On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:09:37 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
snip
If you lead a monogamous lifestyle and do not engage in dangerous
recreational habits, your chances of contracting AIDS is minuscule.


HIV doesn't care if you are gay or straight.

No, but how you get it most definitely depends on how sexually
promiscuous you are.


No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug.


And maybe you missed the
boat on this one too, but a lot of people got the disease from blood
transfusions.

If you read the link I provided, you'd find that the percentage of
those people are less than 2%.


I suppose those are acceptable losses, huh?


snip
Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the
main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the
Constitutional Convention.

Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to
the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded
as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office.


You are -totally- off your rocker, Dave.


This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom (as
well as other important principles). After being forced by England to
practice only one religion (the religion of the state), the new
Americans wanted people to have the freedom to practice religion
according to their belief, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam,
Bhuddism, Taoism, Monoanimism..... or even no religion at all.

The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state.

Not "officially",


Or "unofficially".


but our whole government is littered with Christian
references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings.


As well as religious symbols of other faiths.


The swearing
on the Bible,


And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the
passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for
an Oath of Affirmation.


and others. Things that have been here for many years,
yet liberals are now fighting to have removed.


Better late than never.


snip
It doesn't
change the color of your house, the mileage of your car, or how fast
the weeds grow in your garden. It doesn't affect you in any way except
the way you feel.

It tarnishes the sanctity of marriage. If you are someone who does not
believe strongly in anything, then nothing can affect you. Who was it
that said that "those who will not stand for anything, stand for
nothing"?


Unlike you, I believe in the Constitution.


And -you- are responsible for the way you feel, not -anybody- else.
There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates how a person should
feel. If gay marriage weakens the value of your marriage, it does so
only because you let it, and that's nobody's fault but your own.

It diminishes the value of the whole institution. It's not much
different in principle than earning a college degree. If they change
the requirements for a college degree to only needing 2 years of
course study, then it diminishes the value of that degree for those
who put in their 4 years.


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, and a large number of people get
married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you
are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is
traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because
that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God")
had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600
concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that
the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in
definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact
on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph
Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith.


If your bigoted brain had any intelligence you would realize that gay
marriage would -strengthen- the value of your marriage because it
provides a contrast to your own definition of the union.

How does diluting an institution strengthen it?


Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are
lowered then my degree becomes more valuable. Here's another analogy:
If some of the auto makers start making cars of lower quality, what
happens to the value of the vehicles made by other manufacturers? Duh.


But that's
not the case. You just hate homosexuals. It's as simple as that, isn't
it, Dave?

It's easy for people like you to vilify and demonize any opposing
views as hate. That's an overly simplistic justification and usually a
sign of someone who's afraid to take on the topic and discuss it to
the level that's needed. A common tactic employed by liberals. Are you
SURE you're not a liberal Frank?

I don't "hate" anyone Frank.


Yes you do. You hate homosexuals. You also hate blacks. It's written
all over your posts despite your efforts to hide the fact. You can
justify your hatred any way you want -- even to yourself. But the more
you write about such subjects, the harder you try to skirt an open
admission, and the easier it is to see the bigotry in your writings.
It's that 'perception window' thing I suggested you read about. Or
haven't you found that book yet?


But I do acknowledge that homosexuals are
biologically and mentally anomalous. It's not "normal" behavior no
matter how much anyone wishes to sugar coat it. I also resent efforts
to "normalize" obvious abnormal behavior rather than trying harder to
correct it.


There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a person to be
"normal". In fact, the world would be a pretty boring place if
everyone fit within one standard deviation. But the Constitution
-does- say that you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't
infringe on anyone else's rights. So how does gay marriage infringe on
your rights, Dave?


snip
I see you slept through history -and- science.

No, actually those were my strongest subjects. I had to explain to my
4th grade teacher how nuclear fission worked. I have also studied the
intricacies of our planet and its ecosystem. It is far too complex to
have evolved totally randomly.


