Dudde

I agree with pretty much everything said by iNow. Perhaps I worded my view poorly too - he didn't release any new information, but he certainly brought a lot more public attention to the documents than they had previously.

It is interesting that the information leaked during the Bush administration, but I'm still wondering about how wise it was for Obama to release the info. I mean sure I wanna know what happened so we can be angry and never let it happen again, but there are a lot of CIA people who were doing their jobs (and not doing anything illegal at the time under the ridiculous G.W wording) who are under a lot of fire to be prosecuted for their actions.

Instead of hitting those guys, I would say take the punishment to the top - if you're gonna start being stupid about trying the interrogators, go for the previous head of the CIA and the former president first - Americans are getting stupid with their taste for throwing everybody in prison for everything (and complaining about how much money we pay about keeping them there)

Now that I finally have a computer all to myself (and a wireless keyboard so I don't have to sit up), I think I'm gonna go with Python and go from there. Honestly I'll probably try to pick it up in the next couple days, right after I try to get another HDD to throw another operating system on!

Apart from the fact that it'd remove the states power to discriminate, and thus fix alot of problems.

I understand where you two are coming from, I do, really. I simply think that taking marriage away from the states is both infeasible and unnecessary. Marriage licenses give a lot of couples rights that make their lives invariably easier and I don't think abolishing marriage by the state is going to help, I seriously doubt it will make anything better.

not to mention you're essentially telling the states to support and provide allowances for something that is not part of the law, but should be allowed special circumstances because two people like each other. I see every 2-week relationship trying to apply for these rights, and that's a ridiculous amount of paperwork to ask anybody to sort through

You too. I think we probably both have the same views on this -- i.e., the way i'd actually do it is to remove the need for the state to approve of marriage -- if any people want to register as married they can, at which point any accomodations that need to be made by the state (right to make medical desizisions if you're incapasitated, inheritance law, etc) are made. end of problem.

...What? This is the same point that I'm arguing for, except I completely doubt that the states would acknowledge something like that unless there were laws inferring rights to do so. Like marriage. The reason we have laws to let people to do things like make medical decisions is for the benefit of the couple, as well as for the care providers (legal documentation for them releasing patients, things like that)

I know we're all for getting rid of marriage at the state level and recognizing Civil Unions or whatnot, but let's face it:

1. There's no reason to do that

and

2. This will never happen

This isn't necessarily related completely to the OP, but fairly interesting for a few posting on this topic, and since we're discussing it anyway:

CNN

Apparently some GOP members are pushing for members of their affiliated party to drop the arguments against Same Sex marriages.

Schmidt told CNN that the GOP must become more open if it wants to reverse a shrinking coalition, especially among younger, more accepting voters.

 

"People are turned off in large measure by what they see as intolerance coming out of the party," he said.

"One of the things that has definitely impacted my views on these issues and an evolution of thought over time is having a gay sibling," Schmidt told CNN. "As Americans get to know gay couples and or have gay family members, or work associates ... they come to understand that these relationships are deep and worth being respect and being protected."

I'm kind of questioning that second one after hearing the first one

Yes you are. You're trying to define marriage with the limitation of two people. You're proposing a definition that is codified with prejudice. They're already suffering right now, and now you're going to liberate one group while maintaining the oppression of the other. And I'm supposed to support that? In America? In the 21st century of enlightenment?

~~~~

In other words, it requires someone to make a reasonable argument instead of relying on specious appeals to "stupidity" - by just pointing at it.

I personally don't give a damn what the polygamists do, let them get married - I think we've established before that the reason we don't let multiples get married is to make it easier in legalities, as well as it being against most peoples' opinion. If you want to start a thread and a movement to help get polygamists their free right to marry legally, more power to you sir - hell if you throw some good reasons out there, I'd probably jump in and help argue the point with you.

But this thread isn't about polygamy. Your counter-argument about my oppressing more than two-party marriages was either meant to sound like a 9 year old, or just came off that way to me - doubtful, since I usually associate credibility with your posts.

I probably quoted the lesser of the posts I found a joke by Mr. Skeptic, which I'll be happy to rectify:

We call men men, women women, blacks blacks, whites whites, etc, none of which implies discrimination.

which pretty much states that the definition of marriage is one man, one woman, and has been pretty much throughout history. I disagree. People of different gender and different race are TOTALLY different, some are lighter, some darker, some have a weakness to being kicked between the legs while others do the kicking between the legs. They're all physical, fundamental, actual differences. A marriage, if defined as a union between two people, or more than two people if you will, doesn't exclude same sex couples. Once you start breaking down from there, you're denying something based on arbitrary tastes of a certain group.

Anyway, why start another same sex marriage thread. As I originally stated about the OP, I like it, I think it's a good step in the right direction - I'm not necessarily satisfied as keeping it as an end result, but I like the way it's going.

Does anyone really think Texas couldn't make it on their own? Really?

I highly doubt it - the states are too interdependent on each other in the current system -

that isn't the issue at hand though. The problem I have with them seceding is that it's completely ridiculous, it wouldn't accomplish anything that they're trying to accomplish by doing so, and would make things quite a bit different for those who didn't want the secession in the first place

Polygamy is not the issue at hand, nobody is saying anything for or against polygamy, and I doubt it needs to be addressed with this certain issue.

What is ridiculous and irrelevant about pointing out inconsistency in language when we're arguing about consistency in language?

Because it's a way of downplaying the entire argument, which is fine, by saying "hey the stuff that we call stuff is all stuff" - a method of which I don't appreciate, because I don't see marriages as being mandatorily between a man and a woman, and I doubt it's been defined like that throughout history, thus almost comparing apples to oranges

We call men men and women women simply because of their genitals. Why does no one have a problem with this, but suddenly couples must be called the same regardless of their genitals?

It's awesome how you resort to ridiculousness and irrelevency, thanks!

...

Anyway, it really comes down to where our different definitions come into play, my definition says 'a union between two people' is a marriage, and I don't think they specified a 'man and a woman' until after people started being threatened in their ideology by homosexuality. I haven't researched the origin of the word so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, credibly if possible.

It's funny how our sensationalist news covers the annoying parts of this topic - I really have to ask though, were there really protesters standing around chanting "secede" - even at the rally where Mr. Rick Perry was speaking? That would be awesome, I wonder if they know what'll happen to their tax rates when Texas becomes it's own... whatever it thinks it'll be able to survive as.

It seems to me that the conservative Governor down south is playing the crowds to help keep him a career politician, one of those parts of government that I agree has clearly become excessively large

To be fair to Scrappy at this one, he has cited several times (in several threads) that he's for equal rights between same sex and hetero- marriages, just against using the term marriage.

I'm still more on the other side on this one, I believe discrimination of any kind is unacceptable in the world we live in today - we're a lot more different than we were even 30 years ago. However, I'm also for taking steps, as opposed to a front of changes washing over the people - I doubt that will ever happen.

Then again, if the GLBT community wasn't pushing anything at the rest of the country as so many people are upset about, they would be exactly where they've been, and that's just stupid. Even with the legislation granting them equal status, I think the next step should be to ask why they're letting these groups have a marriage in all but name - I don't think settling for a name anything less than what the rest of the world uses should be forced on anyone.

EDIT:

oh, and this

whilst other people get the edge taken off of it by calling it a different name. Everybody wins.

I don't think I'll ever to agree with however. That would be absolutely ridiculous, it's like saying as long as you submit to the fact that you agree you're inferior, we'll give you rights because we're that nice. It doesn't work that way - if one group of people get's a set of rights simply for being alive, I see no excuses for denying anyone else.

Once you knew about the new process saving tons of money and meaning a better quality of life in the long run, wouldn't the jobs now seem like wasted time and money?

I don't think I necessarily see it as a waste of time an money, we have to progress from somewhere, after all. It's just that after we identify the more efficient way, we should go there - I think that's where our system is breaking down.

To be off topic, I love milk with cake

and to be back on topic again, I still think I'd be willing to sacrifice a few extra bucks to throw some more money to work with into those departments that need it - I honestly believe somehow that I didn't pay enough taxes last year

No, you're missing his point. He's saying that everything we spend money on has a good reason for it, to somebody. And the problem Obama is going to have is that we have to cut spending, which means, we're going to have to cut funding on things in which there's a good reason for it, to somebody.

I'm not missing the point, I understand completely. Forgive me, blame the upbringing if you want - but I see educating the United States as something that should take second place to national defense and almost nothing else should be put in front of it. It's not just a good reason in my opinion, it's a pretty essential part of keeping our position in the world, especially when we're already falling so ridiculously far behind.

for the record, I'm completely aware of the fact that we need power, electricity, transportation, food, water, warmth, all that stuff - don't throw out something stupid like "if we spend all our money on school then how will we eat!??!1/!@"

And you two have just perfectly demonstrated my point. Yes, we need to cut spending, but oh no, not that spending, why that's just a logical expansion of spending that should have been there in the first place!

I didn't say we should cut anything - do you really think it's acceptable for us to be, quite literally, a 'stupid' country? I can't find 10 teenagers in walking distance of me who can hold a conversation to save their lives - it's disgusting. I find out level of education unacceptable to the highest degree

I'm also not one of the whiney "oh I refuse to pay taxes this is stupid" - I've already expressed my opinion that I'd be willing to pay greater tax percentages to have more money going to the causes I believe in - but me alone with my measley 5K a year in taxes isn't going to ding the necessary funding

I don't really see the expansion of education to be something bad, nor is it really expanding, just finally catching up to where it should have been in the first place.

I grew up in Washington state for almost 20 years, I'm glad to see they're taking steps in the right direction - I still think its stupid that people are so offended, and even more so that they're offended by thinking of them as 'marriages' - but the progress is sweet.

Personally, it's probably too early to start another Same Sex marriage thread though

And I guess it kind of depends on how serious the person is into religion - I happen to know some very religious people of whom I would consider exceptionally intelligent - albeit they don't usually abide by orthodox bible teachings, preferring just to believe, instead of believing in x - the same works here with vice versa -

sexuality

does higher IQ make people more open to homosexuality? does it effect their veiws at all?

I think I've seen some graphs around somewhere that seemed to indicate that with a higher level of education came a higher tolerance of minor things, like homosexuality. I think looking at the intelligence average of communities where people grow up would be a better factor of this one however

racisum

does IQ have effect on peoples veiws on racisum?

I may be blatantly ignorant, but I'm going to say yes to this one. At least for the majority.

how there imagination works, does a hi IQ make you less fantasy-related inaginitive?

I usually score relatively well on things like IQ tests and stupid things like that, and I consider myself fairly imaginative. Keeping in mind I attended an art college, I don't think a high or low IQ would necessarily indicate unimaginitve-ness. Besides, creative thinking helps relieve the brain stress

how they talk?

could it effect weather they use slang, or perhaps there accents?

I don't think so - I mean, it might for some people, but slang isn't something you use because you're uneducated, it's because proper grammar and english (or German, or French, etc.) is so structured and boring, we have to mix it up to keep things interesting. I think this board has PLENTY of evidence for that

Do you have a fundamental problem with this?

They didn't see any problem with crying to the government when they ran out of money, I think it's the responsibility of those handing out the cash to help regulate so they don't have to give out so much again?

don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily want the government controlling everything, but I think a certain degree of overhead is necessary at this certain point in time...

It's kind of funny, but not really, that the pirates tried to attack a second U.S ship too, but luckily failed to get onboard.

CNN

The annoying part is that they keep attacking ships that have supplies for Africa that we're sending over, I would think that the people in Africa would get mad and try to put a stop to this, but then again, they probably don't have a lot of ways to get news around

That's pretty ridiculous - sure it's cool to call out the federal expansion, but stated above, it was a republican who did most of the expanding...one from texas?

In my opinion, republicans in the government are acting like children, I don't see how they stayed in power in the first place, but I'm hoping we keep them out of office long enough to fix it up a bit

Indeed that is correct! and I don't drink 95% as a joke, I drink it because otherwise it takes a stupid liter of something else to get the desired affect - which is bad for you! That gets expensive, and everclear is only 16-20 bucks.

I agree with the fact that the other chemicals are a huge cause for the hangover, but I've drank some vodka and some Rum in the last 6 months too without feeling sick, but then again, body chemistry and genes can probably have an effect on that too...

for the sake of fairness, I'll restate my original statement - drinking a lot of water while I'm drinking will almost always keep me from getting a hangover, and I know a few others it helps too

The pirates seem a little upset:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/13/somalia.pirates.revenge/

 

 

 

Though honestly, I think it's just bravado. Hostages are the only thing that keeps pirates alive - all they learned is that this isn't a guarantee. I have to admit it's hard to understand how pirates of all people could fail to grasp that "when you point guns at people you may die" and getting all broken up about it is pointless. Talk about an entitlement complex.

Hey, you link stealer! Wait maybe I didn't post that I don't remember..I could scroll up, but I don't think I'm gonna. I doubt the pirates will get many more chances to play with American hostages after this, especially since the armed forces are considering taking to the shoreline to help put a stop to it there:

CNN says

I thought Obama did a great job handling this. No Bush-style granstanding, trying to take credit for what the Navy Seals did, although behind the scenes Obama was instrumental. Once it was dealt with, he went straight back to working on the economy.

I agree completely with this - while the scenario was unfolding, I actually was predicting the captain dying while communications went sour, or during an attempt to just bash in on the pirates like at night (toss a flashbang up at 0200 and have 4 SEALs pop out of the water to finish up)

that said, I think the final outcome was a pretty big relief for a huge number of people, I doubt anybody expected something remotely like this

I think that's the first time I've ever been accused of NOT drinking or trying to destroy my liver... I mean we're talking about like 10 shots of EC in around 90 minutes? Whatever you're drinking, have a glass of water on the side, "not really drinking" or not, I've been drunk 5 or 6 hours into the next day without that headache/stomache thing

:c ???

I don't have any idea where that thought sprang from, though completely irrelevant and probably not the best comparison to make. He just means because the sig is much larger and a different color than the rest of the post -therefore detracting attention from what you're saying

having a VR helmet would be pretty sweet though, I would definitely use it for the forces of evil =D