win an argument? After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has diminished in value. Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way. Most people will eventually see it that way. I don't think so, Dave. I really think that most people have more smarts than you give them credit for. It's not a matter of smarts, it's a matter of contemporary educational standards. Speaking of which, what's the name of that tech school you claim to have attended, Dave? But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'. Yes, but you will have to "educate" those who will quickly forget that. There's no point in trying to educate people who refuse to look at the facts objectively and make reasonable and logical conclusions. The only reason I continue to try is because you aren't the only person reading my posts. And it's nice to know that your ignorance is being recorded for posterity. My "ignorance" is only a matter of your bigoted intolerance and bias and manifested by your pompous arrogance. Big words only work if you know how to use them correctly. snip Then settle for a good analogy. The one you presented was not a good comparison for the reasons I gave. I'll consider a good analogy when you provide a good reason. Always an excuse...... The only excuses tendered on this topic have been yours; I claimed that 4 years of education is better than 2 years, and you have tried every excuse in the book to refute it. So far none of them have worked, not even the "always an excuse" excuse. Got any new excuses? Maybe something from "Pee-Wee Herman's Big Book of Excuses"? Heck, if you can't even read the Constitution, what reason is there to think that you can understand children's literature..... How you feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own marriage. It just might. No, it won't. And when you make your next regular visit to your doctor, tell him that you want to back off the dosage on those anti-depressants. More personal insults. You really are losing this debate..... Just bored. It would be much more interesting if you could stay on topic and present facts and logical arguments. Maybe then I wouldn't be so inclined to comment on your lack of emotional stability. Excuses excuses.......... Financial responsibilities, time that could be used more productively. Like in a more gainful job than tending bar........ Actually, I was thinking about starting up a yard-care biz. Pays pretty well, lots of exercise (which would make my doctor happy), and a heck of a lot more fun than changing kegs, carding teenies and 86'ing obnoxious drunks. I might give it a go as soon as I can figure out why my weed-whacker keeps overheating. Maybe it's vapor-lock..... ........ If you cut in half the time you waste on the computer and spent that extra time reading the Constitution you could probably cut in half the time you waste on the computer. I've read the constitution many times over. We spent a whole course in high school studying it. There is NOTHING that you can tell me about the constitution. HAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, right. That's why I had to quote Article VI to show you where it prohibits a religious test. Sure, Dave -- you know -everything- there is to know about the Constitution, I'm sure. So what part says that the US is a Christian state? Where does the Constitution require or suggest that religious influence should play -any- role in the government? But I'll admit, I find it amusing that you try. And how does gay marriage infringe on your rights? The time I spend on the computer is minuscule. When you are parked on a T1 line, you can take breaks and drink a cup or two between tasks while getting a little entertainment. And I don't have to mix drinks or smell cigarettes and bad breath doing it. That's funny because I'm a heavy smoker. But I don't think anyone is smelling my breath when I type on the computer. Not unless there is some technology in my computer that I don't know about -- cyber-smell or something like that. Is that why they have T1 and T3 lines? Or is it just so you can download the porno pics faster? Heck, I'd get a T1 line for -that-! So if you want to start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other crap you use to water down the topics. I water down the topics? Pointing out your own intolerance and hypocrisy is very much pertinent to the discussion as it becomes testimony as to your objectivity and credibility on this subject. Sounds great! So when do you plan to implement your new policy? What new policy? Dave,..... oh, forget it. You wouldn't understand it anyway. Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good, Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable. Even if it's bad? Moron. What's the matter Frank? Are you that incapable of participating in an open discussion that challenges your preconceived notions? You thrive on being publically disgraced, don't you? No, I thrive on making you disgrace yourself. inevitable -- [ Latin, 'in', not + 'evitabilis', avoidable] that which cannot be avoided; certain to happen. I am fully aware of the definition of the word Frank. Don't patronize me. I challenge the notion that change is inevitable. Then your challenge is a lost cause from the get-go. Should you succeed in preventing anything from changing, that in and of itself is a change because the norm is change. Therefore you have defeated your own objective by 'changing the rate of change'. And even if you dismiss that as nothing more than a temporal card-trick, the fact remains that events happen beyond the control of humans, that cannot be prevented. Volcanos, hurricanes, asteroids, earthquakes..... change is inevitable. It's a fact. What you are embracing is the idea of predetermination. Something I would not expect from a existential atheist. Existentialism is not fatalism. If you are going to dive into that end of the philosophical pool you should at least grab DesCartes for a floatation device or you -will- sink. If we can effect change, should we not have the responsibility to prevent change that would promote demoralization? That's a neat idea, but Bush already tried that angle -- he failed because there were no WMDs. And if that flew over your head like everything else so far, go find someone that can explain it to you. Isn't there an Amish settlement in your area? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1419 Â October 22, 2004 | CB | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
| OLD motorola trunking information | Scanner | |||
Linear Mode
