Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 24, 2014, 04:40:25 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
76  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT on: December 10, 2010, 01:11:34 pm
True, heterosexual sex isn't a behavior either. Guess your post dodges mean I'm right again.

Mu.
77  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT on: December 10, 2010, 01:10:28 pm
Well States the blacks could just paint themselves white so that they could be "normal" like you want them.   After all, that's essentially what you're asking gay and lesbian men and women to do.

LOL, you're an idiot.

So then you fully support co-ed military units? Quit making up lies and answer the question.

For the five hundredth time, homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR it's not the same as race.

Mu.
78  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT on: December 10, 2010, 01:45:39 am
Couldn't the military separate gays into their own special unit? Women are already mostly separated from men, separate bunks, showers.

They don't do that in several other NATO countries and Israel, despite the fact that gays may serve openly; there is no evidence of any issues with unit cohesion, morale, or readiness in those countries' services.


We're talking about the US military. Co-ed units do not exist, should mixed hetero/homosexual units exist? I have no problem with the military separating behaviors, like men/women.

Mixed orientation units exist in most NATO and Israel militaries, and there aren't any issues.  I see no reason why the U.S. military should be any different.


So they have co-ed units in NATO and Israel?

Huh
79  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT on: December 10, 2010, 01:42:18 am
Couldn't the military separate gays into their own special unit? Women are already mostly separated from men, separate bunks, showers.

They don't do that in several other NATO countries and Israel, despite the fact that gays may serve openly; there is no evidence of any issues with unit cohesion, morale, or readiness in those countries' services.


We're talking about the US military. Co-ed units do not exist, should mixed hetero/homosexual units exist? I have no problem with the military separating behaviors, like men/women.

Mixed orientation units exist in most NATO and Israel militaries, and there aren't any issues.  I see no reason why the U.S. military should be any different.
80  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT on: December 10, 2010, 01:28:03 am
Couldn't the military separate gays into their own special unit? Women are already mostly separated from men, separate bunks, showers.

They don't do that in several other NATO countries and Israel, despite the fact that gays may serve openly; there is no evidence of any issues with unit cohesion, morale, or readiness in those countries' services.
81  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT on: December 09, 2010, 06:38:47 pm
In that case, why did Scott Brown vote against invoking cloture, when he has previously said he will support the repeal of DADT?

I don't see why Reid is trying to repeal DADT with this bill.  If he did it on its own, simply amending 10 U.S.C. § 654, I think it'd easily pass.

Republicans will not allow any bills to come to the Senate floor in the lame duck session until the Senate passes a tax bill and continuing resolution to fund the government.  Collins seems to have forgotten this, but it didn't matter.  Given who will control the House next year, it is a very good strategy for Republicans - running out the clock on the Democratic agenda, largely (but not exclusively) featuring wish list of goodies for their special interest groups that don't stand a chance of passing the House next year. 

Democrats don't like this and have resorted to call Republicans and the President names, but elections have consequences.

http://wglb-tv.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-cbs-poll-repeal-dadt-says-31.html
82  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT on: December 09, 2010, 06:06:35 pm
Here's the thing... you guys are acting like DADT is the only thing in this bill.  It's 849 pages long... if Reid really wants this to pass, he would allow for the Republicans to have some amendments to it.  It's only fair.

Reid wasn't blocking the GOP from adding amendments to the bill.  The issue was over the time allotted for the bill.  The GOP was demanding a ton of time to add amendments and no agreement was made about exactly how much time would be allotted.   Collins did vote for repeal.

One thing to note is it seems the DADT will get a stand alone vote, its something Collins and Lieberman are working on and Reid has said he will support bringing it to the floor and while no timetable is set when a vote will be held, it will be prior to the lame duck session ending.  
Why does the GOP even bother making these lame excuses? It about amendments or budgeting or that I can't do votes on Tuesdays on months with an r in them. It's perfectly obvious where they stand.

If DADT repeal comes back for a vote and a lot of Republicans cross over to vote for it, I think it would all be fine.  The problem is that the DADT repeal has gotten caught in the crossfire over other issues, namely the tax cuts.
83  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT on: December 09, 2010, 06:00:56 pm
Here's the thing... you guys are acting like DADT is the only thing in this bill.  It's 849 pages long... if Reid really wants this to pass, he would allow for the Republicans to have some amendments to it.  It's only fair.

Reid wasn't blocking the GOP from adding amendments to the bill.  The issue was over the time allotted for the bill.  The GOP was demanding a ton of time to add amendments and no agreement was made about exactly how much time would be allotted.   Collins did vote for repeal.

One thing to note is it seems the DADT will get a stand alone vote, its something Collins and Lieberman are working on and Reid has said he will support bringing it to the floor and while no timetable is set when a vote will be held, it will be prior to the lame duck session ending.  

