WTF!!!!??? Our country needs to get with the times!
- [ECGN] Mulligan
by [ECGN] Mulligan » Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:45 am
Thank you Pudrik. I knew there were other benefits, but I wasn't for sure, so all I knew to say was to make things "official." And I agree that it should be a state issue. The part that still disturbs me is the fact religious officials got arrested for it.
by RCglider » Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:48 am
This is amazing. For many years now, we've been told marriage wasn't important, that it's obsolete, archaic, 'not with the times', patriarchal. Shacking up, 'free love', multiple sex partners, do your own thing baby....anything but marriage. STD's, AIDS, unintended pregnancies.....a small price to pay as long as marriage isn't involved. Sexual “freedom” has been the altar of worship. Damn the consequences of promiscuity. Who wants the inconvenience of marriage? Commitment? Who needs that! Then we are told men and women are equal (they aren’t), divorce rates sky rocket and we have a new term, dysfunctional families, where the children are always the ones that suffer. Babies are considered nothing more than biological tissue. The government takes over as the father, and we wonder why we have a whole generation of screwed up kids.
.
Now suddenly, there's all this pap about "devoted" relationships (aka monogamy, remember that silly word?) and how important marriage is for "devoted, loving" couples. We're being told to 'get with the times', 'this is the 21st century', and the rest of the Liberal psychobabble. Man is no different today than 4,000 years ago, only getting worse. The traditional family (father, mother, children) unit is the most stabilizing factor for society to survive. To claim otherwise is to ignore history.
The bottom line is homosexuals want their behavior to be recognized as normal and to force the rest of us, the vast majority, to accept their behavior as normal. Well guess what, it isn't normal, it's a perverted lifestyle that has no good end, both for the individuals and society. Just because the APA removed it from the list of diagnostic disorders in 1973 does not make it any less damaging. That was simply the first attempt at legitimizing homosexuality by Liberal social engineers. To the contrary, there is much more evidence since then to show this behavior is damaging to society. It doesn’t matter if it’s ‘in the genes’ or not, it’s still not healthy. Many other forms of aberrant behavior have their “genetic” roots excuses as well. It still doesn’t change the facts.
And of course, there are those that say they know someone who’s gay and claim they are completely “normal” except for their sexual behavior. Well, I know some too. A friend I’ve known for 20 years was gay. He has many serious psychological and emotional problems; depression, thoughts of suicide, etc. Despite his outward appearance, he is not a happy person. If you live and die by studies, they are readily available. Don’t say it’s because they are being persecuted by society. Holland has the most open ‘anything goes’ society anywhere, yet homosexuals have the highest incidence of drug abuse, STD’s, mental disorders and physical disease. The same for San Francisco.
As for legal issues, homosexuals can will (living trust) their property to anyone they wish, just like any single person can. They can add anyone’s name they wish to deeds. They can appoint power of attorney to anyone they want. They can have medical advocates.
The purpose of marriage is to provide a cohesive environment for procreation and rearing of children in order that society can survive and thrive with stability. That is a father and mother ( that’s male and female for the confused). Marriages do not always produce children, but that is the purpose nonetheless. Homosexuality does neither. To point toward the high divorce rate we now have still does not change the value of traditional marriage, it only reinforces it’s importance.
And finally, for those offended by those “ministers” getting arrested? It’s simple. They broke the law. I realize that’s a hard concept for some, but handing out illegal licenses of any kind is just that…..ILLEGAL. It’s no different than if they were selling degrees on the internet.
.
Now suddenly, there's all this pap about "devoted" relationships (aka monogamy, remember that silly word?) and how important marriage is for "devoted, loving" couples. We're being told to 'get with the times', 'this is the 21st century', and the rest of the Liberal psychobabble. Man is no different today than 4,000 years ago, only getting worse. The traditional family (father, mother, children) unit is the most stabilizing factor for society to survive. To claim otherwise is to ignore history.
The bottom line is homosexuals want their behavior to be recognized as normal and to force the rest of us, the vast majority, to accept their behavior as normal. Well guess what, it isn't normal, it's a perverted lifestyle that has no good end, both for the individuals and society. Just because the APA removed it from the list of diagnostic disorders in 1973 does not make it any less damaging. That was simply the first attempt at legitimizing homosexuality by Liberal social engineers. To the contrary, there is much more evidence since then to show this behavior is damaging to society. It doesn’t matter if it’s ‘in the genes’ or not, it’s still not healthy. Many other forms of aberrant behavior have their “genetic” roots excuses as well. It still doesn’t change the facts.
And of course, there are those that say they know someone who’s gay and claim they are completely “normal” except for their sexual behavior. Well, I know some too. A friend I’ve known for 20 years was gay. He has many serious psychological and emotional problems; depression, thoughts of suicide, etc. Despite his outward appearance, he is not a happy person. If you live and die by studies, they are readily available. Don’t say it’s because they are being persecuted by society. Holland has the most open ‘anything goes’ society anywhere, yet homosexuals have the highest incidence of drug abuse, STD’s, mental disorders and physical disease. The same for San Francisco.
As for legal issues, homosexuals can will (living trust) their property to anyone they wish, just like any single person can. They can add anyone’s name they wish to deeds. They can appoint power of attorney to anyone they want. They can have medical advocates.
The purpose of marriage is to provide a cohesive environment for procreation and rearing of children in order that society can survive and thrive with stability. That is a father and mother ( that’s male and female for the confused). Marriages do not always produce children, but that is the purpose nonetheless. Homosexuality does neither. To point toward the high divorce rate we now have still does not change the value of traditional marriage, it only reinforces it’s importance.
And finally, for those offended by those “ministers” getting arrested? It’s simple. They broke the law. I realize that’s a hard concept for some, but handing out illegal licenses of any kind is just that…..ILLEGAL. It’s no different than if they were selling degrees on the internet.
- Murgatroyd
by Murgatroyd » Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:05 pm
Here's my beef.
1.) Don't use the constitution to restrict civil liberties. Make it a federal law instead, or better yet, state law.
2.) If you want to define homosexuality as a preference or choice think also that religion, political affiliation, etc. are all choices. Would you feel safe in your country if the government starting making constitutional amendments or laws restricting the activities of people based on these other choices?
3.) I don't understand why people are so freaked out about sex - why do you care what someone else does with their wang? If it bothers you that much, don't think about it.
4.) Like Pudrik said, marriage is a term. Call it goggledooblie or farfanukle for all I care. This is an argument of semantics, and is pretty ridiculous. If you want to nitpick about every little term, try making a constitutional amendment which defines terms like "religion" or "freedom" for legal purposes, and see how far you get.
Yeah, let's redefine "freedom" so it only applies to people whose ideas we agree with and see what kind of country we end up with.
1.) Don't use the constitution to restrict civil liberties. Make it a federal law instead, or better yet, state law.
2.) If you want to define homosexuality as a preference or choice think also that religion, political affiliation, etc. are all choices. Would you feel safe in your country if the government starting making constitutional amendments or laws restricting the activities of people based on these other choices?
3.) I don't understand why people are so freaked out about sex - why do you care what someone else does with their wang? If it bothers you that much, don't think about it.
4.) Like Pudrik said, marriage is a term. Call it goggledooblie or farfanukle for all I care. This is an argument of semantics, and is pretty ridiculous. If you want to nitpick about every little term, try making a constitutional amendment which defines terms like "religion" or "freedom" for legal purposes, and see how far you get.
Yeah, let's redefine "freedom" so it only applies to people whose ideas we agree with and see what kind of country we end up with.
- Major SONAR
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 12:18 pm
- Location: Nashville, TN
by Major SONAR » Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:01 pm
I'm right there with you RC. 
Another Awesome Sig by Evan - Thanks man!
by RCglider » Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:27 pm
Originally posted by C. Murgatroyd
Here's my beef.
1.) Don't use the constitution to restrict civil liberties. Make it a federal law instead, or better yet, state law.
It is obvious some laws are meaningless to certain rogue courts. Therefore, a Constitutional Amendment may be the only recourse. Please look up 'full faith and credit' clause in the Constitution.
2.) If you want to define homosexuality as a preference or choice think also that religion, political affiliation, etc. are all choices. Would you feel safe in your country if the government starting making constitutional amendments or laws restricting the activities of people based on these other choices?
Congress shall make NO law....
I would define homosexuality as a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex.
3.) I don't understand why people are so freaked out about sex - why do you care what someone else does with their wang? If it bothers you that much, don't think about it.
I don't know, why ARE there so many sex addicts freaked out? Do whatever you want with your wang, but if you think you have the right to do it in your front yard, see how far that gets you. How dare they limit your freedom of expression!
4.) Like Pudrik said, marriage is a term. Call it goggledooblie or farfanukle for all I care. This is an argument of semantics, and is pretty ridiculous. If you want to nitpick about every little term, try making a constitutional amendment which defines terms like "religion" or "freedom" for legal purposes, and see how far you get.
Whew, that's the most convoluted bunch of gobbly goop I've seen yet.
Googledooblie has no legal definition. Neither does farfanukle. However, marriage does have legal precedence and definition, therefore has meaning. Semantics is a study of language meaning, so yes, in this instance you are correct.
Yeah, let's redefine "freedom" so it only applies to people whose ideas we agree with and see what kind of country we end up with.
The typical drug dealer couldn't agree with you more. Freedom is not doing whatever you want.
- Murgatroyd
by Murgatroyd » Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:49 pm
You're absolutely right - but freedoms and laws should be based on secular reasoning, not ideaological bias. Look to the middle east to see what happens when countries base their laws upon religious ideals and begin policing people's morals.
It leads to oppression, and it leads to corruption and kleptocracy.
Regardless of whether or not I agree with what the government is trying to do - this will *always* be my stance. If you give government too much power, especially power based on religious beliefs, you're playing with fire.
Let's take this scenario. Let's say that the government decrees that marriages and all legal unions can only occur between one male and one female. Let's say down the road, we get some government officials who feel as if they know what's best for everybody (and what government official doesn't), and they decide that in order to be married, that the couple has to fulfill some other requirements as well. And don't think they won't have the legal basis - they will because there's legal precident which sets standards on marriages. Okay, great, so let's say they now require that the two individuals have to pass some sort of genetic testing in order to "prevent genetic diseases". Just think of what they could do with such a law. "Ok, you're black and she's white, well, your child could be at risk for this rare genetic disease, so you can't wed - we have to keep the safety of the children in mind".
That's an extreme example, but if it were 1931 and I told you that the nazis were going to exterminate the jews, would you believe me? Of course not, you'd say "The Weimar republic is a democratic government with a constitution! That would NEVER happen!". Then there was that Reichstag fire, and because of an "emergency clause" written into the law, Hitler was able to assume dictatorial powers. Think that'll never happen again? Take a look at what happened in Spain a week ago - the opposition government was elected because of a terrorist attack (much like the fire at the Reichstag, which was purportedly set by communists).
Sorry for the history lesson, but it's important that people realize exactly what they're doing.
If this law passes, our constitution will have been amended with a clause which defines certain parameters for marriage.
Think of that from a legal standpoint - if they start defining parameters for marriage, regardless of what they are, do you think that they'll be incapable of doing it again?
Frankly, I'd rather just allow "unions" of homosexuals and "marriages" of men and women, provided that it is an identical legal arrangement, just so everybody will shut up.
(You know, I thought of that right after I said that, but I don't like editing posts so I didn't go back and add it..
)
It leads to oppression, and it leads to corruption and kleptocracy.
Regardless of whether or not I agree with what the government is trying to do - this will *always* be my stance. If you give government too much power, especially power based on religious beliefs, you're playing with fire.
Let's take this scenario. Let's say that the government decrees that marriages and all legal unions can only occur between one male and one female. Let's say down the road, we get some government officials who feel as if they know what's best for everybody (and what government official doesn't), and they decide that in order to be married, that the couple has to fulfill some other requirements as well. And don't think they won't have the legal basis - they will because there's legal precident which sets standards on marriages. Okay, great, so let's say they now require that the two individuals have to pass some sort of genetic testing in order to "prevent genetic diseases". Just think of what they could do with such a law. "Ok, you're black and she's white, well, your child could be at risk for this rare genetic disease, so you can't wed - we have to keep the safety of the children in mind".
That's an extreme example, but if it were 1931 and I told you that the nazis were going to exterminate the jews, would you believe me? Of course not, you'd say "The Weimar republic is a democratic government with a constitution! That would NEVER happen!". Then there was that Reichstag fire, and because of an "emergency clause" written into the law, Hitler was able to assume dictatorial powers. Think that'll never happen again? Take a look at what happened in Spain a week ago - the opposition government was elected because of a terrorist attack (much like the fire at the Reichstag, which was purportedly set by communists).
Sorry for the history lesson, but it's important that people realize exactly what they're doing.
If this law passes, our constitution will have been amended with a clause which defines certain parameters for marriage.
Think of that from a legal standpoint - if they start defining parameters for marriage, regardless of what they are, do you think that they'll be incapable of doing it again?
Frankly, I'd rather just allow "unions" of homosexuals and "marriages" of men and women, provided that it is an identical legal arrangement, just so everybody will shut up.
(You know, I thought of that right after I said that, but I don't like editing posts so I didn't go back and add it..
)
by PudriK » Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:43 pm
RCglider you make some very good points. Homosexuality is not normal... they are a marginal part of society. And as for psychological problems, I think we would find in many cases homosexuals are that way not because of genetics but because of family troubles. On the flip side, for those who grew up in wholesome families, being genetically homosexual could be very traumatic. And I'm sure if you asked, most homosexuals would admit that it is not an easy lifestyle, and one they would not choose. Should we treat these people like they have a medical "defect," and try to cure them, or just accept them as a marginal part of society with whom we can comfortably coexist?
Of the homsexuals I've known, the majority have had psychological issues, but they also were fully functioning, sane people, dealing with issues that many people deal with without becoming gay.
My point about the marriage term was we could grant the same rights as marriage without having to use the term marriage. I admit, though, that the word marriage has a lot of symbolic value which many homosexuals would probably demand, so it's really not a strong argument.
Overall, I'm with Murgatroyd in that I am very wary of using religion as a basis for law. And when forced to choose between restricting or granting rights, I lean towards granting them, unless a rational, secular, argument can be made for why it is not in the public interest.
Of the homsexuals I've known, the majority have had psychological issues, but they also were fully functioning, sane people, dealing with issues that many people deal with without becoming gay.
My point about the marriage term was we could grant the same rights as marriage without having to use the term marriage. I admit, though, that the word marriage has a lot of symbolic value which many homosexuals would probably demand, so it's really not a strong argument.
Overall, I'm with Murgatroyd in that I am very wary of using religion as a basis for law. And when forced to choose between restricting or granting rights, I lean towards granting them, unless a rational, secular, argument can be made for why it is not in the public interest.
PudriK
("Pudd-rick")
Irregular player since 2003
("Pudd-rick")
Irregular player since 2003
- Colonel Ingus
-
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:05 pm
- Location: St Paul MN
by Colonel Ingus » Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:45 pm
[B]Okay, great, so let's say they now require that the two individuals have to pass some sort of genetic testing in order to "prevent genetic diseases". [/B]
Actually although you do point out a very powerful negative (which I wholeheartedly agree with) to this arguement there is an alternate viewpoint.
We require you to be licensed to drive a car, own a gun, run a business, be a doctor or a shopkeeper, and even teach. Yet any old idiot can became a parent and there is absolutely no screening method other than how much you drank last night?
Why shouldn't we require people to meet certain minimum requirements to have children. There's a whole host of reasons why certain types of people shouldn't be parents including histories of violence and physcological problems.
There doesn't even have to be the question of race as you so aptly point out but shouldn't we require people to provide a minimum level of support prior to having children?
With the advent of genetic engineering, nanotechnology, breaking the human genome, and the advances in molecular biology I doubt there will be genetic problems that can't be fixed pre-natal in our lifetimes.
Don't you think the most important thing any of us will ever do in our lifes should have some type of positive control? Don't we owe our future generations at least a semblance of sanity?
You may attempt to counter this with a debate about individual freedoms and how this is none of anyone elses business but there is a line crossed. When the problems of poor environment, bad upringings and dysfunctional families force themselves upon society through all kinds of means ranging from foster care, deadbeat dads, and the criminal justice system it does become everyones business.
The really scary and tricky part here is hashing out what is right and what is wrong. Leaving race and religion, creed and color out would have to be done.
Meeting certain economic conditions and proving that you are at least mentally stable enough to have children would not seem to great a stretch.
Now we'll here from the left and how this is racist as the minorities are the poor people and they would be left out. WRONG!!! The one great strength of America is its common people, NOT its extremely wealthy and if you can provide a stable environment for a child (which doesn't mean you can afford an X-box) then that should be good enough. There are plenty of rich messed up people out there and this should exclude them also.
I can't tell you how often I drive through the "poorer" parts of town and see kids in 200$ sneakers wearing the latest FUBU or team jersey that costs 100$+ That to me is not good parenting. I was the youngest of four and got hand me downs and loved it when I got my own new cheap clothes that did not have a designer name on it.
To this day I still don't buy named brand "gear" because it isn't neccesary and I have bills that I have to pay. Bills that the government won't pay for me because I actually try to earn a living and not siphon of the people who do work.
And to keep this on topic I would agree with you that it is an arguement about definition. I don't think they should have to be "married" to enjoy the same rights a "married" couple does. I said it before, irregardless of what Jimmy thinks, that they should have the legal rights as any married couple should. If you tell me it shouldn't be important to me wether or not it is called "marriage" then why don't you explain that to the people doing it? It shouldn't be important to them either if they have the same rights now should it?
Actually although you do point out a very powerful negative (which I wholeheartedly agree with) to this arguement there is an alternate viewpoint.
We require you to be licensed to drive a car, own a gun, run a business, be a doctor or a shopkeeper, and even teach. Yet any old idiot can became a parent and there is absolutely no screening method other than how much you drank last night?
Why shouldn't we require people to meet certain minimum requirements to have children. There's a whole host of reasons why certain types of people shouldn't be parents including histories of violence and physcological problems.
There doesn't even have to be the question of race as you so aptly point out but shouldn't we require people to provide a minimum level of support prior to having children?
With the advent of genetic engineering, nanotechnology, breaking the human genome, and the advances in molecular biology I doubt there will be genetic problems that can't be fixed pre-natal in our lifetimes.
Don't you think the most important thing any of us will ever do in our lifes should have some type of positive control? Don't we owe our future generations at least a semblance of sanity?
You may attempt to counter this with a debate about individual freedoms and how this is none of anyone elses business but there is a line crossed. When the problems of poor environment, bad upringings and dysfunctional families force themselves upon society through all kinds of means ranging from foster care, deadbeat dads, and the criminal justice system it does become everyones business.
The really scary and tricky part here is hashing out what is right and what is wrong. Leaving race and religion, creed and color out would have to be done.
Meeting certain economic conditions and proving that you are at least mentally stable enough to have children would not seem to great a stretch.
Now we'll here from the left and how this is racist as the minorities are the poor people and they would be left out. WRONG!!! The one great strength of America is its common people, NOT its extremely wealthy and if you can provide a stable environment for a child (which doesn't mean you can afford an X-box) then that should be good enough. There are plenty of rich messed up people out there and this should exclude them also.
I can't tell you how often I drive through the "poorer" parts of town and see kids in 200$ sneakers wearing the latest FUBU or team jersey that costs 100$+ That to me is not good parenting. I was the youngest of four and got hand me downs and loved it when I got my own new cheap clothes that did not have a designer name on it.
To this day I still don't buy named brand "gear" because it isn't neccesary and I have bills that I have to pay. Bills that the government won't pay for me because I actually try to earn a living and not siphon of the people who do work.
And to keep this on topic I would agree with you that it is an arguement about definition. I don't think they should have to be "married" to enjoy the same rights a "married" couple does. I said it before, irregardless of what Jimmy thinks, that they should have the legal rights as any married couple should. If you tell me it shouldn't be important to me wether or not it is called "marriage" then why don't you explain that to the people doing it? It shouldn't be important to them either if they have the same rights now should it?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ... Benjamin Franklin
- FarginMofo
-
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 10:11 pm
- Location: Hurricaneville
by FarginMofo » Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:55 pm
A local incident that happened a couple of days ago...very sad.
Ingus, I believe this man would have come up way short of any "minimum requirements" to become a parent.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/2004/03/15/news/8188073.htm
Ingus, I believe this man would have come up way short of any "minimum requirements" to become a parent.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/2004/03/15/news/8188073.htm
"Well, we're not just gonna let you walk out of here."
"Who's we sucka!?"
"Smith and Wesson and me."
"Who's we sucka!?"
"Smith and Wesson and me."
by PudriK » Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:32 am
Any homicide of a child, even negligent homicide, should mean life imprisonment, at least. Castration seems more appropriate.
On topic, a little levity...
On topic, a little levity...
PudriK
("Pudd-rick")
Irregular player since 2003
("Pudd-rick")
Irregular player since 2003
- [ECGN] Mulligan
by [ECGN] Mulligan » Fri Mar 19, 2004 6:24 am
Originally posted by RCglider
This is amazing. For many years now, we've been told marriage wasn't important, that it's obsolete, archaic, 'not with the times', patriarchal. Shacking up, 'free love', multiple sex partners, do your own thing baby....anything but marriage. STD's, AIDS, unintended pregnancies.....a small price to pay as long as marriage isn't involved. Sexual “freedom” has been the altar of worship. Damn the consequences of promiscuity. Who wants the inconvenience of marriage? Commitment? Who needs that! Then we are told men and women are equal (they aren’t), divorce rates sky rocket and we have a new term, dysfunctional families, where the children are always the ones that suffer. Babies are considered nothing more than biological tissue. The government takes over as the father, and we wonder why we have a whole generation of screwed up kids........
RCglider, your debate is a strong one. It is very well informed and intelligent. Very hard to disagree with, and very persuasive. Even though I say I am on the other side of this debate, it is hard to come up with a counter point for it. I just wanted to say that I appreciate it. I definitely agree that in order for someone to grow up healthy physchologically, it is important to have both a mother and a father around the household. Not just because this is the "norm" but because it seems research shows this provides for good mental health. I don't think homosexual families could ever be completely healthy. But healthy homosexual relationships do exsist. Many gay couples live together for the rest of their lives and they seem to be perfectly content, and at peace with everything, almost like they feel they can live the rest of their lives with no regrets, because they are with their lifetime partner. And their is no law stopping them from living together. So maybe marriage isn't a needed step, but I disagree that marriage is strictly about procreating. Marriage is about loving each other till death...etc etc. It doesn't say anywhere during the ceremony that you also must have a family. So I guess my last point is, if they are going to be living together for the rest of their lives anyway, why not let them consider themselves married? Other than that, I'm all out of steam after RCgliders argument. The ministers did break the law, and they are probably just going to be fined. So it's not really that big of an issue. Thanks again RCglider, that is why I like debates, I admire anybody that can be persuasive enough to change my views on a subject. I applaud, and realize when I have been bested
- Murgatroyd
by Murgatroyd » Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:43 am
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Why shouldn't we require people to meet certain minimum requirements to have children. There's a whole host of reasons why certain types of people shouldn't be parents including histories of violence and physcological problems.
Meeting certain economic conditions and proving that you are at least mentally stable enough to have children would not seem to great a stretch.
Now we'll here from the left and how this is racist as the minorities are the poor people and they would be left out. WRONG!!! The one great strength of America is its common people, NOT its extremely wealthy and if you can provide a stable environment for a child (which doesn't mean you can afford an X-box) then that should be good enough. There are plenty of rich messed up people out there and this should exclude them also.
I can't tell you how often I drive through the "poorer" parts of town and see kids in 200$ sneakers wearing the latest FUBU or team jersey that costs 100$+ That to me is not good parenting. I was the youngest of four and got hand me downs and loved it when I got my own new cheap clothes that did not have a designer name on it.
Two different points I want to make.
First, eugenics is a great idea from a scientific standpoint, but just imagine a government dictating something like breeding. With authoritarian tendencies, I doubt it would turn out very well.
Economic standards is a different issue. I totally agree with you on this - if you can't support the child, don't have one.
However, I would certainly not want the government to have that power - as I would love to take away from it the power to put people who are fully capable of working on the dole.
I have an anecdote of my own.. once I was in the local Software Etc. where I buy my software, and this woman came in with her boyfriend (I assume) and a little kid. She signed over her welfare check to buy an X-box.
Essentially, I'm for smaller government, and that fact will surface in any political discussion I enter, regardless of the issue. Sometimes, it's just not the government's job to get involved.
So, Ingus, I agree with you, if government was responsible enough to handle such things, I'd love to see them implemented. However, I don't think that there's a government on earth that could responsibly handle such things and not exert total control over the population.
Look at Germany - a democracy can be taken over from within, it's easier than you think.
- FarginMofo
-
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 10:11 pm
- Location: Hurricaneville
by FarginMofo » Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:34 am
Tommy,
In Tampa, you can always head over to Ybor City.
As far as Miami/Ft. Lauderdale goes, head down to South Beach and catch some of this...
(Victoria Secrets Model show)
In Tampa, you can always head over to Ybor City.
As far as Miami/Ft. Lauderdale goes, head down to South Beach and catch some of this...
(Victoria Secrets Model show)
"Well, we're not just gonna let you walk out of here."
"Who's we sucka!?"
"Smith and Wesson and me."
"Who's we sucka!?"
"Smith and Wesson and me."
- Colonel Ingus
-
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:05 pm
- Location: St Paul MN
by Colonel Ingus » Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:28 pm
Murg I totally agree with what you are saying
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ... Benjamin Franklin
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests