About this "idiotic" right to bare arms. do you know why we have? the founding father knew that one day our goverment would become currupt, for what ever reason and would need to be overthrown. now, if our guns are taken away that is justs one more step to becoming a nation opressed by the goverment and we would have no way to stop it. oh and also i hate australia, you cant own a paintball gun there.
you can if you have a licence and i think thats only in victoria but im not sure on that. about the right to bear arms 2 questions 1 could you ever see yourself looking into the eyes of a cop\army guy and pulling the trigger? 2 if the "goverment" becomes so curpt that people need to fight it what the hell are they going to do against your entire millatry? what your little hand gun you keep because its cool to have a gun is going to do what to a profectionally trained, millatry equipt solder? you would last all of about 2 seconds
if you want real change and not some pretend fix that would never be used in the first place why dont you get politically active? run a campaine about voting being part of cizenship. Sue the electrol comission and make the courts investagate the "electrol fraud" and most importantly when the next election comes around vote and vote against what you DONT want to see for a change insted of apatheticaly saying oh well i cant have what i want so i wont vote at all
Counsler You miss the point. Think of this: Those posts all come from the election cycle. The earliest is late November, 2003. Even at a time when I am openly and admittedly more sympathetic to the Democratic Party itself, I am still critical of it. You chose to extrapolate part of our discussion into unreasonability akin to our oft-incomrehensible friend HowardStern's old-school outbursts. He's made the same accusation before: Quite simply, as I pointed out then, you seem to suck the credibility out of your own argument. If you choose to see the point as saying you have no credibility, well, fine. I suspect would only offend you should I tell you it's incorrect to do so. The point of providing "five pages" of posts is to demonstrate clearly that your demand is inappropriate: why is it my fault if you haven't been paying attention? And why is this so common an issue with conservatives? Watch the right wing closely, and you'll see them constantly asking their opponents to jump through silly hoops. Generally speaking, conservative political advocates in this country won't have a calm disagreement until you waive your disagreement and agree with them. Perhaps if things like their definitions of "rights" weren't such insupportable assertions, it would be easier for liberals to strike a compromise with those who won't compromise.
Typical. What we have here is a TTR. A Typical Tiassa Response. This basically means three things: 1. You tell me I've missed the point. 2. You tell me I have no argument or credibility and when I respond with sarcasm you take it too seriously (Which, by the way, you responded with a lot more sarcasm than I did -- so who's making childish outbursts, Tiassa?). 3. You blame someone for something that they didn't do. You jumped through all my "hoops" of your own accord. I didn't ask for five pages. I didn't tell you five pages, and you didn't have to go off looking for five pages. Blame me for your hoop jumping, which you didn't have to do and that I really didn't ask you to do. This is what happens when you debate people, Tiassa. Every time you have a serious discussion with anyone it boils down to you telling them that they don't understand or that they've missed the point. I'm just glad you didn't try to bury me in text, again (But hey, respond to this post all you want -- I'll gladly go through hoops with you over and over again! Post fifty pages for all I care! I demand it! You have to do it or else you'll loose points!). Go talk to the Wizard of Oz, he might have a heart, or brain, or something for you.
Tiassa. Just a note. I can see you viewing this thread. You've been viewing it for about twenty minutes now... If you really do plan on posting a really long response, I should warn you; it's going to make you look like a jackass and I probably won't respond. Put some energy into something else, cause in the end it'll all be a waste.
(Insert Title Here) Disgraceful. You overlook a simple point, which I will get to at the end. And I also tell you what point you missed. I will be reiterating that shortly. No, I told you that you sucked the credibility out of your own argument. You got on my back for raising a cultural issue, and then described a cultural issue. What I don't understand is why you take up those misrepresentations in the first place: And then turn around and make points that apply as cultural issues: Doesn't such a contradiction wreck the credibility of your earlier point? That voters let themselves be convinced by cheap news reports and such--I mean, more disappointing than the actual loss in 2000 was that the voters reduced it to Bush vs. Gore in the first place. There is the discussion of the "lesser of evils", but we the people allow it to come to that in the first place. And as to marriage, I agree entirely that marriage is a bad idea in general. But those problems are cultural issues. Is it that tough to figure out? Am I somehow being "elitist" by attempting to look beyond the superficial manifestations of issues? Well, why don't you explain, then, what is so insufficient about the texts provided that left you asking for the examples you did? Now, then: Given the facts at hand, I don't think you had the right to be making such demands in the first place. Easy enough? For instance: Ummm ... how about you tell me, just as a "for instance", what about this post should be taken as a "serious discussion"? Now, something you have overlooked: I'm trying to deal with facts while you're out on some personal issue. Indeed I've told you that you've missed the point. And I insist on it. For all the reasons I've already noted and you've ignored in order to make this some kind of personal issue. Now, maybe that's your point, but I doubt it. Or, at least, you'd argue that I'm wrong and then eventually roll on that point and wonder why anyone gives attention to the inconsistency motivating your chosen tone and rhetoric. Why you've chosen to personalize this issue is entirely your own. Personally, I don't get it. I just think this outburst-- --was absolute bullshit, and that's all you've given since. I can't say you're a dishonest person, but you're a dishonest poster, Counsler. You're so determined to find something to be offended by right now that you don't realize that I did actually try to take you seriously when I chose not to respond to your ... ah ... "inebriated" post. And you've been wrongly-founded from that point forward, as well. It's only after I realized you somehow were taking yourself remotely seriously that it started to get annoying. So come on. If you can't play straight at least do us the favor of not throwing a hissy-fit when you don't get your way. We get along much better when you're not personalizing your posts in response to your own mistakes. You want some fucking responsible criticism from me? Why don't you just write the script, since you can't seem to tell me what's wrong with what you claimed to have never seen? Short of that, take a breath, decide what's important enough to be worth arguing about, and get on with it. Seems like it would be a lot easier than gnashing your teeth over your own imagination. Remember, as a liberal, I want you to be happy. It is unfortunate, however, that I will not accommodate your happiness by getting a lobotomy, and in that you have my sincere apologies.
CC dont you know that if you just leave it takes ages for the online thing to catch up. This was probably the last thread he was looking at when he had to go. You know some people have a life unlike mePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa, Okay. Okay. In all seriousness: We allow to a certain point. Me and you, we belong in that group too. I have told my friends time and time again: "The swift vets don't matter, what matters is blah blah blah," But to a certain point, we allow ourselves to be penetrated by those types of arguments. I have found myself defending Bush on these mundane issues; you can't really help it, it's been injected into our lives through the news and TV. My sarcasm is always serious, ask my defunct parents. Let me know when I hit it. You're right about that. People love to be offended, don't they? It gives them a reason to be upset, go out and protest. They don't hate being offended, they enjoy it. It's like sex: you get fucked, but you fuck back. And conservatives don't want you to be happy? Look, if someone shows up at my Church (I don't go to church, by the way), and its two men holding hands, should I feel offended or should I ignore it? Hell, it's my church! The minister could ask them to leave, and if they refuse? If the church goes all civil war because two gay men walk in, what then? There is a time and place for everything, but here, most recently, liberals seem to be pushing the envelope more than they should... Not that they shouldn't. Society should be tested, to a point. But really, you can't expect conservatives to wake up in the morning and accept everything as is. See, it's harder for them; they have different values, morals, beliefs, etc. For liberals, all they have to do is accept a new idea. For conservatives, they have to think it over for a while and decide on what’s right and wrong; and even then they don't agree on it. I quote a Christian friend of mine: "I cannot deal with people who throw their atheism and criticism on me. I shouldn't have to explain my beliefs. I shouldn't have to tell them why I drive a 5 MPG SUV. I shouldn't have to tell them why I think abortion is wrong. They need to leave me alone; I never did anything to them." There is the problem. These liberals and conservatives never get along, they never will. It is only a matter of time before The Handmaid's Tale is a reality. There is the problem. These conservatives and liberals never get along, they never will. It is only a matter of time before Brave New World is a reality. Both are on the fringes, I can only hope that we meet in the middle.
nither gays or librals have ever demanded that they be alowed to go to your church and refuse to leave if asked. The most they have ever done is go to mass wearing ramboy colours and walk up to take communion once every year. they have never been asked to leave the church and nither side has ever brought legal action over it, they have just been (as they expect to be) refused comunion. They have there own churches they dont want yours but what they DO want is the rights of a married couple LEGALLY and no one has ever shown why they shouldnt have them
Asguard: Listen here, Asguard. America, or for that part, Louisville Kentucky, is not like where you're from. Things happen here, you might not hear about them, but it happens. I thought I already expressed this point... People who have/adopt kids should be allowed to get a tax break (Which is what marriage, in my eyes, is). People who do not reproduce (Mainly gays) should not get the same representation in court as someone who is married and can reproduce. I thought I explained all of this? This is all about money for me, not religion. But to the larger part: Should gays be allowed to get married on paper and not get a tax break for it? Hell yeah. But I feel the same way about Christians. As I stated before, I think marriage is a bad idea in general. You should get special treatment when you have kids, not if you're married.
is the "tax break" your talking about the one where if i was earning MY income of about $300 a week but was also caring for my GF because she DIDNT have a job or was full time at uni or whatever, i should have to foot the surport for 2 people without any assistance? Hell if we were 2 seprate people the goverment would GIVE her my income for being unemployed But you have NEVER answered the questions tiassa put about joint investments, visiting rights, power of atorny ect. All those other things that ARNT tax breaks for married couples that are alowed for 2 married people???
Asguard: Doesn't matter. If you aren't married, then you don't have a shared income in the eyes of the U.S. Government (Trust me, I audit them all the time). No, you shouldn't have to. Tell her to get a job. See, that is something that she should do. If she draws unemployment, it's all the better. But she should still get a job. Here we go... Look, gays can do all that shit. It's called a will. If your loving gay butt-buddy doesn't leave a will, he's an idiot. Use a will, it's completely legal (In the U.S. at least).
but a will doesnt let you visit them in hospital as family or sign over medical desisions or make someone your next of ken and B\W it looked like i was going to have to get the dole a while ago and because i was renting with another girl who wasnt my GF i had to fill out a stupid form to say we wernt sleeping together. trust me, the goverment cares wether your living with your partner because that means they can pay you LESS money as a dependent partner but only when it suits them
Asguard: That's a joke, right? I mean, I can walk into a hospital and visit a complete stranger... And once again, with the medical decisions, make a living will. That is your government, not mine.
why should people be forced to go through all these different agencys including the courts (because it takes court action to recive power of atorny), when there is already a document speifically DESIGNED to do the same thing automatically? Its an unfair system to say the least. In simple cost terms how much does it cost for a marrage licence? now how mich does it cost for a court action with proof that you are rational person to make the desision to hand over power of atorny as well as all the other things. so your discriminating baised on the cost of DOING it. why the hell not give them what they want and REMOVE THE TAX BREAK????????? and incress child surport acordingly would you still be against me for that? and you can visit anyone as long as they arnt in intencive care
