It is currently Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:36 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:06 pm 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:02 pm
Posts: 68
Location: The Netherlands
This clip shows a biased electronic voting machine in action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tBBjUpZOPU :roll: :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:53 pm 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:50 am
Posts: 160
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Trip wrote:
To be honest, I know so little of Finland and Sweden that I just think of y'all collectively as Nordics.


that's ok, you're all americans to us. :)

kent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:07 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
I prefer South Carolinian, Sandlapper (SC white, esp Irish, trash), or Southerner. Cracker, Redneck, or even hillbilly preferable to Yankee. Calling me Yankee, Scalawag (Southern traitor), or carpetbagger (Yankee opportunist in the South) is like calling a black the n word lol. Now you know all the local terms. Well some Southern radicals call themselves Southrons, but I've never seen that term outside the internet.

I voted 1 Democrat (against the GOP incumbant really. Both are equally bad, but the Democrat might provide some trouble until the GOP puts up a less arrogant alternative for next election), 1 Constitution Party, and the rest GOP.

And I voted for gay marriage ban, against a penny sales tax that would be good under different circumstances, and against allowing the state to invest internationally and to "cut costs" by removing a vital oversight board.

It was a huge turnout despite rain. The touch screen was very nice, but I don't trust it.

Quote:
likewise those who voted on her opponent, only because he is a man are idiots.
Certainly. Males might tend to be more logical, but then again disconnected, abstract thought is where all this egalitarian bs came from in the first place.

The only reason I'd vote against a woman is if she had young children or was pregnant. That of course wouldn't be the only thing I'd consider, but for a demanding job children will get in the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Posts: 647
Location: UK
You voted for a gay marriage ban? Does that mean you see marriage as a sacred union?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:21 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
It means I see marriage for what it is: a union for the creation of children.

I don't see it as sacred atm, but I do believe it oughten be dissolved readily if children have been produced from it.

The sacredness of marriage is perhaps a tradition created to ensure marriages are not dissolved readily.

In my fantasy land as you call it, I also see that a majority of Americans agree with me that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" according to polls.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Posts: 647
Location: UK
Quote:
It means I see marriage for what it is: a union for the creation of children.


Who/what decides what it is for? What criteria define its purpose?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:40 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7368
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Greetings,

I get a kick out of people who think that marriage has always been what it is now -- nothing could be further from the truth! It used to be purely economic/political/social, and marriages were arranged; love almost never had anything to do with it. A woman was the property of her husband. Divorces were not possible -- though this is why many people came to this land (before it became the USA) -- so they could get divorced, if they wanted to.

Girls were married at 12 years old -- hmmm, why haven't we kept up this "tradition"?

Also, "inter-racial" marriage used to be taboo. And it used to be perfectly fine to marry your first cousin! And polygamy...

This is why we have a constitution folks! To protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. And also, this is the job of the courts -- to interpret and enforce the constitution. I'll remind you also, that the constitution here in Massachusetts is older than the US Constitution, and both were (largely) written by the same man: John Adams.

Just today, the Legislature held a Constitutional Convention, and the amendments (there are two of them) have to pass in two consecutive conventions by a 2/3's majority, and then it has to pass a public vote. Folks who disagree with gay marriage want to bypass the first two steps -- there is a very good reason why the constitution is written the way it is!

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:38 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
I'm not in favor of arranged marriages, but they have their positives. If two families/tribes are fueding or becoming estranged or if you want to ensure your daughter is married to a man who can afford to provide for her children, you can arrange to have her married. Also, if you want to ensure she marries a man of good stock who will produce (and stay around to raise) good children rather than some tramp who can play the guitar.

I'm not in favor of arranged marriages, but I don't look down on cultures that have them. It's just a different tradition with its own positives and negatives.

As for interracial marriage, segregation has never worked so it's just absurd to ban interracial marriage. Either the two races oughten live together or interracial marriage ought to be accepted as an inevitability. It's also unfair to discriminate against a fellow citizen as you say. The law ought to apply equally to all.

Quote:
Folks who disagree with gay marriage want to bypass the first two steps
Our country has become extremely corrupt. Yes, they ought to follow the law of the land. I have never advocated doing otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:26 pm
Posts: 1421
Location: Finland
NeilBlanchard wrote:
Greetings,

I get a kick out of people who think that marriage has always been what it is now -- nothing could be further from the truth! It used to be purely economic/political/social, and marriages were arranged; love almost never had anything to do with it. A woman was the property of her husband. Divorces were not possible -- though this is why many people came to this land (before it became the USA) -- so they could get divorced, if they wanted to.

Girls were married at 12 years old -- hmmm, why haven't we kept up this "tradition"?

Also, "inter-racial" marriage used to be taboo. And it used to be perfectly fine to marry your first cousin! And polygamy...

This is why we have a constitution folks! To protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. And also, this is the job of the courts -- to interpret and enforce the constitution. I'll remind you also, that the constitution here in Massachusetts is older than the US Constitution, and both were (largely) written by the same man: John Adams.

Just today, the Legislature held a Constitutional Convention, and the amendments (there are two of them) have to pass in two consecutive conventions by a 2/3's majority, and then it has to pass a public vote. Folks who disagree with gay marriage want to bypass the first two steps -- there is a very good reason why the constitution is written the way it is!
You made some really good points here. My opinion about gay marriages is that gay couples should be allowed to legalize their relationship in the eyes of the law. They should be able to have the same rights as marrierd couples when it comes to inheritance etc. But in my opinion church is a special club with their own set of rules. Not constitution or any other law of the government should have any saying to what kind of rules they use in the church or who can get married in church. Why do gay people have to apply to a club where they are not wanted? What's the big deal anyway? It's a only a ceremony?

_________________
Antec Solo case /w Seasonic S-12 430W, Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-SH2, X2 4850e /w Scythe Ninja, 2x2Gb DDR2800, WD Raptor 150GB, 500GB WD GP in Antec MX-1, BenQ G2400W, Logitech diNovo Laser, Logitech z-680


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Posts: 647
Location: UK
Moreover, lawful marriage should be cleaved of the church. Church marriage should have no recognition whatever in law. If the church want to have their rituals, they certainly may but the law should have nothing to do with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:26 pm
Posts: 1421
Location: Finland
vertigo wrote:
Moreover, lawful marriage should be cleaved of the church. Church marriage should have no recognition whatever in law. If the church want to have their rituals, they certainly may but the law should have nothing to do with it.
This is exactly what I meant.

_________________
Antec Solo case /w Seasonic S-12 430W, Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-SH2, X2 4850e /w Scythe Ninja, 2x2Gb DDR2800, WD Raptor 150GB, 500GB WD GP in Antec MX-1, BenQ G2400W, Logitech diNovo Laser, Logitech z-680


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 4:36 am
Posts: 497
Location: Linköping, Sweden
Why should the 166 000 same-sex couples currently raising children (according to the 2000 census) be denied of the additional stability that marriage can bring, financially and socially? Wouldn't that be good for the children, to have one of their parents (be it biological or de facto) be able to visit the other one in the hospital should they become ill, and all the other benefits that marriage bring?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:52 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
hospital benefits? inheritence? sure, why not?

Lol, I'm not sure I like their adopting children either. My view isn't religious so much as it seems unnatural. However, since outside a religion there are no values, I also tend to look to Christian morality, and it's unnatural by that as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:26 pm
Posts: 1421
Location: Finland
Trip wrote:
Lol, I'm not sure I like their adopting children either. My view isn't religious so much as it seems unnatural.
I wouldn't allow adoption for gays either. But it's just too easy for lesbians to find sperm donors. You just can't stop them from having kids.
Quote:
However, since outside a religion there are no values, I also tend to look to Christian morality, and it's unnatural by that as well.
WTF? No values outside religion? BS.

_________________
Antec Solo case /w Seasonic S-12 430W, Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-SH2, X2 4850e /w Scythe Ninja, 2x2Gb DDR2800, WD Raptor 150GB, 500GB WD GP in Antec MX-1, BenQ G2400W, Logitech diNovo Laser, Logitech z-680


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:36 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
As I see it, anything goes outside religion. No one yet has been able to explain to me how a system of values could exist outside a religion.

Why should America not exterminate Muslims and all others outside America as a threat to America? We don't know these foreigners (exception being the few Muslims in the US.)

The only reason I can see is that Christianity tells us such is wrong.

What does it matter if evolved pond scum suffer? Why should we listen to one hardwired emotion that tells us to care for our own more than or less than another hardwired emotion that provides us empathy for fellow humans? Imagine living in Israel or Iraq where each side is viciously murdering the other and where such thoughts would be prominent. For some, extermination of the other seems the only way to protect their own.

Anyway, that's how I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:26 pm
Posts: 1421
Location: Finland
Trip wrote:
As I see it, anything goes outside religion. No one yet has been able to explain to me how a system of values could exist outside a religion.
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein

Quote:
Why should America not exterminate Muslims and all others outside America as a threat to America? We don't know these foreigners (exception being the few Muslims in the US.)

The only reason I can see is that Christianity tells us such is wrong.
You need Christianity, I need only reason and sympathy to know the same thing. Besides, even if I felt no sympathy, the society has laws to follow. These laws also tell that it would be wrong. No need for religion. Btw have you heard of natural laws and natural justice?

Quote:
What does it matter if evolved pond scum suffer? Why should we listen to one hardwired emotion that tells us to care for our own more than or less than another hardwired emotion that provides us empathy for fellow humans? Imagine living in Israel or Iraq where each side is viciously murdering the other and where such thoughts would be prominent. For some, extermination of the other seems the only way to protect their own.
If you haven't figured out, it's the most religious of them that are the most fervant fighters there. It's the religion and Imaams that tells Muslims to kill Jews. It's the fundamentalists that are suicide bombing. Almost every muslim country in Middle-East has declared that Israel must be wiped from the face of the earth. It's written in the founding document of Palestine. These thought are indeed prominent. The only reason why Israel is not in open war, is that USA supports them and Israel might have nukes and they would certainly use them, if they were cornered. And arabs know this.

How come is it, that it's the religious republicans that are always proponents of death penalty, opponents of taxes and social welfare to help the ones in need, judging gay people, judging those with other beliefs... WWJD?

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." -Thomas Jefferson

_________________
Antec Solo case /w Seasonic S-12 430W, Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-SH2, X2 4850e /w Scythe Ninja, 2x2Gb DDR2800, WD Raptor 150GB, 500GB WD GP in Antec MX-1, BenQ G2400W, Logitech diNovo Laser, Logitech z-680


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Posts: 647
Location: UK
Quote:
Why should America not exterminate Muslims...


'America' shouldn't do anything. Morals only apply to individuals. It's not that there are no values outside religion, it's that you are not looking at the level of individuals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:28 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
The individual doesn't exist on the level you believe in Vertigo.

Erssa,

Quote:
Btw have you heard of natural laws and natural justice?
From whence do these derive? In nature tribal societies rape, murder, and eat each other. Laws only apply to the locals. Outsiders are viewed as subhuman.

"Natural law" derives from Christianity.

Quote:
religious republicans that are always proponents of death penalty, opponents of taxes and social welfare to help the ones in need, judging gay people, judging those with other beliefs...
I wouldn't call them religious republicans because those are mere demagogues, but the stances you mention work for religious.

BRB.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:31 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
Trip wrote:
The only reason I can see is that Christianity tells us such is wrong.


John Gotti used to attend church as a Christian. Is he one of the good guys or not?

Too many use religion as a tool for their own means and ends. No other explanation, other than instilling fear, can explain the 2004 election.

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group