:p   You're just glad to have some one back who'll disagree and then not run off crying when you guys start cutting into them

But thanks.    I'm glad to be back.  Good to see you too, xolik.

It was a bot?  I thought it was part of the backfire from that spell you guys are playing around with...

Howdy, howdy, old friend.  Thanks for the welcome.  I'm doing pretty well, actually!  Tomorrow I sign out on Terminal Leave, goof around for about 30 days, and become a civilian again.  I think I'm most excited about having my goatee back...  lol  of all things to be excited about.

ROFLOMGWTFLOL!!!1


Good to see you too, Xolik.  I'll have to call my sister today and read that to her.  She'll get a kick out of it.


btw, I noticed the Avatar.  That's hands down the coolest I've ever seen, and so fitting.  I'll be laughing about that one for a couple days too.  

Quote from: BizB

Nope, but xolik has had sex with one.

Please, no bragging.

I would.

I'm sorry to hear that, Xolik.  I'm all for giving gay folks the same benifits as marriage.  It's not up to the Christian community to impose their morals on the country through politics.  We should do it through personal conversation and actions instead.

I'm saw on the news last night that South Carolina elected a new senator , I think it was senator, that is for keeping gays from being teachers.  He also wants to keep unwed women out too.   I'm sad to say that my home state of Oklahoma elected some one nearly as hard-line conservative as well.  Oh well, at least he'll follow who the majority of the state feels on the big issues like abortion.

I haven't been reading?  I think you guys should go back through some of the posts you have attacked me on in the past.  You normally take something I say and warp it around to mean something totally different.

In this case, I said that I think it's wrong for people to listen to celebrities and base their opinion off of what they said.  I also think it's silly for celebrities to be giving opinions in public about stuff they know nothing about.  Sure, if they encouraged people to find out more information, but the ones I'm talking about don't do that.

If you went on national TV and encouraged people to read up on the canidates and vote wisely, that's great.  If you get up there and tell me I should vote for one over another because of how poorly they have managed the economy, you're smoking crack.  No one out there knows you, and you don't have any professional experience to be making that call.  Anyone who doesn't know you should dismiss your opinion, and instead look to any facts you present.

Too often these "stars" tell people what they should do and give no valid reasons or facts for it.  They just use their popularity to sway the ignorant masses.  That's wrong.  If you think it's okay, that's fine.  It's only my opinion.

We don't need MORE nukes, we just need better ways to use the ones we have.  Why radiate an entire region when you can hit the objective and only radiate a few miles?  I'm not advocating using them, just that we need to find better ways of doing it.  TNT wasn't very safe until some one figured out how to do it better, or gunpowder.  We can't bury our head in the sand and hope it'll all go away.

Besides, I'm all for research on nuclear fussion.  If they want to fund it as a weapon, that's fine.  The research will still investigate a new source of power.

Okay, you obviously missed that little part where I said I listened to the opinion of the people around me.  I surround myself by fairly intelligent people, and though they may not have a degree in something, I typically assume that they have paid some attention to what they're talking about.  I can always ask questions and discuss it deeper with them to find out how they got their information and how accurate it is.

I will NOT pay much attention to some one on TV that is spouting garbage trying to sway the masses of ignorant lemmings in our country.  Too often people voice opinions on TV without any qualification to do so.  Had they proof, alright, but most often they just rely on their fame to be their proof.  I think that's stupid.  If some one has a degree in a subject, then you can speculate that they probably have enough subject matter knowledge to have that opinion and it be based in fact.

I like how everyone pounced on what I said and tried to feed words into my mouth.  Hey, if you really give a flip what Bradd Pitt things about Stem-cell research, then by all means, listen to him.  As for me, I'll listen to the scientists and researchers.  Then, I'll be listening to the people who have a religious prohibition against it.  I can't really argue with religion, or tell some one they're wrong when it's simply a matter of faith.  I CAN listen to them, though, and try to figure out what it is about the matter that bothers them so much.

Maybe this would be a good time to point out that I'm for stem-cell research, but I'm against federal funding of it.  I think it's morally wrong, and that those who feel the same should not have to pay for it.  As there are so many in this country that do feel that way, I believe the government should keep their hands off.  That is purely religious, but I feel that those who do not believe the way I do, should be allowed to practice their trade.  I just don't want them doing it with my money.

I was replying to Vespertine a few posts up...


No, I didn't say we needed nukes for Iraq.  I said we need to develop ways of penetrating buried arms.  I take it you'd rather storm caches with Soldiers, Law?  How else would you like to do this?  Yeah, nukes suck, but if we can detonate them underground, there's much less fallout.  Our current weapons just can't do the job.   So, I say again, do you have an alternative that doesn't cost hundreds of lives?

The point I was making was that he's not developing fusion bombs, but cleaner ways to use them, when we have to.  If we can develop fission bombs, another thing that the money goes to, then it's becomes irrelevant.

Edit to reply to Demo:

You have a good point, Demo.  By that logic, though, we shouldn't collect on anyone, and anywhere.  It's unlawful as per the Constitution to even collect on foreign enemies of the State.  That would be our down fall.  How can our leaders make good decisions without knowing what's going on in the world.  You're effectively advocating the disbanding of the entire intelligence community because it violates the rights of those we monitor.

On the other hand, they all have the right to life and liberty.  The regime in Iraq was taking away those rights, therefor it was our duty, as set down by the Constitution, to deliver them from that opression.

But, oh the arrogance that would subject foreign peoples to our code of laws.  If we're to use those laws to protect them, then those laws that restrict them should also apply.  You can't pick and choose.  As for me, I say it's not our right to govern another people without their consent, and I also believe it's not our job to protect them either, but to protect ourselves.  Our laws are for us, because htat's how we choose to live.  If they would like to move here, and with due process, become a citizen so that those laws and freedoms apply to them, then they certainly may do so.

lol  I'm not going to say we've had the best administration, but come on!  They set us back 30 years in the Civil Rights movement?  That's totally ludicrous.  It's like Kerry trying to say that Bush spent hundreds of billions of dollars on rebuilding the nuclear program.  In fact, he's spent less than $50 billion in the past three years, and I'm just not sure about the first.  He's also putting it towards fusion research, and the only fission research, that I know of, has been done on bombs that would penetrate deeply into the earth, allowing us to reach people like North Korea and Iraq.  Currently we can only penetrate about 15 feet of solid rock.


To say that Civil Liberties has been so destroyed isn't true.  I'll grant you, that some things have trodden on our liberties more than a little, but by 30 years!?  No, that's just extremist exagerations.  I'm not a huge fan of the Patriot Act as written, but I also don't see it as evil as it's been made out to be.  It's basically giving the FBI, and other domestic investigative agencies, the same tools to use on terrorists as it does drug dealers.  Warrants are still needed, but only one for the target, rather than several.  No longer do you have to get a seperate warrant for each cellphone, pager, ect.  Drug dealers and terrorists have one thing in common, they both carry several of each.  

There is one thing I still straddle the fence on with that Act.  It allows investigation of foreign nationals as if they were not US persons, which I tend to agree with.  Why should a suspect be given the rights of a citizen without the responsibility?  On the other hand, we've always been a very liberal country and treating everyone as if they were born here has almost become our National Motto.  Do we really want to move in the direction of all our allies in Europe and keep closer tabs on who we allow into our country, and restrict them as if they were under suspicion?

On the other hand, I'm not too crazy at how poorly the term terrorist has been defined.  Preserving the Patriot Act is okay, but should we do so, we MUST have a clear definition of what exactly a terrorist is.  Some one writing viruses out of fustration with M$ is hardly a terrorist, neither is someone who is just a petty murderer.  Accuse and convict them of the crimes they commited, there's no need to hang them for an offense they never thought of.

At least, when you say Bush has attacked Civil Liberties, that's what I assume you're refering to.  If it's something else, please point it out.  You never know when it might be something I hadn't heard of before.

Hey, now.  True gamers are a dying breed and should be nourished.  If this is one of them, there's no excuse for treating Scuzzy poorly.


Now, I do say "IF."  There are so few of us anymore, that I find it hard to have much faith.