That's good to hear.
84  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT on: December 09, 2010, 05:37:10 pm
Eh, gay people are more likely than not going to spend an eternity suffering for an offense that really (IMO) doesn't terribly warrant such a punishment. Might as well let them be happy and do what they want in this world (provided they can maintain a professional decorum) since they're basically screwed in the long-run for basically being born unlucky. It sucks that homosexuality is a sin, but what do you want us to do? Ask God to re-write the bible?

well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  carry on.

It looks like you're finally starting to realize that not everyone thinks the Bible is the literal word of truth, and that just posting a Bible verse as though it answers everyone's question settles the issue.
85  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT on: December 09, 2010, 05:28:31 pm
Mu.  Because of mu, you have contributed to keeping up something that has harmed the military and has kept qualified individuals from serving.

"mu"?!  Oh, I get it...[clears throat] Baa-ram-ewe. Baa-ram-ewe. To your breed, your fleece, your clan be true. Sheep be true. Baa-ram-ewe.


You're raving.
86  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT on: December 09, 2010, 05:25:17 pm
Yeah, quoting the Bible is a great argument against it.

it either is or it isn't, but the most elusive aspect of jmfcst is his apathy toward a basic fact that he even must know: the GOP's action in this case has less than nothing to do with 1 Peter 4:4-5.  he would likely reply that this doesn't matter, as even if the GOP's stance on the side of Light in this case is incidental, the fact that they are being "mocked" for it is suggestive of our movement towards the End Times.

1 Peter 4:4-5 has EVERYTHING to do with this since the context of the verse is in regard to immorality – that immoral people think it strange you don’t agree with them, and they heap abuse on you due to your stand.

Now, that doesn’t mean I believe most of GOP elected officials care anything about morality, a good portion voted against repeal simply because they’re afraid of people like me voting them out of office in the next primary.  So, give me the credit for this vote.


Mu.  Because of mu, you have contributed to keeping up something that has harmed the military and has kept qualified individuals from serving.
87  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT on: December 09, 2010, 05:16:41 pm
of course, the GOP will be mocked for standing up for what is right, as it is written:

1 Pet 4:4 "They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. 5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead."

Mu.
88  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: A must-read: Christopher Hitchens' superb analysis of the "Tea Party" on: December 09, 2010, 05:10:35 pm
one thing Hitchens is right about is those in the Tea Party believe Obama doesn't share their belief in "American exceptionalism", but rather is attempting to destroy it.

the central tenents of Liberalism are:  1) biblical Christian morality is bad, 2) capitalism is bad, and 3) American exceptionalism is bad.

I see no one disagreed with my analysis

Well, it's not correct; it's also not even wrong.  Mu.
89  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The World 2050 on: December 05, 2010, 04:29:05 pm
BTW, I think the US will be far less different from the modern US than people think, at least culturally and politically (though to the left socially, as boomers die off).

Weren't the boomers supposed to be the more left-leaning group?  You know, they were hippies.  What happened to that, and how do we know that the U.S., with a young generation that is probably less liberal than the boomers, will become more liberal by 2050?
90  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The World 2050 on: December 05, 2010, 04:26:50 pm
The United States will have a population of approximately 420 millions.  
50% of them will be white, 28% Hispanic and 8% Asian.  
The immigration policies will have become even stricter.  
Scientific advances will extend longevity.
The population of Western and Southern states will increase even more.  The population in these states will increase 2 to 3 times faster than it will in the Northeast and the Midwest.
America's midsection will empty out.
The House of Representatives will have more than 435 seats.
Montana, Idaho and Wyoming will be considered liberal states.
The average age of the population will be greater than it is now.
The percentage of single person households will increase to 26%
There will be a 50% increase in space devoted to the built environment by 2030, with most of the development taking place in the West and the South.  This will result to a loss of farmland.
There will be water shortages in the East, the West, the Great Plains and the Southwest with lakes and rivers disappearing.
Cities such as Denver, Las Vegas, LA and San Diego will be buying water supplies from elsewhere.
New energy sources will be used: Wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, renewable sources.  The '50s will be known as the "Solar Age".  
Cars will be using fuel cells.
Cities will become more compact and suburbs will be considered costly and inefficient.
There will be more interracial marriages and more tolerance towards different cultures, languages and religious beliefs.


Two cities whose population will increase significantly are Lagos and Mexico City.
China by 2021 will be considered a military superpower.  They will also join the WTO and modernize.
The same problems that exist now will exist in 2050 (India/Pakistan, China/Taiwan, the Koreas, Bosnia, Kossovo).  There will also be tension in Sierra Leone, East Timor, Chechnya maybe even Colombia.  The US will not interfere this time.
The Third World will urbanize.
Coastal cities worldwide will become vulnerable to storms and flooding.  Bangladesh will suffer the most.  Many amphibians will become extinct.


Extremophiles will be discovered on Mars (underground) and on moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Maybe on Venus too.
More oil reserves will be discovered.
Human cloning will be widespread and out of control.
Recreational space travel becomes more common.
Competitions between national teams in soccer will not exist anymore.
Tattoos become more popular (almost a necessity in fashion retail).
Artificial organs are used as transplants and the number of experiments on animals decreases.
An enormous number of fish species become extinct.
A shield is created by scientists that protects the Earth from higher temperatures.  
Sea level rises.
The internet replaces tv.

"More oil reserves will be discovered."

But their production rate won't be nearly enough to make up for the decline in the global production rate since the peak.
91  Questions and Answers / Presidential Election Process / Re: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College on: December 01, 2010, 11:05:04 am
I spoke with the office of New York State Rep. Dinowitz, who sponsored the bill, and the person there said with the Assembly adjourning yesterday, the bill is effectively dead.  The person also said it's unlikely any action on the matter would be taken by the Republican-controlled Senate next Legislature, despite the bill having a lot of Republican crossover votes this year.

It looks like New York will not become part of the compact anytime soon.
92  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Pentagon Sees Little Adverse Impact from Ending DADT on: December 01, 2010, 03:00:55 am
I wholeheartedly agree.  But this happy crap of "little adverse impact" is complete b.s. in my opinion.  While the numbers I cited may be a minority, it's still a lot of military servicemen who are opposed to the repeal of DADT, and I think the military needs to be prepared to deal with it.

In Canada, there was a fair amount of opposition (and historically the Canadian military was much more homophobic than the U.S. military) to allowing gays to openly serve (or serve at all), but when that changed in 1992, there was little evidence of any problems at all, and it went very smoothly.  Heck, even transsexual people who have had genital reassignment surgery are able to enlist in Canada (which seems unlikely to change anytime soon in the U.S.).  Here's some more reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_policy_in_the_Canadian_military

Basically, the historical view is that there are very few issues with allowing gays to serve, as long as there is effective leadership.

This is probably better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service#Canada
93  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What should Julian Assange be charged with? on: November 29, 2010, 01:13:51 pm
The guy who leaked this information should be charged... I've always said that, and I continue to say it now.

What he and Assange did here does not rise to the level where the intent was clearly to damage the U.S.  I've never said that proof of intent was there.

But, there are times when the intent is clear (during the 30s, if a German spy was caught, for instance).

Has he ever been to the U.S.?
94  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: U.S. Govt Seizes 70+ Domain Names, Shuts Down Websites on: November 28, 2010, 10:10:36 pm
So, the vast majority of seized sites were scam sites, plus a few torrent sites.

Wow, my freedom feels so threatened.

I take it back, torrent-finder.com was taken down, but I saw some other sites that were also owned by the torrent-finder.com owner, so it might have been that the people had all their domain names forfeited.


Torrent-finder too their own website down.

Please clarify.
95  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: U.S. Govt Seizes 70+ Domain Names, Shuts Down Websites on: November 28, 2010, 06:23:46 pm
So, the vast majority of seized sites were scam sites, plus a few torrent sites.

Wow, my freedom feels so threatened.

I take it back, torrent-finder.com was taken down, but I saw some other sites that were also owned by the torrent-finder.com owner, so it might have been that the people had all their domain names forfeited.
96  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: U.S. Govt Seizes 70+ Domain Names, Shuts Down Websites on: November 28, 2010, 03:33:22 am
I asked you for a specific link to a site that was taken down... I'm not denying they took some down... I just want to seeone of the sites that they took down.  Surely since your sources are so credible, you must be able to find me an example of at least one...

Once again, I would ask you to please read through links before jumping to conclusions and making accusations. Lunar does not allow us to post full articles anymore, so I have to assume people click and read the links before commenting. This was in the OP. Wink

Quote
A spokeswoman for ICE confirmed the seizures in the following statement. “ICE office of Homeland Security Investigations executed court-ordered seizure warrants against a number of domain names. As this is an ongoing investigation, there are no additional details available at this time.”

2009jerseys.com
51607.com
amoyhy.com
b2corder.com
bishoe.com
borntrade.com
borntrade.net
boxedtvseries.com
boxset4less.com
boxsetseries.com
burberryoutletshop.com
cartoon77.com
cheapscarfshop.com
coachoutletfactory.com
dajaz1.com
discountscarvesonsale.com
dvdcollectionsale.com
dvdcollects.com
dvdorderonline.com
dvdprostore.com
dvdscollection.com
dvdsetcollection.com
dvdsetsonline.com
dvdsuperdeal.com
eluxury-outlet.com
getdvdset.com
gofactoryoutlet.com
golfstaring.com
golfwholesale18.com
handbag9.com
handbagcom.com
handbagspop.com
icqshoes.com
ipodnanouk.com
jersey-china.com
jerseyclubhouse.com
jordansbox.com
lifetimereplicas.com
louis-vuitton-outlet-store.com
lv-outlets.com
lv-outlets.net
lv-outletstore.com
massnike.com
merrytimberland.com
mycollects.com
mydreamwatches.com
mygolfwholesale.com
newstylerolex.com
nfljerseysupply.com
nibdvd.com
odvdo.com
oebags.com
onsmash.com
overbestmall.com
rapgodfathers.com
realtimberland.com
rmx4u.com
scarfonlineshop.com
scarfviponsale.com
shawls-store.com
silkscarf-shop.com
silkscarfonsale.com
skyergolf.com
sohob2b.com
sohob2c.com
storeofeast.com
stuff-trade.com
sunglasses-mall.com
sunogolf.com
tbl-sports.com
throwbackguy.com
tiesonsale.com
timberlandlike.com
topabuy.com
torrent-finder.com
usaburberryscarf.com
usaoutlets.net

With the exception of torrent-finder.com, those look like a whole bunch of spam sites where you enter the URL expecting something else, but because you got a letter or the domain messed up it takes you to that site which is like totally useless--and they try to make money off the name.  Now as I understand torrent-finder.com was not actually taken down by the government, but instead they took themselves down pretending to have been taken down by the government to show their solidarity with those other sites.
97  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is Obama creating a police state? on: November 28, 2010, 12:29:46 am
lulz

And on that note, another reactionary gets put on my ignore list.

Your response was an over simplified statement that didn'd address a single point in the Jeff Kuhner piece. If you defend Obama please do so with facts that answer the charges in the article
Firstly, the piece is from the Washington Times, a reactionary-biased newspaper schilling for the worst of the Republican wing of the Republican party.

Secondly, blowing in here with hyperbole as you did does nothing but make people here ignore you.  You'll find that this site isn't like the others.

Such "unreasonableness", if I might, is frowned upon.  You'll be seen as nothing more than an extremist partisan hack and people will simply either laugh, ignore, or make fun of all of your posts, serious or not.

If you can find a legitimate news source that carries such articles as the one you have posted above, I'd be more than happy to read it.  But an op-ed piece from a worthless right wing paper isn't going to convince anybody.

And please... please... don't start in on the OMGZ LOLZ BUT TEH MEDIA IS ALL LIBRUL RUSH LIMBAUGH SAYED IT SO meme.  
This is not debate. You attack the source and dismiss it as a right wing worthless paper with not a single counter point  to a single point Kuhner made! I still see nothing as far as a case to be made against Kuhner. If this is a shill as you say why can't you prove your case by simply explaining where and why Jeff Kuhner is wrong? And this time without your lessons about the Forum or attacks on papers, or advice  or assumpotions that I listen to Rush or am going to start by saying something. You really have confidence in yourself. READ IT! If you can't read it and explain why it is not correct, don't bother responding. Go attack someone else with out reading their posted article to debate.

You're the one that came in here posting the Washington Times like it was a reliable source.  Did you know that its former owner (whose son now owns it) thinks he is the Messiah returned to earth to save us from our sins?  Did you know his church has violently suppressed dissent within its ranks?  Did you know that he considers homosexuals to be dogs, and that the Washington Times has been consistently homophobic and transphobic?

Why, god, oh why did you honestly think you could post a Washington Times article like it was a reliable source and be taken seriously?

If you're really interested in a serious discussion of this issue, please post another source, for the love of all that is holy!
98  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is Obama creating a police state? on: November 27, 2010, 11:29:52 pm
LOL, the Washington Times.  How's that Moon magic working for you?
99  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: TN Governor by Precinct - Shelby County (Memphis) on: November 18, 2010, 03:28:50 am
Just about, with the people in Cordova who don't want to get annexed by Memphis (but have been anyway), consolidation is a sticky issue.  Also, just in case anyone's interested, the speed limit of the N-S road called Germantown Parkway has a 50 mph speed limit in Cordova (exit 16 on I-40, head south toward Germantown).
100  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Murkowski won't support Palin for POTUS because she is an airbrain on: November 16, 2010, 12:23:04 pm
LOL, Palin responded complaining that Murkowski was intimidating her.  Just another clueless wingnut who doesn't understand that someone's beliefs being criticized is just as much protected as expressing their own beliefs.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines