State of the Union address

[Carrie]

Out of a 53 minute speech, a full 26 minutes of it was dedicated to issues *out* of our Union. Then the last half had all of his ideas/incentives/etc stuffed into it.

!! - Renew the Patriot Act
$$ - Double the budget of the Nat'l Endowment for Democracy
$$ - New 'Jobs for the 21st Century' program
--- for middle and high school students
--- larger Pell grants for high achievers who take demanding classes
--- more $$ for community colleges
:okthumb: - Renew these tax cuts (they are expiring soon or fading out) and make them permanent:
--- keep reducing marriage penalty tax
--- renew $1k/child child tax credit
--- renew small business tax cuts
--- death tax cuts
:okthumb: - Cut federal regulations for small businesses
?? - Modernize electricity system and reduce dependence on foreign oil, increase conservation
:okthumb: - Boost personal retirement accounts
?? - Says his new budget will cut the deficit in half over the next 5 years
!! - Enact the Temporary Worker Program for illegal aliens (yet says he's against amnesty)
:okthumb: - Create Association Health Plans (group health care for small businesses and co-ops)
:okthumb: - Refundable tax credit for health costs
!! - Computerize all health records
:okthumb: - Make Health Savings Accounts where premiums are 100% tax-free
$$ - New funding to fight drugs
$$ - $23 million for schools to do drug testing
?? - Told sports teams, coaches and players to get rid of steroids
$$ - Double the funding for abstinence programs to fight STDs
?? - Enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Clinton) to "defend the sanctity of marriage"
$$ - Codify into law an Executive Order Bush signed giving "Billions of $$" to encourage competition for churches and faith-based organizations (??)
$$ - $300 million Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative
--- gives prisoners getting out free job training, free job placement, free housing, and free mentoring

All in all I'm very disappointed. The call for renewing the tax cuts are good, that's about it. Spending the entire first half of the state of the union address talking about Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Libya just pissed me off. Sure, rah rah cheer cheer - but this is the State of the Union address... not a speech from the deck of a carrier called the State of the War address.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 07:27 AM
?? - Says his new budget will cut the deficit in half over the next 5 years

So Bush is promising to cut by half his deficit spending?

[Cleo]

Yeah Jesus is good, gays are bad.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/...iage/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/same.sex.marriage/index.html)
Maybe for a running mate they should resurrect pre-paralyzed George Wallace.

Just my humble opinion but I don't think anyone that calls for support of discriminating against 10% or so of the population has any place in government.

Religion has no more place in organized government then facts have in organized religion.

[Carrie]

I kept hearing "child" and "children" so much I was tempted to grab my wallet and my copy of the Constitution and Dec. of Independence and lock myself in the bathroom.

All of these "freebies" for prisoners pisses me off. They're supposed to be the ones paying their debt to society, yet society is going into debt giving these criminals things that law-abiding citizens have to pay for. And there are no "freebies", someone has to pay for it - that "someone" is us.
The law-abiding citizens that the prisoners committed crimes against.

The "double the funding" talk amused me. Double the funding of the Nat'l Endowment for Democracy... double the funding for abstinence programs... what exactly are the payouts for these programs now so we can figure out what "double" means? What exactly do these programs do? Is there any proof that the abstinence program in existence already is working whatsoever?

The 'Jobs for the 21st Century' literally made me laugh out loud. We're going to give high-tech job training to MIDDLE school students? Why? They can't work. And to high school students? How about teaching them how to READ and WRITE first? The results of the Virginia SOLs (standards of learning tests) just came out here and it's fucking appalling. Up to 3rd grade, kids are doing good with language arts (basic reading and writing). Past that, forget it. By the time they get in high school, you're lucky if a whopping 10% of the students taking the test score a passing grade in language arts. Most of them were 3-5%.
And then we're going to take these failures who can't even read and we're going to give them MORE "free" money to attend college... and we're going to give the colleges MORE "free" money to take them and teach them. Wonderful. They'll waste the entire first year on remedial english and math that they should've learned in lower school.
Of course, "free" is false - we're paying for it.

And it just keeps going. Ugh.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 07:46 AM
Yeah Jesus is good, gays are bad.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/...iage/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/same.sex.marriage/index.html)
Maybe for a running mate they should resurrect pre-paralyzed George Wallace.

Just my humble opinion but I don't think anyone that calls for support of discriminating against 10% or so of the population has any place in government.

Religion has no more place in organized government then facts have in organized religion.
Just my humble opinion, but I think as soon as we act upon saying "I don't think anyone that calls for support of x has any place in government" then we won't have anyone in government. How many politicians discriminate against the upper class (or the poor)? Much larger categories of people than "gay".

This whole democracy thing is great. In my own life, I support the majority in those cases where it is advantageous to me and the minority in those cases where it is advantageous to me. If you're going to go minority, go with a powerful minority. No sense backing the downtrodden. The meek shall never inherit the earth. The geeks are doing pretty well though.

I would worry much more about those who discriminate against 90% or so of the population than 10%. Then again, I'm not gay. And there, right on time, is the nutshell.

[JR]

Originally posted by Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 04:46 AM
Yeah Jesus is good, gays are bad.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/...iage/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/same.sex.marriage/index.html)
Maybe for a running mate they should resurrect pre-paralyzed George Wallace.

Just my humble opinion but I don't think anyone that calls for support of discriminating against 10% or so of the population has any place in government.

Religion has no more place in organized government then facts have in organized religion.
you are saying that sexuality should play a role in government and religion should not?

if gays are 10% of the vote, what % do Christians, Jews and others represent? why is their voice less important than yours?

[Cleo]

Originally posted by JR+Jan 21 2004, 08:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Jan 21 2004, 08:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 04:46 AM
Yeah Jesus is good, gays are bad.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/...iage/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/same.sex.marriage/index.html)
Maybe for a running mate they should resurrect pre-paralyzed George Wallace.

Just my humble opinion but I don't think anyone that calls for support of discriminating against 10% or so of the population has any place in government.

Religion has no more place in organized government then facts have in organized religion.
you are saying that sexuality should play a role in government and religion should not?

if gays are 10% of the vote, what % do Christians, Jews and others represent? why is their voice less important than yours?[/b][/quote]
Gays, straights, should make no difference when it comes to rights, that's all.

If a gay or lesbian wants their lover to be able to live in the US who is an immigrant then they should have the same right as a heterosexual couple does.

I don't have a god and I'm bisexual. Should I have any less rights then someone who is superstitious and/or only chooses the opposite sex for companionship?

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 07:46 AM


Religion has no more place in organized government then facts have in organized religion.
:okthumb:

[PornoDoggy]

That was the single most pathetic sermon about the, er, state of the union address I have ever heard, bar none, and I've been watching/listening to them since (as a kid) at least JFK's last one. I fully expected to be pissed off, and there were moments - but WHAT IN THE FUCK WAS HE TALKING ABOUT? Clinton's pathetic pandering to the focus group du jour (no, I was not a big fan of WJC) seem almost elequoently statesman-like by comparisson.

Daniel Schorr on NPR listened to all the talk of money for drug testing school students and abstinence programs for school students and handing over money to the church ladies to save the prisoners, and compared it to "LBJ meets Pat Robertson."

And Cleo ... he's going to be nice when he fucks you, at least - can't you give him credit for that? After all, isn't "even sinful faggots who will burn in hell have dignity" supposed to be an improvement? After last week's judicial appointment, look for pardons for the killers of Matthew Shepard on the eve of Stonehill.

I'll bet you liked that judicial appointment, didn'tcha, Colin?

[JR]

Originally posted by Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 05:55 AM

Maybe for a running mate they should resurrect pre-paralyzed George Wallace.

Just my humble opinion but I don't think anyone that calls for support of discriminating against 10% or so of the population has any place in government.

Religion has no more place in organized government then facts have in organized religion.
you are saying that sexuality should play a role in government and religion should not?

if gays are 10% of the vote, what % do Christians, Jews and others represent? why is their voice less important than yours?

Gays, straights, should make no difference when it comes to rights, that's all.

If a gay or lesbian wants their lover to be able to live in the US who is an immigrant then they should have the same right as a heterosexual couple does.

I don't have a god and I'm bisexual. Should I have any less rights then someone who is superstitious and/or only chooses the opposite sex for companionship?

an irony about democracy is that it lets that minority which may be "descriminated" against know how little the majority cares about their problems.



Last edited by JR at Jan 21 2004, 06:09 AM

[Paul Markham]

He is in danger of losing his job and will promise anything to everyone to keep it.

Does anyone believe him is the question.

Unfortunately yes.

[JR]

Originally posted by Paul Markham@Jan 21 2004, 06:09 AM
He is in danger of losing his job and will promise anything to everyone to keep it.

Does anyone believe him is the question.

Unfortunately yes.
yeah... with 60% approval ratings and Dean the Hysterical Clown to compete with.. i doubt he is worried :)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 21 2004, 09:03 AM
I'll bet you liked that judicial appointment, didn'tcha, Colin?
Depends on my mood and to what degree currently I care about anyone besides myself.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by JR+Jan 21 2004, 09:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Jan 21 2004, 09:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Paul Markham@Jan 21 2004, 06:09 AM
He is in danger of losing his job and will promise anything to everyone to keep it.

Does anyone believe him is the question.

Unfortunately yes.
yeah... with 60% approval ratings and Dean the Hysterical Clown to compete with.. i doubt he is worried :)[/b][/quote]
I hope he's not worried.

And I REALLY hope he keeps giving speeches like that one.

[Carrie]

The Democrats could take any quote from the speech last night and bash it all they want, all the Republicans have to do is smile and play Dean's "HLAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!!!" outburst.
It'll sound like sanity versus insanity every time.

I'll be amazed if the Repubs don't make that HLAHH clip into part of a commercial. "Do you want THIS man running your country?"

[wig]

Bush will be lucky if he gets to face Dean, but I think Dean just ensured that won't happen.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 09:44 AM
The Democrats could take any quote from the speech last night and bash it all they want, all the Republicans have to do is smile and play Dean's "HLAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!!!" outburst.
It'll sound like sanity versus insanity every time.

I'll be amazed if the Repubs don't make that HLAHH clip into part of a commercial. "Do you want THIS man running your country?"
Difference is, Dean is one candidate. Granted, he is the one giving Republicans wet dreams, but there's a lot of ground to cover before you hand him the nomination.

Rev. Bush is THE candidate. And it wouldn't take a terribly creative ad flunky to make an effective spot pointing out, for example, the 2,000,000 jobs lost in the last 4 years while the president worries about professional athletes taking steroids.

[wig]

PD, in the past I think you favored Gephart...

who do you like now to get the Dem nomination?

[Carrie]

I couldn't believe that whole thing about sports teams and steroids. He's supposed to be addressing Congress, not the Red Sox.
Unless he's somehow inferring that the fed. gov't should take an active role in sticking its hands into sports teams' affairs, that never should've been mentioned.

[PornoDoggy]

Who do I like?

Uh ... well ... gee ...

Harry Truman? Oh, wait ... he's kinda dead. Granted, even dead IMHO he would be more focused than the incumbent, but there are probably Constitutional issues involved.

Kerry or Edwards would be my preference, I suppose; maybe Clark, but as an ex-enlisted man I have a general distrust for officers in general, and flag officers in particular.

Dean would provide too many opportunities to the brain-dead sort of folks who would use liberal as a pejorative. Of course, anyone who is not a Republican will be targets for those kinda folks.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Jan 21 2004, 10:47 AM

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 10:39 AM
I couldn't believe that whole thing about sports teams and steroids. He's supposed to be addressing Congress, not the Red Sox.
Unless he's somehow inferring that the fed. gov't should take an active role in sticking its hands into sports teams' affairs, that never should've been mentioned.
Doesn't appeal to you nearly as much as the whole rant about activist judges, does it?

I'm sure there's an audience for it out there someplace; that's what you put in campaign speeches, which is what last night was.

[Carrie]

The activist judges, IMO, should be dethroned. Yes, I said dethroned and not derobed... they're acting like Kings, simply writing laws that they see fit with no legislative process and with no bearing on what the voters want.
Doesn't matter to me if they're writing laws about gay marriages or peas in chicken pot pie... they're not there to make laws. They're there to interpret and help enforce those laws.

[wig]

uh... gee. it was just a simple question. ;-))) save the ramblings for Torone.

i don't have a dog in this hunt. ;-))

[wig]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 10:53 AM
The activist judges, IMO, should be dethroned. Yes, I said dethroned and not derobed... they're acting like Kings, simply writing laws that they see fit with no legislative process and with no bearing on what the voters want.
Doesn't matter to me if they're writing laws about gay marriages or peas in chicken pot pie... they're not there to make laws. They're there to interpret and help enforce those laws.
:okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb:

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 10:53 AM
The activist judges, IMO, should be dethroned. Yes, I said dethroned and not derobed... they're acting like Kings, simply writing laws that they see fit with no legislative process and with no bearing on what the voters want.
Doesn't matter to me if they're writing laws about gay marriages or peas in chicken pot pie... they're not there to make laws. They're there to interpret and help enforce those laws.
In other words, you disagree with the way they interpreted the law. Fine. He found one of your hot buttons. That was his purpose. Your response proves that when Pavlov-Bush rings the bell, the bobble-heads will salivate.

In your own words, their job is to interpret. They did, and you don't like the interpretation. Too-bad-so-sad.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Jan 21 2004, 11:01 AM

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by wig@Jan 21 2004, 10:57 AM
uh... gee. it was just a simple question. ;-))) save the ramblings for Torone.

i don't have a dog in this hunt. ;-))
Short answer is Kerry or Edwards. I'm positively UNDERwhelmed by the whole field.

[Cleo]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 21 2004, 11:00 AM
In your own words, their job is to interpret. They did, and you don't like the interpretation. Too-bad-so-sad.
:okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb: :okthumb:

[Carrie]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 21 2004, 11:00 AM
In other words, you disagree with the way they interpreted the law. Fine. He found one of your hot buttons. That was his purpose. Your response proves that when Pavlov-Bush rings the bell, the bobble-heads will salivate.

In your own words, their job is to interpret. They did, and you don't like the interpretation. Too-bad-so-sad.
If I felt that they interpreted the law, I'd have no problem with it.
But I don't think that they interpreted it. I think they simply decreed. <_<

[wig]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 21 2004, 11:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 21 2004, 11:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Jan 21 2004, 10:57 AM
uh... gee. it was just a simple question. ;-))) save the ramblings for Torone.

i don't have a dog in this hunt. ;-))
Short answer is Kerry or Edwards. I'm positively UNDERwhelmed by the whole field.[/b][/quote]
I concur... I am positively UNDERwhelmed by all politicians. ;-))

I seriously do not know why ppl take it all so seriously... especially some of the single-topics that drive ppl to be so vocal.

like gay marriage for instance! :groucho:

[Cleo]

As I see it they said that everyone should have equal rights. Why is it that so many seem to have a problem with this?

[Carrie]

We take it seriously because these are the people who determine what laws we and our children will be living under. How many taxes will be taken out of every dollar we make. Whether or not we'll be "allowed" to do what we want to do.

Why *wouldn't* you take it seriously?

[wig]

Originally posted by Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 11:09 AM
As I see it they said that everyone should have equal rights. Why is it that so many seem to have a problem with this?
Cleo, i do not have a problem with equal rights. It is at the core of my beliefs.

[wig]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 11:11 AM
We take it seriously because these are the people who determine what laws we and our children will be living under. How many taxes will be taken out of every dollar we make. Whether or not we'll be "allowed" to do what we want to do.

Why *wouldn't* you take it seriously?
Because I can have more of an impact in my life than they can.

[Carrie]

Originally posted by Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 11:09 AM
As I see it they said that everyone should have equal rights. Why is it that so many seem to have a problem with this?
Because by definition a marriage is a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.
The laws they were interpreting weren't discussing common-law unions, they were discussing marriage.
There's no religion involved there, no morality involved there. Just a simple textbook definition that the judges completely ignored.

I think the gays who want to be married are going down the wrong road. All they have to do is take the word "marriage" out of it and they'd pull all the wind out of the sails of their opposition.
Yes, it's just semantics, but it's effective. Marriage has long, deep roots as an established institution of a union between a man and a woman. So quit trying to break into that. Don't play by their rules... make up a new game.

[wig]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 11:20 AM
All they have to do is take the word "marriage" out of it and they'd pull all the wind out of the sails of their opposition.

That is not their objective. In fact, it is just the opposite.

It is not really about equality, it is about making a statement. It is about opposing what they dislike.

[Mike AI]

HAHA I loved it!!

I was not able to watch the speech live, but saw a replay. While it was not one of Bush top 10 speeches, it was pretty good.

When I was watching it, I knew which parts were puckering asses of people like PD - and I loved every second of it. It was fantatic.

I am sure PDs eyes spun to the back of his head when Bush made the comment about not needing any persmission slip to defend the US.

HAHAHAHA

I am not a huge Bush fan, especially because he is spending way to much money to more gov't entitletments, I am not sure if I am for his immigration policy ( though it sounds nice, I think it may just encourage more illegals - something that I have to look at closer)....

But I love the man's Foreign Policy.... and to me foreign policy and defence of this country is the number 1 issues for all Presidents.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 11:46 AM
HAHA I loved it!!

I was not able to watch the speech live, but saw a replay. While it was not one of Bush top 10 speeches, it was pretty good.

When I was watching it, I knew which parts were puckering asses of people like PD - and I loved every second of it. It was fantatic.

I am sure PDs eyes spun to the back of his head when Bush made the comment about not needing any persmission slip to defend the US.

HAHAHAHA

I am not a huge Bush fan, especially because he is spending way to much money to more gov't entitletments, I am not sure if I am for his immigration policy ( though it sounds nice, I think it may just encourage more illegals - something that I have to look at closer)....

But I love the man's Foreign Policy.... and to me foreign policy and defence of this country is the number 1 issues for all Presidents.
Yet another Pavlovian puppy barks to indicate the degree to which he salivates.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 21 2004, 12:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 21 2004, 12:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 11:46 AM
HAHA I loved it!!

I was not able to watch the speech live, but saw a replay. While it was not one of Bush top 10 speeches, it was pretty good.

When I was watching it, I knew which parts were puckering asses of people like PD - and I loved every second of it. It was fantatic.

I am sure PDs eyes spun to the back of his head when Bush made the comment about not needing any persmission slip to defend the US.

HAHAHAHA

I am not a huge Bush fan, especially because he is spending way to much money to more gov't entitletments, I am not sure if I am for his immigration policy ( though it sounds nice, I think it may just encourage more illegals - something that I have to look at closer)....

But I love the man's Foreign Policy.... and to me foreign policy and defence of this country is the number 1 issues for all Presidents.
Yet another Pavlovian puppy barks to indicate the degree to which he salivates.[/b][/quote]
HAHA Bush tossed out some red meat!!

Us dogs liked it....

Woof woof!

:D

[Buff]

Originally posted by Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 06:46 AM
Yeah Jesus is good, gays are bad.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/...iage/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/same.sex.marriage/index.html)
Maybe for a running mate they should resurrect pre-paralyzed George Wallace.

Just my humble opinion but I don't think anyone that calls for support of discriminating against 10% or so of the population has any place in government.

Religion has no more place in organized government then facts have in organized religion.
If government does not recognize that human rights are bestowed by God, then we have no human rights. It is the "bestowed by our Creator" part which makes them unalienable. If they are bestowed by men, they can be stripped by men. When God leaves our government, our rights follow him.

[Vick]

What's all this about equal rights?

What about equal lefts?


NIXON FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004

He's Tanned, Rested and Dead - perfect for the job

[Buff]

Originally posted by Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 10:09 AM
As I see it they said that everyone should have equal rights. Why is it that so many seem to have a problem with this?
Really? So a 4 year old should be able to drive? Outstanding!

[Vick]

Originally posted by Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:11 PM
If government does not recognize that human rights are bestowed by God, then we have no human rights. It is the "bestowed by our Creator" part which makes them unalienable. If they are bestowed by men, they can be stripped by men. When God leaves our government, our rights follow him.
Who's God?

This question is meant in every possible sense

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Jan 21 2004, 12:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Jan 21 2004, 12:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -PornoDoggy@Jan 21 2004, 12:06 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 11:46 AM
HAHA I loved it!!

I was not able to watch the speech live, but saw a replay. While it was not one of Bush top 10 speeches, it was pretty good.

When I was watching it, I knew which parts were puckering asses of people like PD - and I loved every second of it. It was fantatic.

I am sure PDs eyes spun to the back of his head when Bush made the comment about not needing any persmission slip to defend the US.

HAHAHAHA

I am not a huge Bush fan, especially because he is spending way to much money to more gov't entitletments, I am not sure if I am for his immigration policy ( though it sounds nice, I think it may just encourage more illegals - something that I have to look at closer)....

But I love the man's Foreign Policy.... and to me foreign policy and defence of this country is the number 1 issues for all Presidents.
Yet another Pavlovian puppy barks to indicate the degree to which he salivates.
HAHA Bush tossed out some red meat!!

Us dogs liked it....

Woof woof!

:D[/b][/quote]
Uhhhh ... red meat or red herring?

I'm sure you did love it, Mike. Long on rhetoric, short on substance, not too many big words, pressing all the hot buttons ... ideal stump speech full of patriotism by rote designed to appeal to a great many people who call themselves conservatives.

I really do want him to make a lot more like that.

I have to admit though, Mike - you did make me smile.

Bush top 10 speeches


Kinda like Tiny Tim's greatest hits.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Vick+Jan 21 2004, 12:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Jan 21 2004, 12:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:11 PM
If government does not recognize that human rights are bestowed by God, then we have no human rights. It is the "bestowed by our Creator" part which makes them unalienable. If they are bestowed by men, they can be stripped by men. When God leaves our government, our rights follow him.
Who's God?

This question is meant in every possible sense[/b][/quote]
Why, Mine, of course.

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 21 2004, 11:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 21 2004, 11:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Vick@Jan 21 2004, 12:18 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:11 PM
If government does not recognize that human rights are bestowed by God, then we have no human rights. It is the "bestowed by our Creator" part which makes them unalienable. If they are bestowed by men, they can be stripped by men. When God leaves our government, our rights follow him.
Who's God?

This question is meant in every possible sense
Why, Mine, of course.[/b][/quote]
The God. The creator of the Universe.

The God who tells me that anyone to the left of McCarthy should be shot.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig@Jan 21 2004, 11:14 AM

Because I can have more of an impact in my life than they can.
A+

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Buff+Jan 21 2004, 12:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Jan 21 2004, 12:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -PornoDoggy@Jan 21 2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by -Vick@Jan 21 2004, 12:18 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:11 PM
If government does not recognize that human rights are bestowed by God, then we have no human rights. It is the "bestowed by our Creator" part which makes them unalienable. If they are bestowed by men, they can be stripped by men. When God leaves our government, our rights follow him.
Who's God?

This question is meant in every possible sense
Why, Mine, of course.
The God. The creator of the Universe.

The God who tells me that anyone to the left of McCarthy should be shot.[/b][/quote]
Buffama bin Laden?

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 21 2004, 11:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 21 2004, 11:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by -PornoDoggy@Jan 21 2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by -Vick@Jan 21 2004, 12:18 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:11 PM
If government does not recognize that human rights are bestowed by God, then we have no human rights. It is the "bestowed by our Creator" part which makes them unalienable. If they are bestowed by men, they can be stripped by men. When God leaves our government, our rights follow him.
Who's God?

This question is meant in every possible sense
Why, Mine, of course.
The God. The creator of the Universe.

The God who tells me that anyone to the left of McCarthy should be shot.
Buffama bin Laden?[/b][/quote]
:)

Anyway, back to a more serious note:

PD, are you honestly saying that all those judges are merely interpreting the constitution? By your definition, is there any possible ruling a judge could make which could not be defined under your semantics as interpretation but rather could be defined as "legislating from the bench?"



Last edited by Buff at Jan 21 2004, 11:39 AM

[Cleo]

Originally posted by Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:11 PM

If government does not recognize that human rights are bestowed by God, then we have no human rights. It is the "bestowed by our Creator" part which makes them unalienable. If they are bestowed by men, they can be stripped by men. When God leaves our government, our rights follow him.
I truly believe that folks with these views should stick to flossing those all mighty superstitious divine books on religion and leave decision making to people with their beliefs based on facts.

Human rights are not bestowed by God, they are bestowed by educated leaders. God can't bestow anything because God is just a belief in ignorance.

Why should anyone care if fags and dykes get the same rights as hetros? Does this somehow make marriage less divine? Get over it, there is no god and marriage is nothing more then a legal agreement between to people in love.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 21 2004, 12:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 21 2004, 12:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by -PornoDoggy@Jan 21 2004, 12:06 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 11:46 AM
HAHA I loved it!!

I was not able to watch the speech live, but saw a replay. While it was not one of Bush top 10 speeches, it was pretty good.

When I was watching it, I knew which parts were puckering asses of people like PD - and I loved every second of it. It was fantatic.

I am sure PDs eyes spun to the back of his head when Bush made the comment about not needing any persmission slip to defend the US.

HAHAHAHA

I am not a huge Bush fan, especially because he is spending way to much money to more gov't entitletments, I am not sure if I am for his immigration policy ( though it sounds nice, I think it may just encourage more illegals - something that I have to look at closer)....

But I love the man's Foreign Policy.... and to me foreign policy and defence of this country is the number 1 issues for all Presidents.
Yet another Pavlovian puppy barks to indicate the degree to which he salivates.
HAHA Bush tossed out some red meat!!

Us dogs liked it....

Woof woof!

:D
Uhhhh ... red meat or red herring?

I'm sure you did love it, Mike. Long on rhetoric, short on substance, not too many big words, pressing all the hot buttons ... ideal stump speech full of patriotism by rote designed to appeal to a great many people who call themselves conservatives.

I really do want him to make a lot more like that.

I have to admit though, Mike - you did make me smile.

Bush top 10 speeches


Kinda like Tiny Tim's greatest hits.[/b][/quote]


Of course it was long on rhetoric and short on detials PD it was a State of the Union address. It is a big pep rally - nothing more, nothing less.

I think you might have missed a spot.... I can tell you were getting a little frothy around your mouth! hahaha

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Cleo+Jan 21 2004, 12:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cleo @ Jan 21 2004, 12:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:11 PM

If government does not recognize that human rights are bestowed by God, then we have no human rights. It is the "bestowed by our Creator" part which makes them unalienable. If they are bestowed by men, they can be stripped by men. When God leaves our government, our rights follow him.
I truly believe that folks with these views should stick to flossing those all mighty superstitious divine books on religion and leave decision making to people with their beliefs based on facts.

Human rights are not bestowed by God, they are bestowed by educated leaders. God can't bestow anything because God is just a belief in ignorance.

Why should anyone care if fags and dykes get the same rights as hetros? Does this somehow make marriage less divine? Get over it, there is no god and marriage is nothing more then a legal agreement between to people in love.[/b][/quote]


HAHAH Cleo, you would do well in Communism. Might I suggest you head to China or North Korea.... there are countries that beleive human rights come from men, not from God!

I guess you have not spent much time in history or philosophy classes....

Oh and for the non-beleivers out there - it can be any God. It is a concept you should try to understand.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Cleo+Jan 21 2004, 11:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cleo @ Jan 21 2004, 11:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:11 PM

If government does not recognize that human rights are bestowed by God, then we have no human rights. It is the "bestowed by our Creator" part which makes them unalienable. If they are bestowed by men, they can be stripped by men. When God leaves our government, our rights follow him.
I truly believe that folks with these views should stick to flossing those all mighty superstitious divine books on religion and leave decision making to people with their beliefs based on facts.

Human rights are not bestowed by God, they are bestowed by educated leaders. God can't bestow anything because God is just a belief in ignorance.

Why should anyone care if fags and dykes get the same rights as hetros? Does this somehow make marriage less divine? Get over it, there is no god and marriage is nothing more then a legal agreement between to people in love.[/b][/quote]
You live in a country which grew out of a revolution against the English Crown, a revolution based on the proposition that human rights are bestowed by the Creator and not men.

But let me guess, you're better educated than Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson? Those ignorant bastards! Hahahahaha

[Cleo]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Jan 21 2004, 12:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Jan 21 2004, 12:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 12:51 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:11 PM

If government does not recognize that human rights are bestowed by God, then we have no human rights. It is the "bestowed by our Creator" part which makes them unalienable. If they are bestowed by men, they can be stripped by men. When God leaves our government, our rights follow him.
I truly believe that folks with these views should stick to flossing those all mighty superstitious divine books on religion and leave decision making to people with their beliefs based on facts.

Human rights are not bestowed by God, they are bestowed by educated leaders. God can't bestow anything because God is just a belief in ignorance.

Why should anyone care if fags and dykes get the same rights as hetros? Does this somehow make marriage less divine? Get over it, there is no god and marriage is nothing more then a legal agreement between to people in love.


HAHAH Cleo, you would do well in Communism. Might I suggest you head to China or North Korea.... there are countries that beleive human rights come from men, not from God!

I guess you have not spent much time in history or philosophy classes....

Oh and for the non-beleivers out there - it can be any God. It is a concept you should try to understand.[/b][/quote]
MikeAI it must be hard to type with one hand waving the flag and the other flossing the bible.

[Vick]

Originally posted by Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:57 PM
But let me guess, you're better educated than Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson? Those ignorant bastards! Hahahahaha
Samuel Adams??!! how about Thomas Paine?

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin+Jan 21 2004, 12:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jan 21 2004, 12:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Jan 21 2004, 11:14 AM

Because I can have more of an impact in my life than they can.
A+[/b][/quote]
Thank you, sir! ;-))

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Cleo+Jan 21 2004, 12:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cleo @ Jan 21 2004, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by -Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 12:51 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:11 PM

If government does not recognize that human rights are bestowed by God, then we have no human rights. It is the "bestowed by our Creator" part which makes them unalienable. If they are bestowed by men, they can be stripped by men. When God leaves our government, our rights follow him.
I truly believe that folks with these views should stick to flossing those all mighty superstitious divine books on religion and leave decision making to people with their beliefs based on facts.

Human rights are not bestowed by God, they are bestowed by educated leaders. God can't bestow anything because God is just a belief in ignorance.

Why should anyone care if fags and dykes get the same rights as hetros? Does this somehow make marriage less divine? Get over it, there is no god and marriage is nothing more then a legal agreement between to people in love.


HAHAH Cleo, you would do well in Communism. Might I suggest you head to China or North Korea.... there are countries that beleive human rights come from men, not from God!

I guess you have not spent much time in history or philosophy classes....

Oh and for the non-beleivers out there - it can be any God. It is a concept you should try to understand.
MikeAI it must be hard to type with one hand waving the flag and the other flossing the bible.[/b][/quote]
Flag - YES.

Bible - while I consider myself religious and I do beleive in God. I think that human beings are so flawed that when they orginize into groups that the dynamics automaticly make these institutions flawed.


I know you intended this to be an insult, and in your group it is ( kinda like you calling me a straight man ) but to me it is a badge of honor.

:salute:

[Buff]

Originally posted by Vick+Jan 21 2004, 12:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Jan 21 2004, 12:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:57 PM
But let me guess, you're better educated than Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson? Those ignorant bastards! Hahahahaha
Samuel Adams??!! how about Thomas Paine?[/b][/quote]
Adams was da bomb, yo! But Pat Henry was the real bad ass.

[wig]

Originally posted by Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 12:51 PM
Human rights are not bestowed by God, they are bestowed by educated leaders. God can't bestow anything because God is just a belief in ignorance.

This is probably the most ignorant thing you have ever uttered.

And, it has nothing to do with whether you believe in God or not.

[Vick]

Originally posted by Buff+Jan 21 2004, 01:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Jan 21 2004, 01:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Vick@Jan 21 2004, 12:05 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:57 PM
But let me guess, you're better educated than Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson? Those ignorant bastards! Hahahahaha
Samuel Adams??!! how about Thomas Paine?
Adams was da bomb, yo! But Pat Henry was the real bad ass.[/b][/quote]
Yo, Yo, Yo let me speak on this
I B Kickin it wit TJ

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:36 PM
PD, are you honestly saying that all those judges are merely interpreting the constitution? By your definition, is there any possible ruling a judge could make which could not be defined under your semantics as interpretation but rather could be defined as "legislating from the bench?"
PD, are you honestly saying that all those judges are merely interpreting the constitution?

Yep. That's what I'm saying. And yes, I do believe that there are situations where judges have "legislated from the bench", and no, I don't think that is appropriate.

The "judicial activist" charge made some sense back in the days of convoluted court-ordered busing schemes (which made liberals feel good while diverting attention from real issues of employement and housing discrimination) and the like.

However, like the use of liberal as a perjorative, the phrase has made its way into the verbal arsenal of the right. Like Rev. Bush's lament about the "discrimination" against religion (which made me laugh out loud) last night, it's usually employed by people to descirbe any decision that they disagree with.

I'm also going to admit something that few who are decrying the Massachusetts court decision will - I have not read the Massachusetts decision personally. FROM WHAT I HAVE READ AND HEARD, it was not judicial activism as I understand it.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:57 PM
You live in a country which grew out of a revolution against the English Crown, a revolution based on the proposition that human rights are bestowed by the Creator and not men.

But let me guess, you're better educated than Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson? Those ignorant bastards! Hahahahaha
So what you are saying is that anyone with a world view based on information or attitudes not prevelant in the 1770s is suspect?

[Cleo]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 01:09 PM
I know you intended this to be an insult, and in your group it is ( kinda like you calling me a straight man ) but to me it is a badge of honor.
And what group would that be? You imply disparity on my part with the human race where non exists. I'm human, that is the only group that I'm part of.

I'm just along for the ride in this rip in space time that we call reality. I don't have any illusions that I'm any kind of creature created by some kind of omnipotent being.

Yeah our nation was founded by people who wanted more then to live under the rule of a dictatorship. I'm lucky to live in what I believe to be the greatest nation every conceived, but just as it was created by imperfect beings it is an imperfect nation still evolving. When we start seeking answers to our issues in ancient beliefs based on superstition we stop evolving.

The founders of the US were great people with great ideas, but lets not forget that they also believed in evil spirits, witches, and a bunch of other ignorant beliefs. Using their beliefs we should start going out and finding some witches to burn and perform exorcisms on those pesky evil-doers.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Cleo+Jan 21 2004, 01:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cleo @ Jan 21 2004, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 01:09 PM
I know you intended this to be an insult, and in your group it is ( kinda like you calling me a straight man ) but to me it is a badge of honor.
And what group would that be? You imply disparity on my part with the human race where non exists. I'm human, that is the only group that I'm part of.

I'm just along for the ride in this rip in space time that we call reality. I don't have any illusions that I'm any kind of creature created by some kind of omnipotent being.

Yeah our nation was founded by people who wanted more then to live under the rule of a dictatorship. I'm lucky to live in what I believe to be the greatest nation every conceived, but just as it was created by imperfect beings it is an imperfect nation still evolving. When we start seeking answers to our issues in ancient beliefs based on superstition we stop evolving.

The founders of the US were great people with great ideas, but lets not forget that they also believed in evil spirits, witches, and a bunch of other ignorant beliefs. Using their beliefs we should start going out and finding some witches to burn and perform exorcisms on those pesky evil-doers.[/b][/quote]


You are coming around Cleo - I can just feel it.

:D

Do not confuse me with supporting religious zealots - or zealots of any kind. Anytime there is money or power involved, you can expect to see the worst in human behavior. That is why organized religion in many ways fails....

[Cleo]

OMG, MikeAI and my Cleo persona almost having the same beliefs, did proverbial hell freeze over? :D

Now if something can be done about that FUCKING BANNER that has some guy screaming whatever it is he is screaming which has caused all of Starbucks to turn around and look at me while I'm sipping my latte and posting on a board.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 02:01 PM
OMG, MikeAI and my Cleo persona almost having the same beliefs, did proverbial hell freeze over? :D

Now if something can be done about that FUCKING BANNER that has some guy screaming whatever it is he is screaming which has caused all of Starbucks to turn around and look at me while I'm sipping my latte and posting on a board.
I agree with you on the banner - I almost pissed on myself last night when I moused over it.

Hoop - help us - give us a non-sounds banner to replace the old one with! :D

We have bipartisan support for it!!

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 21 2004, 12:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 21 2004, 12:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:57 PM
You live in a country which grew out of a revolution against the English Crown, a revolution based on the proposition that human rights are bestowed by the Creator and not men.

But let me guess, you're better educated than Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson? Those ignorant bastards! Hahahahaha
So what you are saying is that anyone with a world view based on information or attitudes not prevelant in the 1770s is suspect?[/b][/quote]
Nope. I am saying the notion that our human rights are derived from God and not man is not an ignorant one as someone else claimed.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Cleo+Jan 21 2004, 12:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cleo @ Jan 21 2004, 12:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 01:09 PM
I know you intended this to be an insult, and in your group it is ( kinda like you calling me a straight man ) but to me it is a badge of honor.
And what group would that be? You imply disparity on my part with the human race where non exists. I'm human, that is the only group that I'm part of.

I'm just along for the ride in this rip in space time that we call reality. I don't have any illusions that I'm any kind of creature created by some kind of omnipotent being.

Yeah our nation was founded by people who wanted more then to live under the rule of a dictatorship. I'm lucky to live in what I believe to be the greatest nation every conceived, but just as it was created by imperfect beings it is an imperfect nation still evolving. When we start seeking answers to our issues in ancient beliefs based on superstition we stop evolving.

The founders of the US were great people with great ideas, but lets not forget that they also believed in evil spirits, witches, and a bunch of other ignorant beliefs. Using their beliefs we should start going out and finding some witches to burn and perform exorcisms on those pesky evil-doers.[/b][/quote]
Do you have any reference sources which demonstrate that our founding fathers believed in witches and evil spirits? This I would love to see.

[Carrie]

Just a note - don't go looking for something unless you're prepared to find it.
Looking for witches to burn at the stake might not be an endeavor you want to carry the banner for. :awinky:

[aeon]

The human species has evolved quite adequately with religion - some could argue those "superstitions" have been a primary factor in that evolution. Equal treatment, eutopia blah blah is not the ends of evolution nor even a means that I've ever heard - evolution is simply survival of the species.

Just like platonists "believe" mathematical objects actually exist, scientists believe "causation" exists and the religious believe a "divine" exists. Damn DeCartes - he fucked things up for the "non superstitious".

The new southern evangelical empiricists will dominate...

best of luck -
aeon

[Carrie]

It is thanks to men who believed in a power higher than "His Highness, King George III" that we enjoy the freedoms we have today.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

Had they thought that things began and ended with old Georgy-boy, we simply wouldn't be here. They would've simply accepted their lot in life and sighed a little deeper as they mucked on about their way.

[sextoyking]

Oh Jesus,

that was one of the most boring state of the union speeches I have seen in years.

cut it in 1/2 you say, LOL. Just to make up for the job losses since he took office, our economy would have to produce around 245,000 new jobs each quarter. Ending in December, we produced 1,000 new jobs.

Faith Based funding sucks in my opinion, whether it's Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc.

I am glad Dean is burning his own election. I like him on some social policies, but I know and have known he can not be elected, especially in 2004.

It will be Kerry, Clark or Edwards. I hope it's a Kerry - Clark Ticket, or mabey Kerry - Edwards ticket. We need a good, likeable Southern person on the ticket. No Dem can win without taking at least 3-4 southern states. No even the repubs admit if Graham was on the ticket as VP we could probably take Florida, but even know I love Graham, he doesn't articulate and speak the best always...

Bush might have 55-60% approval ratings right now, but so did Daddy bush at this time. He can be beat if we keep pushing our points and differences with his admin.

[Carrie]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned his call to renew the Patriot Act, or the burst of applause when he said it was expiring.

I watched the speech streamed from the MSNBC site this morning at 3am, so I got the "stare at Bush 100% of the time" camera; didn't get to see who clapped and who sat on their hands, who made faces, whatever. I was also saved from the snide comments from Anchors who feel their words are more important than the President's though, and who insert comments during the speech. It was great. Almost like watching a football game without that annoying fat fucktard John Madden.

[sextoyking]

Carrie,

the 1984 big brother act is a total sham. I was so elated when dems clapped after bush said it was expiring.

I hope it doesn't get to a vote this election year :(

[Carrie]

Originally posted by sextoyking@Jan 21 2004, 03:02 PM
Carrie,

the 1984 big brother act is a total sham. I was so elated when dems clapped after bush said it was expiring.

I hope it doesn't get to a vote this election year :(
Honestly, me too.
If it expires it'll be harder to bring back than if they simply renew it in time. It'll have to go through from start to finish again.

[RawAlex]

Did he mention any "faith based initiatives" this time?

It's election season... who's betting on a one term president?

Alex



Last edited by RawAlex at Jan 21 2004, 04:11 PM

[OldJeff]

Originally posted by Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:11 PM

If government does not recognize that human rights are bestowed by God, then we have no human rights. It is the "bestowed by our Creator" part which makes them unalienable. If they are bestowed by men, they can be stripped by men. When God leaves our government, our rights follow him.
Exactly which god was that that bestowed these rights ?

Odin ?
Zeus ?
Apollo ?
The Earth Mother ?
Allah ?
Buddah ?
Yahweh ?

Oh I'm sorry, I am not thinking, it must be the one true god, the CHRISTIAN god.

I am sorry but ones argument loses ALL merit once god is brought into the picture, everything the human race currently knows about god has been twisted and perverted by power hungry MEN for so long that it has no semblence to reality.

For Christ's sake people (pun VERY intended) the Earth is over 4 billion years old, chistianity a little more tha 2000, how can anyone with an IQ over 12 use what they learned in Sunday School as a child a basis for anything.

Sing with me

Yes Jesus Loves Me
Yes Jesus Loves Me
Yes Jesus Loves Me
The Bible Tells Me So

I watched part of the annual US pep rally, what a fucking idiot we have for a president

[[Labret]]

Its like giving a bunch of chimps a box of hammers and a bag of angel dust.

This thread is such a theological clusterfuck I honestly cannot tell if its Oprano equivalent of the Phil Hendrie Show or the glaringly obvious.

[Cleo]

Originally posted by OldJeff@Jan 21 2004, 04:49 PM
Exactly which god was that that bestowed these rights ?
Everyone should know that Yoda is the only true good.

But then who created Yoda?

Well George Lucas created Yoda. OMG this must mean that George Lucas is really the true God!!!

See religious beliefs do make complete sense.

[OldJeff]

Originally posted by [Labret]@Jan 21 2004, 05:11 PM
Its like giving a bunch of chimps a box of hammers and a bag of angel dust.


This HAS to be a pearl

[aeon]

Originally posted by OldJeff@Jan 21 2004, 01:49 PM
I am sorry but ones argument loses ALL merit once god is brought into the picture, everything the human race currently knows about god has been twisted and perverted by power hungry MEN for so long that it has no semblence to reality.
please explain this...

so what previous people's knew was "reality" - at what point did power/twisting, diminish this reality...and what was this reality in the first place? How do you know it's lost semblence to reality now unless you know what it was before?

when exactly was this reality..."pure" and unadulterated and how does mentioning a belief in a divine hinder a position anymore than mentioning any other belief...the world is billions of years old - how do you "know" this...read it somewhere - someone tell you - a lot of people "believe" it?

best of luck -
aeon

[Carrie]

Totally off-topic but I find it really interesting that scientists have been trying forever to disprove biblical happenings and they can't; but in the process they've been able to prove that biblical events really could have - and in some cases definitely did - happen.
Gotta shake your foundation when you're trying to disprove something and you end up proving it instead.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 03:18 PM
but in the process they've been able to prove that biblical events really could have - and in some cases definitely did - happen.
Name some.

[Carrie]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Jan 21 2004, 06:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Jan 21 2004, 06:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 03:18 PM
but in the process they've been able to prove that biblical events really could have - and in some cases definitely did - happen.
Name some.[/b][/quote]
The parting of the Red Sea.
The burning bush.
The twin cities (forget their names) - well that was an archeological find actually, but still, they're scientists in their own right.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Carrie+Jan 21 2004, 03:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Carrie @ Jan 21 2004, 03:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Joe Sixpack@Jan 21 2004, 06:46 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 03:18 PM
but in the process they've been able to prove that biblical events really could have - and in some cases definitely did - happen.
Name some.
The parting of the Red Sea.
The burning bush.
The twin cities (forget their names) - well that was an archeological find actually, but still, they're scientists in their own right.[/b][/quote]
Now show me the scientific research that proves that the Red Sea was miraculously parted and that God burnt a bush.

[Carrie]

Damn man, go look it up yourself. I'm not your concierge. I told you which ones, do a google search. Try looking on Discovery's site.

[Cleo]

Yeah just as the bible says, the one before they conveniently updated it, the earth is at the center of the universe and the sun and stars orbit around it.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 04:04 PM
Damn man, go look it up yourself. I'm not your concierge. I told you which ones, do a google search. Try looking on Discovery's site.
You are the one making the claim. You present the evidence. Or at least post a link.

[Hubby]

The Great Flood

"WOOLLEY IN HIS OWN WORDS
Starting then below the level at which the graves had been found we sank a little shaft, no more than five feet square at the outset, into the underlying soil and went down through the mixed rubbish that is characteristic of old inhabited sites a mixture of decomposed mud brick, ashes, and broken pottery, very much like that in which the graves had been dug. This went on for about three feet and then, suddenly, it all stopped; there were no more potsherds, no ashes, only clean water-laid mud, and the Arab workmen at the bottom of the shaft told me that he had reached virgin soil; there was nothing more to be found, and he had better go elsewhere. I got down and looked at the evidence and agreed with him, but then I took my levels and discovered that 'virgin soil' was not nearly so deep down as I had expected, for I had assumed that the original Ur was built not on a hill but on a low mound rising only just above the surrounding swampy land; and because I do not like having my theories upset by anything less than proof I told the man to get back and go on digging. Most unwillingly he did so, again turning up nothing but clean soil that yielded no sign of human activity; he dug through eight feet of it in all and then, suddenly, there appeared flint implements and fragments of painted al'Ubaid pottery vessels. I got into the pit once more, examined the sides, and by the time I had written up my notes was quite convinced of what it all meant; but I wanted to see whether others would come to the same conclusion. So I brought up two of my staff and, after pointing out the facts, asked for their interpretation. They did not know what to say. My wife came along and looked and asked the same question, and she turned away remarking casually, "Well, of course, it's the Flood." That was the right answer.
- C. Leonard Woolley: Excavations at Ur.
New York: Apollo Editions, 1965, p. 27"

http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/specex/ur/ur-flood.htm

I can't think of any off the top of my head right now, but there are also things in the writings of religions other than Christianity that some have sought to "disprove" and have done the exact opposite.

Mind you, almost every religion I have done any reading on has contradicts itself, in one way or another, within it's own writings. That is not to say that there is, or isn't a "GOD", it is that man has a tendency to embellish and add his own ideas where he sees fit to do so.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Hubby@Jan 21 2004, 05:08 PM
The Great Flood

"WOOLLEY IN HIS OWN WORDS
Starting then below the level at which the graves had been found we sank a little shaft, no more than five feet square at the outset, into the underlying soil and went down through the mixed rubbish that is characteristic of old inhabited sites a mixture of decomposed mud brick, ashes, and broken pottery, very much like that in which the graves had been dug. This went on for about three feet and then, suddenly, it all stopped; there were no more potsherds, no ashes, only clean water-laid mud, and the Arab workmen at the bottom of the shaft told me that he had reached virgin soil; there was nothing more to be found, and he had better go elsewhere. I got down and looked at the evidence and agreed with him, but then I took my levels and discovered that 'virgin soil' was not nearly so deep down as I had expected, for I had assumed that the original Ur was built not on a hill but on a low mound rising only just above the surrounding swampy land; and because I do not like having my theories upset by anything less than proof I told the man to get back and go on digging. Most unwillingly he did so, again turning up nothing but clean soil that yielded no sign of human activity; he dug through eight feet of it in all and then, suddenly, there appeared flint implements and fragments of painted al'Ubaid pottery vessels. I got into the pit once more, examined the sides, and by the time I had written up my notes was quite convinced of what it all meant; but I wanted to see whether others would come to the same conclusion. So I brought up two of my staff and, after pointing out the facts, asked for their interpretation. They did not know what to say. My wife came along and looked and asked the same question, and she turned away remarking casually, "Well, of course, it's the Flood." That was the right answer.
- C. Leonard Woolley: Excavations at Ur.
New York: Apollo Editions, 1965, p. 27"

http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/specex/ur/ur-flood.htm

I can't think of any off the top of my head right now, but there are also things in the writings of religions other than Christianity that some have sought to "disprove" and have done the exact opposite.

Mind you, almost every religion I have done any reading on has contradicts itself, in one way or another, within it's own writings. That is not to say that there is, or isn't a "GOD", it is that man has a tendency to embellish and add his own ideas where he sees fit to do so.
I'm not quite sure what the purpose of your post is.

Are you trying to suggest that that passage is scientific proof of God flooding the Earth?

[Hubby]

Now to the original reason for this thread.
It was a "great" campaign speech. For 95% of the first half-hour he did a beautiful job tooting his own horn and that of his admin. It was nice of him to use the second half to actually address the congress with the state of the union. Of course he did go into some things that still had nothing to do with what he was supposed to be talking about.

[Hubby]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@Jan 21 2004, 05:19 PM
I'm not quite sure what the purpose of your post is.

Are you trying to suggest that that passage is scientific proof of God flooding the Earth?
The dig merely showed conclusive evidence that there had been a huge flood that lasted for quite a long time, as the bible states. As for whom left the faucet running, I couldn't tell ya.

[Vick]

Each attempt to clarify
Serves only to confuse
And it feels just like a fracture
But it looks more like a bruise

And my heart can’t bear the weight
Of one more empty “I told you”
And I’ve strained my eyes to blindness
Trying to find a point of view



None of this matters, we all die in the end
so fuck the politicians and fuck the gods

[aeon]

Originally posted by Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 04:04 PM
Yeah just as the bible says, the one before they conveniently updated it, the earth is at the center of the universe and the sun and stars orbit around it.
where does any Abrahamic text say this - the septuagint or masoretic texts?..don't talk out of your ass.

and which pre-updated version do you have that says this...you speak greek/hebrew?

best of luck -
aeon

[Vick]

Originally posted by aeon+Jan 21 2004, 11:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ Jan 21 2004, 11:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Cleo@Jan 21 2004, 04:04 PM
Yeah just as the bible says, the one before they conveniently updated it, the earth is at the center of the universe and the sun and stars orbit around it.
where does any Abrahamic text say this - the septuagint or masoretic texts?..don't talk out of your ass.

and which pre-updated version do you have that says this...you speak greek/hebrew?

best of luck -
aeon[/b][/quote]
Each attempt to clarify
Serves only to confuse
And it feels just like a fracture
But it looks more like a bruise

And my heart can’t bear the weight
Of one more empty “I told you”
And I’ve strained my eyes to blindness
Trying to find a point of view

[JR]

Originally posted by Carrie+Jan 21 2004, 03:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Carrie @ Jan 21 2004, 03:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Joe Sixpack@Jan 21 2004, 06:46 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 03:18 PM
but in the process they've been able to prove that biblical events really could have - and in some cases definitely did - happen.
Name some.
The parting of the Red Sea.
The burning bush.
The twin cities (forget their names) - well that was an archeological find actually, but still, they're scientists in their own right.[/b][/quote]
there is no possible way to make the claim that these things "definately did happen"

you could say
"are widely believed to have happened"
"are thought to have happened"
"are said to have happened"

etc.

there is no way to prove them as factual events that actually occured. for someone to suggest that "the parting of the Red Sea actually happened" as depicted in the Bible, is beyond lunacy.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff+Jan 21 2004, 01:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Jan 21 2004, 01:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Vick@Jan 21 2004, 12:05 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Jan 21 2004, 12:57 PM
But let me guess, you're better educated than Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson? Those ignorant bastards! Hahahahaha
Samuel Adams??!! how about Thomas Paine?
Adams was da bomb, yo! But Pat Henry was the real bad ass.[/b][/quote]
Paine man myself.

And James Madison, of course.

[Evil Chris]

I'm very surprised that nobody has touched on how Bush made it VERY CLEAR about his stand against public health care.

I believe Tommy Douglas may have rolled over in his grave.

[JR]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Jan 22 2004, 06:51 AM
I'm very surprised that nobody has touched on how Bush made it VERY CLEAR about his stand against public health care.


maybe everyone agrees with it?

[Evil Chris]

Originally posted by JR+Jan 22 2004, 11:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Jan 22 2004, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Evil Chris@Jan 22 2004, 06:51 AM
I'm very surprised that nobody has touched on how Bush made it VERY CLEAR about his stand against public health care.


maybe everyone agrees with it?[/b][/quote]
Sure... I could tell when the Democrats boo'd that remark.

[Peaches]

Originally posted by JR+Jan 22 2004, 11:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Jan 22 2004, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Evil Chris@Jan 22 2004, 06:51 AM
I'm very surprised that nobody has touched on how Bush made it VERY CLEAR about his stand against public health care.


maybe everyone agrees with it?[/b][/quote]
:okthumb:

[JR]

Originally posted by Evil Chris+Jan 22 2004, 07:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Evil Chris @ Jan 22 2004, 07:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -JR@Jan 22 2004, 11:20 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Evil Chris@Jan 22 2004, 06:51 AM
I'm very surprised that nobody has touched on how Bush made it VERY CLEAR about his stand against public health care.


maybe everyone agrees with it?
Sure... I could tell when the Democrats boo'd that remark.[/b][/quote]
i guess took your post to mean that you were commenting on peoples lack of reaction in this thread. now you are talking about Democrats reaction during the speach in the audience.

i must be confused. you seem to be trying to bait someone and i can't figure out who it is.

is this a Canadian riddle?

[Evil Chris]

Healthcare is not a political issue. It is a humane issue.
One citizen should not be treated better than another because they can afford better treatment. But that's the American way, isn't it? More money, more benefits.

Here's an interesting audio clip (only 4:11 long). You'll be surprised who is speaking, and his significance to the healthcare issue.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-851-4972/p..._douglas/clip11 (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-851-4972/politics_economy/tommy_douglas/clip11)

[JR]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Jan 22 2004, 07:29 AM
Healthcare is not a political issue. It is a humane issue.
One citizen should not be treated better than another because they can afford better treatment. But that's the American way, isn't it? More money, more benefits.

Here's an interesting audio clip (only 4:11 long). You'll be surprised who is speaking, and his significance to the healthcare issue.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-851-4972/p..._douglas/clip11 (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-851-4972/politics_economy/tommy_douglas/clip11)
i think you are taking an extreme view of things. the argument against social vs private health care is old. both systems are equally flawed.

thank god that we can at least have the choice of paying to world class health care, which judging by the total number of Canadians who come to the US for treatment, must be a good thing.



Last edited by JR at Jan 22 2004, 08:07 AM

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Jan 22 2004, 11:29 AM
One citizen should not be treated better than another because they can afford better treatment. But that's the American way, isn't it? More money, more benefits.
Better car, better house, better schools, better clothes, better food, better life after retirement.....yep - in America, the vast majority of the time, the harder you work the better off you are. Is it somehow different in Canada? :unsure: When I worked for a Canadian company, anyone who had any $$ had supplemental insurance because the national plan took too long to get appointments, elective surgery, etc. Seems in Canada citizens are also treated better when they can afford better also. :awinky:

Unfortunately, there are WAY too many times those who don't work at all are treated better than those who do, for instance: Medicaid, food stamps, government housing, etc. :angry:

Our government has screwed up almost everything they've gotten their hands on - national health care will be no different.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Evil Chris+Jan 22 2004, 10:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Evil Chris @ Jan 22 2004, 10:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -JR@Jan 22 2004, 11:20 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Evil Chris@Jan 22 2004, 06:51 AM
I'm very surprised that nobody has touched on how Bush made it VERY CLEAR about his stand against public health care.


maybe everyone agrees with it?
Sure... I could tell when the Democrats boo'd that remark.[/b][/quote]


Maybe they will go to Canada.

I think Bush's quote about keeping gov;t out of health care was right on the mark. I know non-Americans cannot understand the concept of private health care - but it is what makes our health care best in the world.

Should never be messed with.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Jan 22 2004, 10:29 AM
One citizen should not be treated better than another because they can afford better treatment.
And one citizen shouldn't have a better house, car, or yacht because he or she can afford them? Or does this only apply to medical care?

[Buff]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Jan 22 2004, 09:29 AM
Healthcare is not a political issue. It is a humane issue.
One citizen should not be treated better than another because they can afford better treatment. But that's the American way, isn't it? More money, more benefits.

Here's an interesting audio clip (only 4:11 long). You'll be surprised who is speaking, and his significance to the healthcare issue.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-851-4972/p..._douglas/clip11 (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-851-4972/politics_economy/tommy_douglas/clip11)
Food is far more important than healthcare. We all need to eat very frequently or we will die, whereas in many cases, disease can take years to kill us off.

If you want a humane issue, shouldn't the state provide food first, even before healthcare?

[Cleo]

Originally posted by Buff+Jan 22 2004, 12:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Jan 22 2004, 12:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Evil Chris@Jan 22 2004, 09:29 AM
Healthcare is not a political issue. It is a humane issue.
One citizen should not be treated better than another because they can afford better treatment. But that's the American way, isn't it? More money, more benefits.

Here's an interesting audio clip (only 4:11 long). You'll be surprised who is speaking, and his significance to the healthcare issue.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-851-4972/p..._douglas/clip11 (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-851-4972/politics_economy/tommy_douglas/clip11)
Food is far more important than healthcare. We all need to eat very frequently or we will die, whereas in many cases, disease can take years to kill us off.

If you want a humane issue, shouldn't the state provide food first, even before healthcare?[/b][/quote]
Just starve all the poor folks to death and then there won't be any medical care issues.





Wait who will do my yard and clean the house then?

[Vick]

Why why why?????????????

Why does the human animal want to fuck with Darwinism?

Survival of the fittest

[Carrie]

I saw Bush talking out of both sides of his mouth re: social health care.

On one hand he supports private health savings accounts, and says that he's against socialized health care.
But then he calls for a computerized system of everyone's medical records.

If folks can't see the contradictions in that, or how he's trying to appease both sides, I'm stunned.
Remember Gore's call for a medical id card and national database of medical records? Same thing - only the people who opposed it then are eerily silent now. Why? Just because it's a republican stating it? Bah.

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by Vick@Jan 22 2004, 09:15 AM
Why why why?????????????

Why does the human animal want to fuck with Darwinism?

Survival of the fittest

viiiiick, please do not tell me you are actually attempting to endorse social darwinism.

[Vick]

Originally posted by [Labret]+Jan 22 2004, 01:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ([Labret] @ Jan 22 2004, 01:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Vick@Jan 22 2004, 09:15 AM
Why why why?????????????

Why does the human animal want to fuck with Darwinism?

Survival of the fittest

viiiiick, please do not tell me you are actually attempting to endorse social darwinism.[/b][/quote]
:D :okthumb:

Not an attempt and not an endorsement, simply a personal belief

"Begging hands and bleeding hearts can only cry out for more"

[Hell Puppy]

Originally posted by [Labret]+Jan 22 2004, 01:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ([Labret] @ Jan 22 2004, 01:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Vick@Jan 22 2004, 09:15 AM
Why why why?????????????

Why does the human animal want to fuck with Darwinism?

Survival of the fittest

viiiiick, please do not tell me you are actually attempting to endorse social darwinism.[/b][/quote]
If he isn't, I am... :nyanya:

The human herd could use a bit of thinning.

Instead, socialists would rather take more and more away from the productive members of the herd to support the non-productive members of the herd. And worse yet, the non-productive members of the herd are breeding out of control while the productive members are having no more offsprings than they can reasonably afford to raise and turn into responsible productive adults.

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Jan 22 2004, 06:13 PM

If he isn't, I am... :nyanya:



Cool, I support human slavery as well.

If those niggers were not so inferior and weak they wouldnt be enslaved. Right?

[Hell Puppy]

Originally posted by [Labret]+Jan 22 2004, 10:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ([Labret] @ Jan 22 2004, 10:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Hell Puppy@Jan 22 2004, 06:13 PM

If he isn't, I am... :nyanya:



Cool, I support human slavery as well.

If those niggers were not so inferior and weak they wouldnt be enslaved. Right?[/b][/quote]
Who said anything about race?

Or slavery?

Come on, surely you can come up with some sort of intelligent arguement for why people who get an education, work hard and make good decisions about their life should support lazy listless dumbasses who would rather suck off of the government tit.

Or is trying to bring race into it the best you've got?

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Jan 22 2004, 07:57 PM
Come on, surely you can come up with some sort of intelligent arguement for why people who get an education, work hard and make good decisions about their life should support lazy listless dumbasses who would rather suck off of the government tit.

What the fuck does that have to do with social darwinism.

So basically what you are saying is that when I said "social darwinism", you had no idea what the fuck I was talking about.



Last edited by [Labret] at Jan 22 2004, 11:45 PM

[Nickatilynx]

Social Darwinism was postulated by Herbert Spencer.

Simply put , it is the weeding out of the perceived weakest in a gene pool by the society itself.

The Nazis loved it.

Richard Dawkins at Oxford also thought it had some merit.

[Buff]

Originally posted by [Labret]+Jan 22 2004, 09:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ([Labret] @ Jan 22 2004, 09:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Hell Puppy@Jan 22 2004, 06:13 PM

If he isn't, I am... :nyanya:



Cool, I support human slavery as well.

If those niggers were not so inferior and weak they wouldnt be enslaved. Right?[/b][/quote]
Well, if the Africans had the boomstick when the white man came over, chances are a lot fewer Africans would have been taken alive to the Americas.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Vick+Jan 22 2004, 12:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Jan 22 2004, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -[Labret]@Jan 22 2004, 01:31 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Vick@Jan 22 2004, 09:15 AM
Why why why?????????????

Why does the human animal want to fuck with Darwinism?

Survival of the fittest

viiiiick, please do not tell me you are actually attempting to endorse social darwinism.
:D :okthumb:

Not an attempt and not an endorsement, simply a personal belief

"Begging hands and bleeding hearts can only cry out for more"[/b][/quote]
There's no bread, let 'em eat cake
There's no end to what they'll take

RUSH OWNS

[Vick]

Know your place in life is where you want to be,
Don't let them tell you that you owe it all to me.
Keep on looking forward; no use in looking 'round;
Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down.

Anthem of the heart and anthem of the mind
A funeral dirge for eyes gone blind
We marvel after those who sought
The wonders of the world, wonders of the world,
Wonders of the world they wrought.

Live for yourself - there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more

Well, I know they've always told you
Selfishness was wrong
Yet it was for me, not you, I came to write this song


Above Lyrics were inspired by the book "Anthem" by Ayn Rand

I'm more of an Ayn Rand fan than a Rush fan - Alex Lifeson got busted New Years eve

[Carrie]

Originally posted by Buff+Jan 23 2004, 02:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Jan 23 2004, 02:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -[Labret]@Jan 22 2004, 09:13 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Hell Puppy@Jan 22 2004, 06:13 PM

If he isn't, I am... :nyanya:



Cool, I support human slavery as well.

If those niggers were not so inferior and weak they wouldnt be enslaved. Right?
Well, if the Africans had the boomstick when the white man came over, chances are a lot fewer Africans would have been taken alive to the Americas.[/b][/quote]
Doubt it - the tribal leaders were all too happy to sell some of their "goods" to the white man

[Vick]

Originally posted by Buff@Jan 23 2004, 02:56 PM

There's no bread, let 'em eat cake
There's no end to what they'll take

RUSH OWNS
Flaunt the fruits of noble birth
Wash the salt into the earth

But they're marching to Bastille Day
La guillotine will claim her bloody prize

[JR]

i have no lyrics to post.

i'll just move along now.