That's an argument used by primitive civilations to explain things
which they do not understand. If you want to be a part of an
enlightened society, the first thing you need to learn is that
complexity does not require divine providence. But if that concept is
beyond your level of comprehension you can always take up astrology,
voodoo, crystal ball gazing..... or even republican economics.


snip
You have just as much right to declare that you
are a Christian (or whatever warped permutation of religion you have
adopted to validate your "core beliefs"). And no group of Christians,
no matter how large, has the right to impose it's version of morality
on me.

Nor do you have the right to denounce any display of religiously
inspired morality.


I have just as much right to denouce it as you do to display it. It's
called "freedom of speech". But that freedom doesn't extend to the
point that it conflicts with the constitutional precept that seperates
church and state.


This is 21st Century America, not the dark ages or the Spanish
Inquisition. But it -is- your business to abide by the Constitution
the United States, which clearly states that religion has no place in
this government. If that makes you feel bad, tuff ****. Learn to live
with it or get out. I would highly recommend the latter.

I just wish all those sore losers at the end of the 2004 election
would make good on their threats to leave this country and join
Canada. Then this country can return to more traditional values.


Yeah, it was a whole lot better when women didn't have the right to
vote, the blacks that weren't slaves had their own schools and public
facilities, chemical waste could be dumped anywhere, working 16/7 for
just enough to eat..... those were the good ol' days, huh?


These "Christians" really need to start practicing what they
preach. Or at least how to live and let live.

Not when abhorrent behavior is cancerous to their way of life. They
have a right to fight for what they believe in, just as much as those
who would throw traditional morality to the wind in support of the
latest hedonistic pop-culture fad.


Rock and roll is here to stay, Dave.

Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good,


Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable.


and that new ideas are always better than old ones right? March like
the rest of the lemming right off the cliff........


History proves that those who don't accept the changes that come with
time are destined to be left behind. That's why the Constitution is
considered to be a "living" document -- it adapts to change. You,
OTOH, can't.


snip
Oh dear god, you really don't have any clue about how the government
works, do you? Three branches of government? Checks and balances?
Seperataion of powers? But why should I be suprised -- you haven't
even read the Constitution.

I told you before. But you don't seem to know how government works.
The legislative branch makes the laws. The executive branch enacts
them. The judicial branch applies them. Those are your checks and
balances.


You have verified my suspicions nicely. Thank you.


snip
Just like you never learned the basics of electronics. The problem is
that you can't possibly make an informed decision about who to vote
for if you don't even know the job description!

I'm not the one who threw away my vote on a non-candidate.


The only people who waste their votes are the people who fall for any
bull**** propoganda which proclaims that not voting for a democrat or
republican is "wasting your vote".


snip
Climb down off your morality horse

Morality is the foundation of any successful government. You have yet
to learn that.


"Morality" has been the -DOWNFALL- of more governments than you can
imagine. When a government starts dictating morality is when the
people usually seek a new government -- one way or another. And the
best example of this in recent history is when the 13 colonies signed
the Declaration of Independence.

BTW, what's the name of that tech school you claim to have attended?






----== 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 =----

Dave Hall wrote:
On 3 May 2005 23:24:29 -0700, "A PROUD FREEBANDER"
wrote:

JEEEEZZZZZZ ENOUGH OF THIS GARBAGE. Lets get back to CB'in and
Freebanding. QSL? insert roger beep and\or noise toy here

Yea really. We wouldn't want to give the impression that radio people
have areas of interest which go beyond CB radio......

Especially in rec.radio.cb .

On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:38:04 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Nope, it certainly isn't. But the fact that you do not understand the
definition of "tangible" certainly is your problem.

You asked for it. Pay particular attention to

definition #3:


Why? Does it somehow discount #1 and #2?

No, but it does apply specifically to this situation.




tan·gi·ble * ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tnj-bl)
adj.

1 a. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a
tangible roughness of the skin.
********b. Possible to touch.

****c. Possible to be treated as fact; real or
concrete: tangible evidence.

2. Possible to understand or realize: the
tangible benefits of the plan.

**3. Law. That can be valued monetarily:
tangible property.



LAW? Bull****....THE definitive source accepted worldwide by the AP is
the AP Stylebook. Others may refer to the ONLY other acceptable
source,,Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged
Dictionary of the English Language. Neither of these contain the word
"law". In fact, I checked a few online definitions and none of those
contain the word "law".

Typical of you. When you are shown the error of your ways, your first
defense is to attack the sources. When you claim that I am wrong on a
particular usage of a word, and I provide the definition which
supports my usage, you attack my dictionary. When you claimed that the
last sunspot cycle was the strongest, and I provided, not one, but
several web sites which claimed the opposite, you then claimed that
those sources were all wrong and the only definitive source was a
place in Belgium, which (not so) coincidentally has no web site to
either confirm or deny your claim. When you made a claim that
littering was a felony in Florida, and I provided a link to the
Florida statute which showed that littering is a simple summary
offense, you made some obscure claim about "greenways", presumably as
allusion to a special environmental situation where an infraction
would be considered a felony. But that's not simple littering.

You are doing it again, with your attempt to weasel out of yet another
of your erroneous claims. My source, and you can read it yourself, is
easy:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tangible




Is not the RF spectrum given a monetary
value by virtue of the FCC auctioning it off to
.the highest commercial bidders?

Monetary value is not the same as tangible.

It certainly can be construed as such. The FCC seems to think so.



That makes it a tangible asset.

No,,you may not touch it,,you may not fell it, as a requirement by
virtue of the definition.

Being able to physically touch something is only ONE aspect of the
definition of tangible. It is not the ONLY one.


No different than a piece of property.


Very different, but you are apt to believe that the something "tangible"
can be something one can not grasp or feel.

No, that's only part of it. Tangible is also applicable to something
that can be realized and treated as fact. It does not have to have
physical properties.

You're wrong. The be-all
definition and final word of this definition you refer is as quoted:
-
" Of an asset having actual physical existence, as real estate or
chattels, and (note the wording. It says 'AND", not "or")
therefore being assigned a value in monetary terms". Something
tangible, a tangible asset."

Again, that's only ONE aspect of it.

-
Again, in order for something to be tangible, it needs physical
properties one can touch, discernible by material or substance.

No, it doesn't.

The
sepctrum does not meet those parameters and you merely added the term
"law" on your own to the definition.

Boy are you in for a plate of crow. Go to the site that I provided,
and see for your self.

Apology accepted.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:43:08 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:39:13 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:
The car, as is the radio spectrum, mine!!! My car is NOT the DMV's, my
radio spectrum is NOT the FCC's....
The FCC owns the rights to the radio
spectrum in this country.


That is ludicrous. They do not. They merely are charged with
administrating such. The spectrum does not stop at the borders.

No, but while inside the borders, you will pay (Sometimes dearly) the
FCC for the right to play on the airwaves. Ask any cell phone company
owner/administrator.

They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum
to people with a legitimate need. It's no
different than government owned land.


Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were
already taught.

Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways that are similar are
what I am talking about. It's a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of
spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes for outrageous amounts. If
the FCC was not in the position to claim "ownership" of that spectrum,
how could they auction it off?

Your car is yours as is your radio gear. But the
privilege to operate both is granted by the
government, and can be revoked for the
proper cause.


Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate
my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so.

Right! On you own land. But venture out on the public street, and they
have all the authority. Same goes for radio. If you can somehow
prevent your signal from escaping the borders of your property (Which
is covered by FCC Part 15), you could do what you want. Once those
signals escape into the public venue, they are under the control of
the federal government.


Another way to look at it, You own your car,
but not the roads you drive on.



Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars.

And administered by the government.


You may own your radio, but not the airwaves
you broadcast on.

Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe.

For all practical purposes, yes they do in this country.

You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond the confines of your own
property. You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the government in
the proxy of the FCC. As a condition of that privilege comes your
responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in various FCC parts
depending on which service you are using.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:11:27 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
Most cops would not bother to write someone

a ticket for not coming completely to a stop

and waiting the required 3 seconds before

proceeding at a stop sign.


They will bust your ass here in the high tourist area for that exact
offense. There are way too many bicyclists and pedestrians around here
and the cops vehemently enforce what is commonly known as the
"California Stop" or the "Rolling Stop" through a stop sign.

No argument (and I'll keep that in mind for the next time I visit
there). I'm sure it is very much "area dependant". It is also at the
discretion of the cop. The letter of the law gives them the authority
to be as strict as they want in applying the law. But just like
speeding, there are enough blatant violators out there that they don't
have to nit pick with those borderline cases. Cops don't want to risk
citing someone like Landshark who actually is savvy enough to win his
case. At least not in my area. But I live in a semi-rural area, where
there is more likely to be horse drawn wagons than hordes of
pedestrians.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:50:33 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Dave Hall (N3CVJ) Jr. wrote:
(That "degree of morality" is established by society, not you, and not
any religious activist group. The overwhelming majority of people (99%)
feel that murder, sex crimes, etc are 'immoral'. But there isn't much of
a majority condemning homosexuality. -That's- how you make a "relative
value judgment".)

Based on what statistics?

No statistics..just votes making laws giving the queers equal rights.

What votes? When have we voted on anything remotely resembling such?
Most "gay friendly" laws have come as a result of judicial rulings as
a result of a circuit court's interpretation. A duty which is beyond
the scope of their responsibilities. It's up to the legislature to
make such laws.


The fact that states are now permitting same sex unions is another
example.

A few states have enacted such legislation. Several other states have
definitively banned them. And some of those states have done so by
popular vote, and have won by a significant majority.


Your current batch of thugs in Washington is also catering to
the gays ever since there was found to be so many of them in the hiarchy
of the current administration.

Catering? In what way?


Dave
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Wed, 04 May 2005 16:44:59 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:09:37 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
snip
If you lead a monogamous lifestyle and do not engage in dangerous
recreational habits, your chances of contracting AIDS is minuscule.


HIV doesn't care if you are gay or straight.

No, but how you get it most definitely depends on how sexually
promiscuous you are.


No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug.

And if you and your partner are monogamous, this is highly unlikely.


And maybe you missed the
boat on this one too, but a lot of people got the disease from blood
transfusions.

If you read the link I provided, you'd find that the percentage of
those people are less than 2%.


I suppose those are acceptable losses, huh?

Whether or not they are "acceptable" is irrelevant to this discussion.


snip
Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the
main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the
Constitutional Convention.

Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to
the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded
as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office.


You are -totally- off your rocker, Dave.

Am I? I guess you haven't been following the struggle for the
appointment of judicial nominees. It is quite obvious that the ones
who the dems oppose the most are people with a strong religious
faith.

Some light reading for you to come up to speed on this issues.

http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?cat=3

http://quante.blogspot.com/2005/04/y...-morality.html

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...l_politics.php



This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom (as
well as other important principles). After being forced by England to
practice only one religion (the religion of the state), the new
Americans wanted people to have the freedom to practice religion
according to their belief, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam,
Bhuddism, Taoism, Monoanimism..... or even no religion at all.

The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state.

Not "officially",


Or "unofficially".

The majority of Christian citizens would probably disagree.

but our whole government is littered with Christian
references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings.


As well as religious symbols of other faiths.

Such as?



The swearing
on the Bible,


And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the
passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for
an Oath of Affirmation.

What passage have you quoted? 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?

and others. Things that have been here for many years,
yet liberals are now fighting to have removed.


Better late than never.

Says you. I look at it as heading down the wrong path. Sort of like
the de-evolution of CB radio over the last 35 years.




snip
It doesn't
change the color of your house, the mileage of your car, or how fast
the weeds grow in your garden. It doesn't affect you in any way except
the way you feel.

It tarnishes the sanctity of marriage. If you are someone who does not
believe strongly in anything, then nothing can affect you. Who was it
that said that "those who will not stand for anything, stand for
nothing"?


Unlike you, I believe in the Constitution.

No, you don't. Like other leftists, you wear the constitution like a
badge of honor when it suits you, but conveniently ignore the parts
that do not further your agenda.


And -you- are responsible for the way you feel, not -anybody- else.
There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates how a person should
feel. If gay marriage weakens the value of your marriage, it does so
only because you let it, and that's nobody's fault but your own.

It diminishes the value of the whole institution. It's not much
different in principle than earning a college degree. If they change
the requirements for a college degree to only needing 2 years of
course study, then it diminishes the value of that degree for those
who put in their 4 years.


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


and a large number of people get
married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you
are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is
traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because
that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God")
had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600
concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that
the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in
definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact
on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph
Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith.


Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making
unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors.

A traditional monogamous marriage has been the norm for over 1000
years. At no time in our history was a same sex union ever been
justified. The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does
not mean that a gay marriage should be now. Your comparison of such is
an example of a weak analogy logical fallacy.




If your bigoted brain had any intelligence you would realize that gay
marriage would -strengthen- the value of your marriage because it
provides a contrast to your own definition of the union.

How does diluting an institution strengthen it?


Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are
lowered then my degree becomes more valuable.

Only to you. 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.


Here's another analogy:
If some of the auto makers start making cars of lower quality, what
happens to the value of the vehicles made by other manufacturers? Duh.

That's not a good analogy in this situation. For this analogy to be
applicable, you would have to offer 2 different "marriage systems".
One allowing gays, and one not. Then a relative value comparison
between two distinct entities can accurately be assessed.


But that's
not the case. You just hate homosexuals. It's as simple as that, isn't
it, Dave?

It's easy for people like you to vilify and demonize any opposing
views as hate. That's an overly simplistic justification and usually a
sign of someone who's afraid to take on the topic and discuss it to
the level that's needed. A common tactic employed by liberals. Are you
SURE you're not a liberal Frank?

I don't "hate" anyone Frank.


Yes you do. You hate homosexuals. You also hate blacks.

What? Now who's playing crystal ball Frank? Or are you simply
projecting?


It's written
all over your posts despite your efforts to hide the fact. You can
justify your hatred any way you want -- even to yourself. But the more
you write about such subjects, the harder you try to skirt an open
admission, and the easier it is to see the bigotry in your writings.

Where have I ever made any statement about blacks in a negative way?

You are yet again adopting liberal "debate" topics by demonizing the
opposition by referring to them with words that end in -ist. The
tactic of course is to silence opposition, rather than encourage open
debate of the issues. By branding the opposition with such a label as
"racist" you attempt to discredit any perspective that they may have
by virtue of a perceived badge of unworthiness.

There are problems within many of the ethnic, racial and gender-based
communities. Calling attention to these issues does not make one
(Insert word here) -ist.

I also noticed that you snipped the part of your last response where
you called me a "holy roller religious wacko". After retrospection,
I'm sure you realized that in making such a statement, you are
practicing the very same intolerance and bigotry for other viewpoints
as you had accused me of doing, thereby exposing your own hypocrisy.

But I did notice.




It's that 'perception window' thing I suggested you read about. Or
haven't you found that book yet?


But I do acknowledge that homosexuals are
biologically and mentally anomalous. It's not "normal" behavior no
matter how much anyone wishes to sugar coat it. I also resent efforts
to "normalize" obvious abnormal behavior rather than trying harder to
correct it.


There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a person to be
"normal".

The constitution has nothing to do with the institution of marriage.
That is a bond formed before God.


In fact, the world would be a pretty boring place if
everyone fit within one standard deviation.

But a lot easier to live in.

But the Constitution
-does- say that you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't
infringe on anyone else's rights. So how does gay marriage infringe on
your rights, Dave?

No, it doesn't say that. That is your openly liberal interpretation of
it.




snip
I see you slept through history -and- science.

No, actually those were my strongest subjects. I had to explain to my
4th grade teacher how nuclear fission worked. I have also studied the
intricacies of our planet and its ecosystem. It is far too complex to
have evolved totally randomly.


That's an argument used by primitive civilations to explain things
which they do not understand.

No, magic is usually used to explain that.


If you want to be a part of an
enlightened society, the first thing you need to learn is that
complexity does not require divine providence.

But the synergistic and symbiotic nature of our complex ecosystem is
such that suggestions that it all evolved randomly is a ludicrous
position to take. Order does not come from chaos without help.

This is not an endorsement for any particular religion. Just an
observation that the probability is high, that there has been an
intelligent hand guiding the development of life on this planet.

What facts can you point to that discounts the likelihood of an
intelligent design?



You have just as much right to declare that you
are a Christian (or whatever warped permutation of religion you have
adopted to validate your "core beliefs"). And no group of Christians,
no matter how large, has the right to impose it's version of morality
on me.

Nor do you have the right to denounce any display of religiously
inspired morality.


I have just as much right to denouce it as you do to display it. It's
called "freedom of speech".

And it works both ways, much to the consternation of liberals all
around.


But that freedom doesn't extend to the
point that it conflicts with the constitutional precept that seperates
church and state.


There is no place in the constitution where it calls for "separation
of church and state". What we have is the establishment clause, which
only states that the government shall not establish any religion as a
"state" religion, or prohibit the free exercise of religion. Nowhere
does it say that matters of state shall not have religious inspiration
or influence.

You haven't truly read it have you?




This is 21st Century America, not the dark ages or the Spanish
Inquisition. But it -is- your business to abide by the Constitution
the United States, which clearly states that religion has no place in
this government. If that makes you feel bad, tuff ****. Learn to live
with it or get out. I would highly recommend the latter.

I just wish all those sore losers at the end of the 2004 election
would make good on their threats to leave this country and join
Canada. Then this country can return to more traditional values.


Yeah, it was a whole lot better when women didn't have the right to
vote, the blacks that weren't slaves had their own schools and public
facilities, chemical waste could be dumped anywhere, working 16/7 for
just enough to eat..... those were the good ol' days, huh?

Another typical liberal tactic. The use of extreme strawman
comparisons in order to polarize and vilify the opposing position.
These strawman examples bare a sight resemblance or relationship to
the main topic, but are a weaker argument and very easy to knock down
and discredit, (And by the false analogy fallacy, associate to the
main topic) thereby avoiding discussing the main points of the debate.


Rock and roll is here to stay, Dave.

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? Is it not our right to oppose bad changes? Is it
civically responsible to allow bad things to happen because "change is
inevitable"? That smacks of a cop out to me.


and that new ideas are always better than old ones right? March like
the rest of the lemmings right off the cliff........


History proves that those who don't accept the changes that come with
time are destined to be left behind.

That's why the Catholic Church is still here. It's survived some
pretty radical social changes over the years.


That's why the Constitution is
considered to be a "living" document -- it adapts to change.

When? If you are a true constitutionalist, as you have claimed, then
how can you, on one hand, claim to uphold the values and insight of
the framers, and on the other hand, claim that the constitution should
"adapt to the changing times". Either the constitution is a document
of incredible insight and wisdom, that remains timeless, or it is a
"living document" which can change its meaning at any time, including
changes to prohibit such things as gay marriage.

So which is it?

Another in a series of contradictions in your logic Frank.

You,
OTOH, can't.

Eu Contraire. I see the big picture all too clearly. I am just amused
at guys like you who spin your wheels defending little pieces of it.
You are too engrossed in the "nuts and bolts" aspects to be able to
transcend above that.


snip
Just like you never learned the basics of electronics. The problem is
that you can't possibly make an informed decision about who to vote
for if you don't even know the job description!

I'm not the one who threw away my vote on a non-candidate.


The only people who waste their votes are the people who fall for any
bull**** propoganda which proclaims that not voting for a democrat or
republican is "wasting your vote".

Yet you voted for a what amounts to socialist. What does that say
about your principles, and support of democracy?


snip
Climb down off your morality horse

Morality is the foundation of any successful government. You have yet
to learn that.


"Morality" has been the -DOWNFALL- of more governments than you can
imagine.

Really? Name some.


When a government starts dictating morality is when the
people usually seek a new government -- one way or another. And the
best example of this in recent history is when the 13 colonies signed
the Declaration of Independence.

The United States came to be when they adopted their own
interpretation of morality. But the government of Great Britain did
not cease to exist as a result of it.


There's a difference between intrinsic morality, and a desperate
attempt to reign in an out of control population by legislating it.
Once you get to that level, your done. We are gradually heading that
way.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:20:49 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of
a creator or, more generally, the concept of

intelligent design.


Science is based on logic. Nowhere does science support your position.

Well, one of two possibilities exist. Either the earth cooled, formed
water, created primordial amino acids which somehow morphed into
single celled life, which then somehow determined the need to further
specialize and diversify, and all species evolved from there. Somehow
they knew that we'd need plants to make oxygen, for the animals that
need it. Some species would become food for others. All of this raises
many questions, the biggest of which is what force drove these single
celled organisms to improve and specialize themselves? What drives
evolution? Can accidental random mutation answer these questions
satisfactorily.

The other possibility is that our existence was carefully guided by an
intelligent force. Applying Occam's razor, which scenario is easier
to believe?



Our whole ecosystem, the intricate
specialization of the various functions of our
bodies and other aspects of nature are far too
complex to have occurred and evolved at
random.


Now THAT is one hell of a subjective opinion.

Yes, but it based on probability.


But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and
selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may
mistake for "random".


But what drives evolution? If random mutations are the basis for
evolution, then what prevents "bad mutations" or several different
mutations from leading us down even more diverse paths?

Natural selection only answers some of those questions.


There is simply not enough order in chaos for
this to happen.


You are claiming this oxymoron (chaos in order) does not exist. I
agree.
Whiole Darwin's theory has yet to be proved because of a single missing
link, it is the most widely accepted scholarly and scientific (IE:
logic, logical) belief.

There is much scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.
I am not trying to discount it at all. Quite the opposite, I totally
endorse the concept of evolution. The difference is that I believe
that evolution was "helped" along by an outside intelligence.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:32:11 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug.

And if you and your partner are monogamous, this is highly unlikely.


Unless your partner is infected.


snip
Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the
main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the
Constitutional Convention.

Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to
the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded
as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office.


You are -totally- off your rocker, Dave.

Am I? I guess you haven't been following the struggle for the
appointment of judicial nominees. It is quite obvious that the ones
who the dems oppose the most are people with a strong religious
faith.

Some light reading for you to come up to speed on this issues.

http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?cat=3

http://quante.blogspot.com/2005/04/y...-morality.html

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...l_politics.php


Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens,
maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration.


snip
The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state.

Not "officially",


Or "unofficially".

The majority of Christian citizens would probably disagree.


Despite the fact that this majority of Christian citizens is not a
majority of American citizens, seperation of church and state is not
subject to a majority vote.

I think this page says it best:

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues


but our whole government is littered with Christian
references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings.


As well as religious symbols of other faiths.

Such as?


Go search the net for a picture of the wall behind the Supreme Court
bench.


The swearing
on the Bible,


And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the
passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for
an Oath of Affirmation.

What passage have you quoted?


Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution?


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.
The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly
what you claim. It was added because, at the time, some states had
oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in
God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test"
that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that
didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation
of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests,
and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious
beliefs.

And once again, the clause was added by unanimous consent.


snip
Unlike you, I believe in the Constitution.

No, you don't. Like other leftists, you wear the constitution like a
badge of honor when it suits you, but conveniently ignore the parts
that do not further your agenda.


What parts do I ignore? Let me clue you in here, Dave: Many years ago
I took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution against all
enemies, foreign and domestic". I took that oath seriously. In fact, I
took it so seriously that I took the time to learn more about what I
swore to defend with my life. Maybe if you had taken that oath
yourself you might have done the same. If you had, we wouldn't be
having this conversation right now.

And although I was discharged 20 years ago, I still hold myself to
that oath. Meaning that I will still defend it with my life if it
comes under attack -- even if that attack comes from a large group of
people claiming to be Christians.


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


and a large number of people get
married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you
are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is
traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because
that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God")
had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600
concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that
the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in
definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact
on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph
Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith.


Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making
unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors.


It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave. 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. And after such a comparison, gay
marriage is -barely- significant, if at all. Yet you are whining about
it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant
factors. The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do
with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals.


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.


snip
Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are
lowered then my degree becomes more valuable.

Only to you.


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.


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.
But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra
years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'.


Here's another analogy:
If some of the auto makers start making cars of lower quality, what
happens to the value of the vehicles made by other manufacturers? Duh.

That's not a good analogy in this situation. For this analogy to be
applicable, you would have to offer 2 different "marriage systems".
One allowing gays, and one not. Then a relative value comparison
between two distinct entities can accurately be assessed.


I'm not going to make justifications for your bigotry, Dave. 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.


snip
I also noticed that you snipped the part of your last response where
you called me a "holy roller religious wacko". After retrospection,
I'm sure you realized that in making such a statement, you are
practicing the very same intolerance and bigotry for other viewpoints
as you had accused me of doing, thereby exposing your own hypocrisy.

But I did notice.


I snipped a lot of stuff. Unlike you, I have to work for a living, and
I simply don't have the time to play your game. 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.


snip
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.






----== 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 =----

On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:44:26 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:20:49 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of
a creator or, more generally, the concept of

intelligent design.


Science is based on logic. Nowhere does science support your position.

Well, one of two possibilities exist. Either the earth cooled, formed
water, created primordial amino acids which somehow morphed into
single celled life, which then somehow determined the need to further
specialize and diversify, and all species evolved from there. Somehow
they knew that we'd need plants to make oxygen, for the animals that
need it. Some species would become food for others. All of this raises
many questions, the biggest of which is what force drove these single
celled organisms to improve and specialize themselves? What drives
evolution? Can accidental random mutation answer these questions
satisfactorily.


That's about the most ignorant pseudo-scientific argument I have ever
heard in favor of creationsim. If you are going to play biochemist at
least show a little knowledge of the subject. You could at least
address the fact that an imbalance in a complex equilibrium will
result in a more complex equilibrium. Or that an ocean full of
primordial soup doesn't just sit there and stew in a state of
homeostatis -- it's under a constant barrage from a large number of
ionizing radiations that can change it's chemistry. After a couple
billion years it's hardly inconceivable that symbiotic relationships
not only could exist on a planetary scale, but that a threshold of
self-sustaining complexity could occur. In fact, it's far more
plausible than concluding that everything was willed into existence by
some super-ghost.


The other possibility is that our existence was carefully guided by an
intelligent force. Applying Occam's razor, which scenario is easier
to believe?


See above.


snip
But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and
selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may
mistake for "random".


But what drives evolution? If random mutations are the basis for
evolution, then what prevents "bad mutations" or several different
mutations from leading us down even more diverse paths?


A little concept called "survival of the fittest".


Natural selection only answers some of those questions.


Only if you slept through the class like you did during American
History and Social Studies.


There is simply not enough order in chaos for
this to happen.


You are claiming this oxymoron (chaos in order) does not exist. I
agree.
Whiole Darwin's theory has yet to be proved because of a single missing
link, it is the most widely accepted scholarly and scientific (IE:
logic, logical) belief.

There is much scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.
I am not trying to discount it at all. Quite the opposite, I totally
endorse the concept of evolution. The difference is that I believe
that evolution was "helped" along by an outside intelligence.


Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the
possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations?







----== 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 =----