taks

wait a minute, so is the US now supposed to make policy based solely on your desires? we're protecting our interests. period. he would not have used them here... he would have sold them to someone who would have. still questionable and even the recent report indicated he was trying to get them at least... no, the BA claimed saddam and/or iraqi agents met with al qaeda agents. you don't understand the freedom of religion nor do you understand what the establishment clause really says. you should read the constitution. you get this point wrong in nearly every thread. pot.kettle.black. darque actually did a good job on the assessment. taks

uh, i didn't say anything about that... i implied we're not to blame for what happened 200 years ago (you know, the whole genocide thing). did i say it in a quiet voice? taks

PoTC's quotes in bold... quote thing didn't want to work, not sure why. Bush got roughly 25% of the USA peoples vote. The main section of his voters are blinded by a 2 party system. uh, 30%, actually. 200 million eligible voters or so. under 18 can't vote... The Bush admin has used fear for their advantage, the more fearful a person in the USA is, the more likely their vote goes for Bush. ? afraid of what? oppressive taxes, tomb to womb welfare state (thanks di) endless catering to the smallest of minorities, public education??? yeah, i'm afraid of those things... mostly because THEY DON'T WORK! Same with religion. The more religious someoen is here, the bigger chance they support Bush. Just like most dictators-evil kings etcetc in the past, Bush is using the religion card to gain sheep to follow him. i'm an atheist. Not to mention Kerry was not a good candidate, or at least didnt do **** of a job making himself out to be one until the debates. That hurt him alot. aha! a statement i can agree with. kerry could NEVER have made himself into a good candidate. Then we have the possibility that Bush didn't even get the majority of the vote or the needed electoral college votes. Die Bold CEO, the largest electronic voting system used on election day, has been noted to support Bush in every way attending high $ plate party fund raisers at Bushs 'ranch' bunker, and they have no paper trails! good god, it's a conspiracy i tell you! wait a minute... still banging the same drum are we? get over yourself. you aren't even original. i can find better conspiracies on the web... oh wait, that's where you get this from, isn't it? Republican Bush supporter makes the voting machines with no paper trails. you're right, over 100 million votes to cast and dozens of positions to vote for (as well as other measures)... we should still be hand counting them. good call there. wake up to the digital age buddy. the very same technology that provides this portal will be increasingly prevalent in our lives. it is unavoidable in a society this complex and this large. Republican in Ohio(the key state which won the election) sets Die Bold as one of the electronic voting machines used in Ohio. gasp! oh my, we're doooooomed. evidence please... evidence. Republican wins the election. uh, yeah. opponent not good remember... Republicans stunning the nation with just about every vote they were watching went their way. an increasingly conservative state... however, most conservatives aren't. they just run under that moniker. In my state, Oregon, where assisted suicide, abortion, and medical marijuana is legal,turned down gay marriage as legitimate?!?! This reeks of foul play IMO. ut oh, who did poopies? four completely unrelated concepts, btw. not really all that amazing. homosexuality is one of the few remaining "fears" in our society. people just don't like it. sorry to those that are gay, but them's the facts. is it right? probably not, but i don't really care. IMO, nobody has the right to marry. it's not in the constitution. the fed should get out of the biz... Many have called me crazy or a conspiracy theorist for bringing that point up, but that just doesn't seem quite right to me..... nothing seems "quite right" to you and quite frankly, it's pretty old. won't question your ridiculous ideas? Ya... Well you see Americans(least the ones that vote, on either side) are largely idiots.. lol. And they are easily influenced by the media. For many it's hard to see easily logical things because of their blinding idiocy provided by the media here. all this nonsense and you're qualified to be judging logic??? how many times do i have to point out logical flaws in nearly every one of your arguments? the general population may be influenced by the media, but you take the cake for being influenced by every nutjob site claiming some new theory that's sure to prove "the conspiracy." taks edit: quotes are broke and i can't figure it out...

because, at the very least, he has balls enough to admit what's wrong with the world. oh boy, that really makes sense. at the very least, bush isn't killing his own people. of course, the rest of the world hates bush because he wasn't bribing them like saddam was. two for you, none for us. bummer.

oh yeah, it's our current people that did that to the indian nation... good call there. showing some real clever thought on that one... give me a break. do you speak in anything other than rhetoric? taks

nope, no benefits whatsoever. as a matter of fact, bush's tax cut actually brought married couples on par with two singles. there really was a penalty and i really did have to pay it every year. the ONLY benefit you get is if the 2nd half does not work. then you pay taxes based on only one income but two dependents. really, it just means you can claim your 2nd half as a dependent even though he/she is not a child. this can only be done if you're married but in the end, it really isn't a benefit as much as it is not a penalty. taks

no, i fully understood you. you said you thought gays should have a right to wed, when in fact, none of us do. there really aren't tax benefits to being married, btw, and before bush, it was actually a penalty. the tax system is another issue, but in general, you should be able to claim anybody you want as a dependent if they are not working and you are supporting them. that gets rid of the federal need for marriage. by stating that you don't think the gov't officials should make decisions based on religion. you're forcing them to concede to your beliefs. people that have faith in anything use that faith as a guide. human nature. nothing wrong with supporting freedom of speech and press, but you have to remember that this extends to politicians as well even if their speech and/or beliefs are religiously motivated. the separation of church and state, btw, is actually a misnomer. read the constitution and you'll notice it does not explicitly state "separation of church and state." this is a key point and underlies what this clause is actually intended for. the intent is purely a catch-all so the government does not form a national religion. this clause is abused more than any... taks

first of all, i figured you were atheist. that doesn't change the fact that your statement is hypocritical, and i've already shown why it is. secondly, it's not just christians that want to ban gay marriage. it's nearly everybody. 80% or more, depending on where you live. christian, islamic, buddhist, atheist, you name it... nearly everybody. if someone chooses religion as the reason they want to ban gay marriage, then that's their prerogative. you're choosing your lack of religion as the reason behind your decision so maybe turnabout is fair play. third, marriage is NOT A RIGHT. it is NOT GUARANTEED IN THE CONSTITUTION. this is a very, very important point. NOBODY has a right to get married according to the constitution. read it and tell me where it is... since it is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, states have domain over such decisions. efforts to put this type of clause into the constitution have fallen flat, evidence that our democratic system works. your biiiig difference has holes in it evil one... personally, i think the fed should get out of marriage entirely. states can do their thing for legal reasons and churches, too. drop all this tax BS involved and let state contracts deal with the legalities... taks

i do. why, just the other day i referred to Di as "she" instead of "he" (blasphemy!) taks

big deal. again, you're confusing acceptance with tolerance. apparently you didn't learn anything last time around. quick lesson: acceptance: "I agree that your religion is valid in spite of the fact that my religion tells me it is not" tolerance: "I agree you have a right to your religion, in spite of the fact that my religion tells me it is invalid" big difference. most religions do not accept the concept that other religions may be valid. nearly all in fact. they merely allow individual practitioners to put up with contrary beliefs. in christian religions in particular, paganism is seen as a sort of "anti-religion." so are you saying bush isn't allowed to follow his own belief system? taks

pretty hypocritical statement there... if you don't tolerate laws based on other people's religion, why should they tolerate laws based on your concept of religion? you're trying to force your beliefs on other people. taks

uh, hate to break it to you but just because you think a lack of religion is "progress" or part of "evolving" does not make it so. this line of thinking is actually oppressive in its own right. you're expecting others to be tolerant, nay acceptant, of your views yet can't fathom why they balk at your lack of tolerance of their views. a double standard at best. taks

the answer to that last bit Di is an emphatic NO. people like this think their way is the only way and can't understand why the US doesn't hop on the bandwagon... elitism at its best. taks

the way i see it, the "minority" as you so state is asking the government to force YOUR morality on the majority... ? you seem to be applying a double standard here. taks

actually, your original quote was this... so tell me, when you make your generalizations, do you always add the phrase tends afterwards? i directly countered the 2nd quote and you had a problem with it, so now you change your statement. you did NOT say "tends to have a liberalizing effect" orignially... so what gives? first it was applied to everybody as a "fact" and now it "tends" to have an effect. i strictly pointed out that your statement does not apply to everyone. so this time... Q.E.D. thanks. taks

uh, you made a generalization and called it "fact" and i said bull****. then i backed it up with a very real case of a situation that does not fit your generalization. showing that not everyone gets "liberalized." that's the way proofs work. i should have stated Q.E.D. afterwards. my bad. taks

oh really... which policies are those? taks

hehe... all good fun, eh? taks

hehe, nope... just lost track of my quote... meshugger... and, again, i never said all engineers are conservative/libertarian. just most. tricritical is essentially an engineer and, like you, openly liberal. i don't particularly hold it against him. oh, and just because i hold a lot of conservative principles, commisar, does not mean a) i own or wish to own a gun, b) worship god or c) fight against gays. hardly a conservative, actually. you may have taken that logic class before me, but not much before me. you will also note that i refrain from such attacks nor have i committed any fallacy in my debate. i don't think it is necessary to cast generalizations towards you nor insult you just because i don't agree with you. i point out your attacks as logical fallacies because they are apparent and indicate a lack of a sound argument. no, i said the rule does not apply to EVERYONE. 25 years of trend observing allows me to make that case rather easily. and please, pick apart my posts with a red pen. as noted, this is a BBS and i do use "spoken" language when appropriate... colloquialisms are not against the rules... nor do they indicate poor grammar. attack away. taks

no, taks said most engineers are conservative, then followed it up with a statement that most he knows are actually libertarian... please read carefully before misquoting me. taks

where did i say they have the same amount of money? money != living standards. also, the cost of living is so much higher in europe than the US average, direct comparisons don't wash. sweden is on par with the US, actually... but sweden isn't really "average" compared to the rest of europe, is it? the eastern seabord is a mess when you're on the highways. it's packed. 100 million (or more) people live in about 1/10th of the US... greyhound didn't take you out to where everybody lives, either, nor did it put you in average american homes... it really does depend on where you visit. just "visiting" urban areas that are depressed, on the east coast no less, doesn't really provide a very good indication of the whole of the US. nor does simply travelling around europe. hotels have nothing to do with our standard of living, either. i suppose that depends on where you are, too. i've heard NYC is terrible in that respect. in the springs, where i live, people are pretty friendly. i got stuck in the ice the other day and two guys hopped out to push me back onto the downhill lane. i did the same for some guy in the school parking lot the other night. taks

hit a nerve nothing... you directly implied that i was socially inept and lacking in a sex life as an argument against my case. that's an ad-hominem attack that was uncalled for, and nothing more than a flame. whether i'm socially inept (or any other engineer for that matter) is irrelevant to the discussion. you also tried (unconvincingly) to imply that i had poor grammar, lessening my argument, which i've still not figured out. that was ad-hominem attack #1. taks

oops... by the time i got to the bottom i thought i was quoting kumquat, assuming that's what you were referring to? taks

should know better than what? taks

i think you're failing to realize that religion in one's life, no matter how significant, WILL have an affect. it's unavoidable. in the white house or not. furthermore, just because a president openly worships does not mean we live in a religious state. it simply means he's using his religious foundation as a guide, nothing more. if you think that hasn't been the case throughout history, you are mistaken. taks