Challenge Accepted, Sheetwise (What Democrats Believe)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, I'll use another, more engaging site to exorcise my political leanings and leave this one to you guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you'll find a more engaging site. You may find a more sympathetic site -- so could I. But what would we learn? I think you went a bit over the top a couple of times -- I hoped it was because you were on processing overload. There's really a lot of information in this thread, and I hope you'll re-read it, as I have. The moderator made his comment -- I don't think it was necessary -- I doubt you offended anyone it was directed toward -- not me anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

And from someone with whom I seem to disagree on many a fundamental issue.

(If only I could get the moderator to censor his ass... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img])

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Political discussion without strong or extreme language is discussion between people who agree - or in bedlam.


[/ QUOTE ]

People who cannot discuss politics without resorting to extreme language or behavior have something in their personalities that could definitely use some work.

You DON'T have to accept certain of your limitations (and thinking that one "must" be rude or offensive when discussing politics is just that--a self-imposed limitation. At least, humans are capable of rising above their base emotions through introspection (unlike the animals--and we ARE above the animals...aren't we, Cyrus?))


[ QUOTE ]
What is sad is seeing wrong moves by smart people. I can understand a putzer playing 1. f3 but I will cringe when Kasparov plays it. (Or you )

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway, Cyrus--go on ICC and find Ynot and play him a few games of 3 0 chess. He will play 1.f3 every game, white or black--and unless I'm sorely mistaken, he will kick your uncensored butt all around the chessboard with it. And no, he's not a master. More like a class A player or possibly expert, I would think.

The opening, by the way, has far more merit than one might intuitively presume--he said he's run it on a top program and it came up as a plus.

But don't believe me. Go ahead and try it. And get that silly grin wiped right off your face.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, I am unclear, based on your definition of incest, why gay MARRIAGE justifies incest?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it did.

[ QUOTE ]
Is your claim that legalizing gay marriage causes more people to go gay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say that? And just to be clear, NO.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it possible to create a brightline that allows gay people to marry that does not allow fathers and daughters to marry?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would assume it would be. However, I am saying that the reasons being used to justify legalizing gay marriage are just as appropriately and accurated usable to justify legalizing incest.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that so many big-government republicans want to regulate marriage?

[/ QUOTE ]

So much funny stuff in one sentence. First, big-government is a term normally better used for Democrats. Second, isn't it Democrats that are trying to regulate marriage also?

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, marriage is in the domain of the Church, and the government has no business regulating gay or straight marriages. "Marriage" is a fundamentally religious term, and it seems like it should be up to various churches to decide who can be married and who cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]

To this I somewhat agree. However, you have to understand that marriage is no longer simply a religious institution. It is a legal institution as well, mainly for tax reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
The state should regulate civil unions, but I don't think the state has the right to recognize even straight marriages.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily agree. I think we could get along just fine if the state was not involved with regulating marriage in any way.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

This is pathetic. Are you ashamed by what your leader instigated? And tring to share the blame? Because it was most certainly HIS war - meaning Bush's and his administration's and his Party's and his political following's.

Yes, truly, most of the president's political opponents (along with most of those who agree with him politically but disagree about Iraq) did go along with Bush on Iraq, out of fear of being labeled un-patriotic.

Admittedly a cowardly stance by them, but their cowardly act makes them at best an accomplice. Not the perpetators! The war in Iraq is Bush's war.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. You just don't want to see it that way.



[ QUOTE ]

What you wrote is, in accounting terms, technically correct (a rarity, that! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

As are most of the things I write, whether you like it or not.

[ QUOTE ]
as far as Expenses and Investments go. But the word "spending" was used in the sens of "being wasted". And if you were to look at how widows-and-orphans do in the market you would agree that this kinda "investing" is "spending"!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. Do you know anything about the plan? Have you studied it? Go find the information about the plan, read it, ask someone to explain it to you, then come back and talk about it.

[ QUOTE ]

So?? Are you denying that Wall Street votes and supports overwhelmingly the Republican Party?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Are you denying that Lawyers vote for and support overwhelmingly the Democratic party?

Wall Street support the right because they know that business and the economy are likey to be better off when a Republican is in charge.

[ QUOTE ]
Can't you concede even the glaringly obvious and take it from there ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't you? The fact that you still believe that the UK is Great Britain (apparently Northern Ireland et al are not) and that India wasn't part of the UK says you can't.

[ QUOTE ]

It says that Congress shall not interfere with any kind of religious matters,

[/ QUOTE ]

Where? Where does it say that? All I read was "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion".

[ QUOTE ]
It says that all religions are free to do whatever the hell they want (pun intended) in the United States, without the government interfeing in any way, either pro or con.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, where?

[ QUOTE ]

This is the weakest of your arguments, really -- and that's saying a lot!

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, a baseless (and clearly false) statement.

[ QUOTE ]
The laws do not work like that ("If you don't like our neighborhood, leave!"). The Civil Rights Act and simiular legislation, alo g with its federal enforcement, rammed down the throats of many a racist the equal rights of races in America.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is NOT a Civil Rights issue no matter how badly you want it to be. It's an education issue. The FACT is that the single biggest problem with education is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I know that that don't sit too well with some citizens (such as the White Citizens Council [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) but, again, you gotta learn to live with it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, classic liberal racism. Always bringing race into a discussion for no reason other than to call the Republicans racist. No evidence, no problem.

[ QUOTE ]

Re-read what SammyKidd11 wrote, and learn it by heart:

"States do NOT have a right to throw out the Constitution just because the majority in that particular state choose to hold the Bible in higher authority."

A-men!

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact is, I agree with his point.

[ QUOTE ]
Government is not supposed to interfere with consenting adults who want to commit incest, sodomy, coprophagy, or to the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure what I feel about this statement.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If marriage is going to be a legal institution, it IS the governments business.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct. (Cherish the moment! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I usually am.

[ QUOTE ]
One thing, though: The government is not supposed to impose a tyranny of the majority on the minority in anything that concerns individual rights, such as those mentioned above.

It should be noted, however, what we are witnessing today is a minority (of those eligible to vote) having the gall to impose on the rest of society their ideas on individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shocking that I almost think I might agree with what you wrote here.

[microbet]

Not just to the OP, but to everyone in the world:

Please be less partisan.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's not. You just don't want to see it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. Another devastatingly constructed response. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know anything about [Bush's] plan? Have you studied it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes and no. Will you explain it to me? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you denying that Lawyers vote for and support overwhelmingly the Democratic party?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have something against lawyers now?

Don't forget that you may soon need one! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Where? Where does it say that [Congress shall not interfere with any kind of religious matters]? All I read was "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion".

[/ QUOTE ]
And you do not think that this means the same thing? All you understand is that Congress cannot establish "a national religion"? You truly believe that Congress can start passing legislation that defines rules on religious issues ?



[ QUOTE ]
This is NOT a Civil Rights issue no matter how badly you want it to be. It's an education issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I know. You want to teach the children about Creationism and the 10,000-year-old Earth. How sad.

[ QUOTE ]
The single biggest problem with education is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

[/ QUOTE ]
..Which does not allow the good folks at Kansas to teach about Christ and get children prayin'...

How true.

[Cyrus]

Dear Big Brother,

I'd rather debate with Jaxmike whether or not "the United Kingdom" means the same thing as "Great Britain", than debate with you the merits of the Barnes Opening.

And that's saying a lot.

Regards,

--Cyrus

PS : You wrote "We are above the animals". Perhaps you need to move beyond the chimp cage some time and check out the giraffes.

[MMMMMM]

Well, Cyrus, I abhor the concept of Big Brother with regards to governmental paternalism.

I also strongly support the concept of private property and owners' rights.

This website is privately owned.

If you were to open a private club, you would be entirely within your rights to establish a dress code, or a speech code, to which all patrons would be expected to accede. I view the protocols for civil exchange on this forum as not substantively different, in that they are in keeping with what the owners have made clear is their desire for the conduct of guests.

If you are a guest in someone's house, and they ask you to take off your shoes so as to not track dirt on the carpets, you respectfully comply--or else leave.

I would not be in favor of a law requiring all citizens to take off their shoes upon entering a private residence. But I strongly support the concept that the owners of that house may indeed require such conduct of their guests, at their own discretion.

All in all, Big Brother has nothing to do with what you are complaining about.

When you go out to a fine restaurant, do you expect to be able to put your feet up on the table? If the maitre^d' tells you you can't, do you grouse that he is being "Big Brother"?

[Cyrus]

Dear Resident Cop,

I never implied that this is a matter for the United States Supreme Court. I thought I have already made it clear that this is more than anything a matter of business acumen and the lack thereof.

But that's as far as I go.

Regards,

--Cyrus

PS You are not really a Libertarian. I can tell. Nice disguise, though.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, I still don't see why you object to minimum standards of decorum on a privately owned website.

As far as being a Libertarian: it is only the party under which I am registered. And that because it is the party which I think most closely fits my views. I do not claim it is a perfect match--and in fact I have criticized their platform on a couple of planks (as, I believe, has Kurn).