PDA

View Full Version : Tax analogy.



Slysc
03-02-2004, 12:27 PM
:)

MIKE 38sc
03-02-2004, 01:04 PM
That does'nt make any sense and makes for fun conversation on campus but its not really true. I've never gotten a free meal anywhere of any kind and I'm far from rich, hell I'm not even middle class anymore. By the way theres alot of wealthy people who live offshore just to beat tax's. Check out the wealthy air to the Cambell soup fortune, he belongs to just such a group.

Slysc
03-02-2004, 02:26 PM
Smiley faces don't always make sense.
But they're contagous.:D

92TBurnSC
03-02-2004, 03:48 PM
Well, to help people understand the "tax cuts for the rich" statement, allow me to explain a few things.

1. Everybody knew I was going to reply to this. :p

2. This analogy cheapens the way taxes are ACTUALLY levied. For example, the first tax bracket is, for example 0-$30k which is taxed at 0%. Keep in mind I am making these numbers up...but I am trying to be as accurate as possible. Then, the next bracket is 31-60k which is taxed at 10%. Then 61-90k at 20%. Then 91-120k at 25%. Then 121+ at 33%. So, lets look at someone making 60k (which is considered middle class) and someone who is making 250k. Now most of you are thinking the middle class guy is paying 10% of 60k and the rich guy is maying 33% of 250k. How unfair! How untrue. Let's look at numbers...

Middle class guy:
Incorrect tax: $6,000
Correct tax: $3,000

He pays 0% on the first 30k of his income. Then he pays 10% on the latter 30k of his income. Now for the rich guy...

Rich guy:
Incorrect tax: $82,500
Correct tax: $59,820

His first 30k isn't taxed, his second 30k is taxed at 10%, the next at 20%, the next at 25% and the remaining balance at 33%. Now, let's make a "tax cut for everybody" at 3 percentage points per bracket. New system:

0-30: still 0%
31-60: 7%
61-90: 17%
91-120: 22%
121+: 30%

Now let's recalculate.

Middle class guy:
Paid: $3,000
Now pays: $2,100
Savings: $900
Average savings per paycheck: $34.62

Rich guy:
Paid: $59,820
Now pays: $52, 500
Savings: $7,320
Average savings per paycheck: $281.54

Now, considering that these numbers are just an example, let's make the comparison to who gets the REAL benefit. To a person with a family of 4 (spouse and 3 kids), and extra $34.62 every 2 weeks...makes little difference. Hardly helps pay for gas. For the rich guy with same family, considering he's doing well in the first place, that $281.54 is just gravy. Yeah, he MIGHT spend it (as is the basic theory of Reaganomics), but studies show that the richer you are the more money you put away. Most rich people not only put this money away...but put it away where our government can't touch nor tax it.

Benefit to society: 0

That's a more accurate perspective.

Slysc
03-02-2004, 04:34 PM
Can't a guy smile without getting bashed?:)

What's all the hostility about?:) :)

92TBurnSC
03-02-2004, 08:44 PM
There are 2 things relative to this conversation that I can't stand.

1. Rich people who live in $3Million homes and drive Bimmers and complain that they pay too much tax. You make enough money to be able to afford it, spend exorbitant amounts of money, and still save enough to pass a large fortune to your next of kin. Quit yer whinin'. Most people who make this kind of money usually don't get there on the up and up. Just be quiet and finish being rich.

2. People who think taxes are 100% frittered away on useless stuff. To say NONE of it is would be naive. But a lot of good can come from it. Better trained police and firemen, better environmental quality (provided we dont have an oil baron in office), assistance to those in need to get back on their feet and rejoin the productive elements of society, et cetera. Relying on the private sector to help the economy is like relying on a known burglar to protect your home.

1BADSC
03-02-2004, 09:00 PM
The current tax system is a joke. There needs to be a flat tax for everyone rich or poor. Or they could simply eliminate all taxes and only tax spending, not earnings.

They also need to eliminate the death tax and inheritance tax. The rich suffer horribly in this area. Any estate over 1 million dollars left to family is taxed at close to 55%. So if I leave my child 1,000,005 dollars they will only get around 500,000 after the government rapes them to feed those who refuse to work, and to fund useless entitlement programs. So don't try to say that the rich get all the breaks because you have no idea.

XR7Kurt
03-02-2004, 09:35 PM
Most people who make this kind of money usually don't get there on the up and up

If you are a lot richer than I am should I feel this about you? Or is there some standard in the socialist handbook about how much someone can make honestly

Kurt

1BADSC
03-02-2004, 09:44 PM
well the socialist... i mean democratic party would love to take everyone's money for themselves, keep the poor down, toss them scraps, and have them beggin like dogs for more entitlement programs to be handed down to them.

92TBurnSC
03-03-2004, 12:27 PM
XR7Kurt: For one, if you are poorer than me...I feel for you. Heh. Working to put one's self through college means ultra broke. And two, how many ultra rich people do you hear being praised for their ethics? Excluding actors and such...they just step on other actor's toes. But thinking back I can only think of one, Sam Johnson, owner of SC Johnson Wax. He's a good fella. I met his son, though. He's a prick if there ever was one.

1BADSC: The problem with the flat tax is that you will be doing the same thing as Bush's tax cuts. You will have to find a middle ground percentage which will raise taxes for the poor (which is something they don't need) and lower taxes for the rich (which is something they don't need). Taxing spending, once again, is a swing and a miss. It will once again be a HUGE cut for the rich (who spend about 40% of their income, assuming) and a HUGE increase for the poor (who spend, on average, 102% of their income according to recent statistics). The law says taxes must be levied FAIRLY. Both a flat tax and a spending tax would negate that. Yes, rich people spend more than poor people, but they also make a lot more than they spend. And, frankly, if the rich want to whine about how much they get taxed, tell them I'll gladly trade places with them. I will gladly take over their fortune and pay their taxes, and they can take over my debt and live tax free forever.

Subsequently, I notice you must be reading a lot of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity...you know...those crazy conservatives who call liberals "un-American" and say "liberals hate America" and such...just because we disagree with our president and speak out against him...which is the most American thing you could possibly do. Not to mention it doesn't kill our troops and/or civilians of other third world nations. And considering that the number of people in poverty always decreases under Democratic leadership...yeah...I would say we like to keep the poor poor. I mean, ALL rich fat cats are Democrats and LOVE to make the poor suffer. It makes for good entertainment, don'tcha know. And what are these entitlement programs and such that our taxes go to pay for? Well, let's take a look...

Military support, welfare (because people DO fall on hard times), unemployment (because Republicans have a tendancy to cause job losses), schools (which Republicans have implemented a lousy program to guide...and then underfunded it by 7 mil), highway maintenence (so you can drive your SC cross country), job training (to keep up with the ever changing job market), medical research (as long as it's not "immoral" stem cell research...which has the potential to cure just about the remainder of diseases on this planet though harm to no one and nothing), social awareness education (at least moreso under Democrats, under Republicans this usually amounts to nothing more than "kids...don't have sex until you're married. It's bad, mmkay?"), and, in general, protecting the freedom and way of life of our country.

And a few closing comments:
1. Bush and the Republican congress DID eliminate the so-called death tax, even though Democrats (namely Russ Feingold, D-WI)were willing to raise the bar to $8million to protect "family farms" which the Republicans were so worried about. Republicans rejected this and went ahead with repealing the ESTATE tax...you know...to protect all the family farms worth $8million or more...which there are none. So, it's official, the rich DO get all the breaks. Now all they have to do is just hurry up and die to take advantage of it.
2. This "socialist" name calling is uncalled for. If it continues I will just start using the term "fascist" to refer to conservatives. Childish, yes, but perhaps this could be seen as an ultimatum to refrain from name calling.
3. Why did the original post disappear, Sly?

1BADSC
03-03-2004, 09:22 PM
I dislike liberals because they are our for themselves only. At one point a long time ago they might have had a good idea, but not any more. They can't even take a stand on anything. Then you have John Kerry flipping back and forth like an idiot. (another thing liberals love to do is the flip flop) John Kerry "If i was in offfice I would have sent troops to Hati on the double to help them out, no matter what. The things they faced down there were so horrible! Reply, ummm, Mr. Kerry I thought you said we should go through the UN for everything especially when it involves sending troops...... Kerry, ummmm, that is different. Yeah, whats different is that Liberals could gain more black votes by helping the Hatians, where there were no votes to win by helping the Iraqi's. Even though the people of Iraq have suffered hundreds of thousands of deaths.




Back to the taxes. Taxing everyone the same percent is the absolute best way and only fair way to tax people. You cannot argue with %. 10% is 10%, doesnt matter if it is out of 20,000 or 20,000. Everyone would be paying 10% of their income. Also having nothing but a tax on our spending would work very well. Check out www.fairtax.org

MIKE 38sc
03-03-2004, 09:39 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

XR7JAKE
03-03-2004, 09:48 PM
92TBurnSC,
Why is it that you know so much but you have so little. Your tax example is total B.S.

1BADSC
03-03-2004, 09:52 PM
And 92TBURN the reason the number of homeless and poor goes down when liberals are in office is because they raise taxes through the roof and tax the hell out of everyone so that they can pay for people who are too lazy to get a job. They think that they can jump start economic recovery by raising taxes. Business are even fleeing NYC and are headed to the NJ shores because they are being taxed out the wazoo, nice going Hilary.

MIKE 38sc
03-03-2004, 09:55 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

92TBurnSC
03-03-2004, 11:01 PM
XR7JAKE: I have so little because I am a college student putting myself through college. My parents would LOVE to help me out, but Bush gave them their own set of financial problems to worry about. By the way, what was BS about my example? I could give look up the actual brackets and percentages if you want more accuracy, but the message would still be the same.

1BADSC: A few things...

1. EVERYBODY flip flops. Especially Bush. He said he wouldn't touch the oil reserves in Alaskan wildlife refuges...he did (thank God it got shot down...with much thanks to Kerry), he said that he would help schools with No Child Left Behind...which is the same as his Texas Miracle program during his gubernatorial term, if you look, Texas schools are rated among the worst...AND he said he would help provide schools with the necessary resources to succeed...and then cut NCLB by (corrected figure) $9 billion. He also said that he would not run us into debt...and here we are with a deficit that is already the largest in American history but is also projected to pass $1 Trillion in the next 10 years if trends continue. If Kerry wants to get screwed up with questions of consulting the UN or not...fine...it doesn't screw me, my kids, my friends and the very fabric of our nation. Oh, and the Iraq thing, Osama (a Saudi hiding in Afghanistan) kills 3,000 innocent Americans. What does Bush do in retaliation? Kills, at last count, 10,081 innocent Iraqi civilians. Good call. Democratic flip flops don't kill people. And before you pull an Ann Coulter and wave the "liberals are un-American" flag, remember, Bush LIED to put us at war in Iraq. If we had gone through the UN and respected the world consensus that the inspectors should complete their jobs, we wouldn't be having this discussion, we would have 500 more living soldiers, and the world would not despise us.

2. Homeless people ENJOY being homeless? Is THAT what you think? They don't WANT to get a job?? Well, let's toss some numbers out here. In the most recent survey I could find, 40% of the American homeless population is comprised of CHILDREN. Not minors...CHILDREN (which are considered to be under the age of 12). 38% of people seeking monetary assistance from the government ARE EMPLOYED. In NO city is minimum wage able to pay for a single bedroom apartment at fair market price. 23% of the homeless population are considered mentally ill. 16% of emergency food assistance requests are unable to be met. And the Department of Veterans Affairs estimates (they say conservatively) that 25% of the homeless male population are VETERANS OF OUR ARMED SERVICES.

That's a couple things to chew on. Anything else?

1BADSC
03-03-2004, 11:09 PM
The UN is the biggest joke in the World. Saddam violated every sanction that was imposed on him the UN did nothing. The UN was being paid well by Saddam, and France and Germany were making a lot off of him as well. It doesn't even matter if there are WMD's Saddam butchered by the hundred thousands without the UN doing anything to stop it. Bush did what was the right thing to do. If Gore were in office we would still have terrorist attacks all over the place. World Wide Terrorsim has dropped tremendously thanks to us.


Name one reason to Vote for a liberal. They can't even come up with any reasons themselves other than if you vote for us we will get rid of Bush. They never have a plan, all they can do is tell you why to not vote for the other guy. I am just glad that Liberals are losing ground quickly in this country. Thank God, we might get some morals back into this country.

XR7 Dave
03-04-2004, 12:04 AM
Thank God, we might get some morals back into this country. If you are suggesting that government does or should have anything to do with the morality of its citizens, then you are suggesting a facist government. 1BadSC, do yourself a favor and try not to talk yourself in circles.

thundersc
03-04-2004, 12:22 AM
Your Federal Income Tax
for individuals
Publication 17
catalog number 10311G

(a must for all tax breaks)

316 pages of need to know info:

Hobby Expenses (pg 211)
You can generally deduct hobby expenses, but only up to the amount of hobby income. A hobby is not a business because it is not carried on to make a profit. (see activity not for profit)

Activity not for profit (pg 98). You must include on your return income from an activity from which you do not expect to make a profit. An example of this type of activity is a hobby or a farm you operate mostly for recreation and pleasure. Enter this income on line 21 of form 1040. Decuctions for expenses related to the activity are limited. They cannot total more than the income you report and can be taken only if you itemize deductions on Schedule A (form 1040).


-You can bitch all you want and use EZ1040 form and get screwed or teach yourself and use every tax break known to man and get big money back, because H&R block will not help you..


I like this one (pg 99)
ILLEGAL INCOME. Illegal icome, such as stolen or embezzled funds, must be included in your income on line 21 of Form 1040, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity. -YA RIGHT :D

92TBurnSC
03-04-2004, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by 1BADSC
The UN is the biggest joke in the World. Saddam violated every sanction that was imposed on him the UN did nothing. The UN was being paid well by Saddam, and France and Germany were making a lot off of him as well. It doesn't even matter if there are WMD's Saddam butchered by the hundred thousands without the UN doing anything to stop it. Bush did what was the right thing to do. If Gore were in office we would still have terrorist attacks all over the place. World Wide Terrorsim has dropped tremendously thanks to us.


Name one reason to Vote for a liberal. They can't even come up with any reasons themselves other than if you vote for us we will get rid of Bush. They never have a plan, all they can do is tell you why to not vote for the other guy. I am just glad that Liberals are losing ground quickly in this country. Thank God, we might get some morals back into this country.

Please post proof of these claims. These are pretty outlandish here. And XR7 Dave has a point as well.

David Neibert
03-04-2004, 12:40 AM
I have so little because I am a college student putting myself through college.

That explains a lot.....you have much to learn about what rich people do with their money and how they got it. All the ones I've met, spend most of their energy trying to figure out ways to keep the wealth they have worked so hard to accumulate.

I don't blame them, and I agree with 1BadSC that it isn't fair that they should pay a higher percentage of their income just because they earn more.

I went to high school with a bunch of good students and several a-holes that did nothing but disrupt class and sleep at their desk. I'm sure that many of these hard working students went on to college and are now sucessful people earning 6 figures. I'm also sure that those losers ended up in jobs that required little or no education and are most likely in one of the lower tax brackets if they even have jobs.

So please tell me why these lower income people should get a tax break at the expense of the people who earn more. And don't say because the rich can afford it...because that isn't fair.

David

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 12:47 AM
Yes the gov should be role model for its citizens, like upholding the law and not allowing gay marriages. Or not getting oral copulation in the oval office and lying point blank to the public. What does that teach our children. Public figures need to set good examples of morality.

Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the panel, opened their remarks by saying that Iraq has failed to comply with UNSCR 1441 and that it is in material breach of the terms of the resolution. Iraq has failed the tests set out in [UNSCR] 1441." Iraq's failure to fully comply with current U.N. resolutions and on weapons of mass destruction that have not been accounted for by inspectors or the Iraqi declaration.

That is just one part of it. Saddam had to prove that he destroyed the weapons, he could not provide proof that they were destroyed. In fact quite a few are un accounted for, and that is more scary than him having them.




Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,


Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,


Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,


Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,


Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,



There is plenty more if you want more. Like he murdered hundreds of thousands of people just for giggles. How about we role a few tanks into your home town and start butchering people and you tell me if you want someone to come and help you. Bottom line, the UN refused to take action to enforce the regulations they put in place. So we along with a massive coalition of countries went to war in order to save the Iraqi citizens, de throne Saddam, and protect ourselves. But I bet we should have just taken Sean Penns advice when he went over and said everything was ok. pft. lol.

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 12:58 AM
Blix said Iraq was unable to account for its cache of VX poison gas or its stockpile of anthrax. The VX gas, Blix told the panel, appeared to have been "weaponized." In addition there were concerned about the fate of VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq told inspectors were lost in the Gulf War bombing or destroyed by Iraq.

Iraq declared that it had destroyed its store of 8,500 liters of anthrax in 1991, but Blix said no "convincing evidence" existed of its destruction.


29,984 Chemical Warheads Missing


Full list of coalition countries:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.



Oh but I guess that is just more of Bushes "Go it alone foreign policy that Nancy Palossi was talking about.

MIKE 38sc
03-04-2004, 01:45 AM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 01:47 AM
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

92TBurnSC
03-04-2004, 01:57 AM
And that means that every one of those countries is equally involved in the effort? We have 130,000 troops in Iraq. Who ranks #2? Britain, of course...with 7,400. They have less than 10% of the troops that we have there and they're our BIGGEST backer! That's a pretty lousy showing. And then remember...we have killed more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians. Not military personnel. Not "terrorists." Civilians. Now, let's reverse roles here. Let's say we are under the rule of President X. President X has oppressed us for years. Here comes Iraq, the cowboy country and marches through our country taking it over city by city. They lied to the world to get here. They killed a couple million of us and called it "collateral damage." I say a couple million because we have to keep the percentages on the level. How welcome would THEY be if they decided to start pulling out when the ***** started hitting the fan? It doesn't add up.

As far as morality, we should NOT teach morality. We should teach ETHICS...but not morality. These are two different things. Morality is too subjective and nobody would agree. For one instance...the gay marriage issue you brought up. WHY oh why should our constitution promote hatred? This is exactly what it is. Gay citizens are citizens too. They are entitled to the same BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS as the rest of us. So...are the morals you are wanting to teach your kin discrimination, hatred and intolerance? Apparently. The constitution should PROTECT rights...not take them away. The last ime the Constitution took away rights was prohibition in 1920...and we all know how THAT turned out.

And do you know WHY Blix couldn't find that stuff? Well, let's ask him.

Me: Hey Hans, why couldn't you find anything over there?

Blix: "I was undermined."

This quote is taken in context directly from the news. I'll come clean though...I've never spoken to the man myself.

Now...let's not let this become misconstrued to sound like I wanted Saddam to say...because that's what conservatives tend to think about liberals. I'm just can't stand it when my president lies to me. I didn't like it when Clinton did it, and I didn't like it when Bush did it. Especially when 500 of our servicepeople died for a lie.


I'm also sure that those losers ended up in jobs that required little or no education and are most likely in one of the lower tax brackets if they even have jobs.

This is Bush...except he is filthy stinking rich.

But to be more substansive, why should richer people be taxed at higher rates? In all technicality...they don't. Hear me out here. Remember when I explained the intricises of our tax bracket system? Well, allow me to reiterate. Let's assume 2 brackets in order to keep this short. Person A makes $50k per year. Person B makes $250k per year. The brackets are 0-50k: 15%. 50+k: 25%. Person A is taxed at 15% of his entire income. Person B is taxed 15% on the first 50k of his income (just like Person A) and then 25% on the remainder. So everyone is, in all reality, on a level playing field...just some people have bigger fields than others. So why SHOULD they pay the extra? Because, considering what taxes are used for, this is what socially responsible people do.

MIKE 38sc
03-04-2004, 02:01 AM
EDIT:

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 02:13 AM
The only people who have pulled out have been the weak U.N. and the Red Cross. Contrary to what the media shows most of the time, the Iraqi's are overjoyed to be rid of Saddam.

And our constitution prohibits gay marriage. Being gay leads to the destruction of society. The most basic function of marraige to procreate the human race. In case you missed any bio classes, that can only happen between a man and a Woman. And yes, I will teach my children that being immoral and that gay is wrong and according to GOD is an abomintaion punishable by death. I will also teach them that it is morally wrong to lie, cheat, rob, you name it. That is what is wrong with this country the new generation of kids have no respect and no moral values because no one expects it any more. We can't take a stand on anything because it might hurt someones feelings.

MIKE 38sc
03-04-2004, 02:13 AM
:D

MIKE 38sc
03-04-2004, 02:16 AM
Wheres Bean laden? HUH?

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 02:22 AM
probably dead in a hole. Where he belongs. Remember how that backfired on the Democraps when they kept saying "why haven't we caught Saddam yet, the whole mission is a failure, we need more troops on the ground" meanwhile we took the whole country in matter of weeks, Saddam was captured, and other countries are so afraid of democracy in the Middle east that terrorists are pouring in from all over to try and weaken our resolve. And I see that is has worked on a few of you as well. Maybe we need a few more deadly attacks on our home soil for you to wake up and realize why we are there.

MIKE 38sc
03-04-2004, 02:28 AM
:)

XR7JAKE
03-04-2004, 02:29 AM
92TBurnSC,
If your tax numbers are correct than why if you won a million dollars in the lottery would you only get about 550k after taxes??? Why is it that everyone I know that makes over $500,000 a year pays more than 40% to taxes?? As for the poor, they do get a free meal like in the original post. It is called EARNED INCOME CREDIT. A person who is head of household can actually get back more than they paid in over the year. A friend of mine who took a part time job to get started in a new line of work paid in only $1100.00 & is getting back almost $3,000.00. Tell me that is not a free meal. Some of my tax dollars are going back to him. Good for him, at least it is not going to some loser that is standing there waiting for a hand out. I myself don't complain about paying the taxes. If I want to keep 500k I just need to earn a million. I am sorry Bush fired your father( yeah that happened) Go find another job. You really need to stop believing everything you read on the internet. i can start a website, make it look official & post all kinds of false statistics. You go right ahead, be a good sheep and follow the rest off the cliff. The only one I here whining is you because you are poor. poor me poor me poor me another drink.

MIKE 38sc
03-04-2004, 02:30 AM
:D

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 02:32 AM
Why don't all you Democrats just volunteer now and pay double whatever your taxes are now. That way it will feel just like a democrat was in office.

That is a typical democrat response mike. don't give any reasons to vote democrat, just bash the competition. lol

MIKE 38sc
03-04-2004, 02:33 AM
:) Suck on this.

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 02:37 AM
Thank you for proving my point to a "T" Mike.

MIKE 38sc
03-04-2004, 02:40 AM
:) You're welcome!

SUMFEAR
03-04-2004, 03:21 AM
:p

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 11:18 AM
Mike if you tree hugging democrats keep getting your way there will never be any new roads built. Look at CA, they have the most conjestion in the world and because of the tree huggers, they refuse to build any new highways. They are despratley needed, since they have no built any new highways out there since the 60's, and the traffic has more than trippled.


So I think the roads will be too few.

lowflying90
03-04-2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by SUMFEAR
Our schools are not under funded the money never makes it to the classroom. The administrators are getting paid way too much.

Who are you to determine who gets paid too much? I highly doubt that a rich facist republican has ever gotten paid more than they deserve to get to where they are today, weather it be in money, benefits, stock options, etc. :confused:


Jeff

oh yea.....

If one single person in your family, at one point in time, was rich....... does that give someone the right to live off their "daddy's" wealth, inheritance, etc. and be a waste to society? Or is that one of the blood is thicker than water things? Why not make everyone accountable for their own success, and tax inheritance 100%, eliminate lottery's, and make everyone work for what they have if that is the case?:D haha

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 12:40 PM
hey Jeff how much of the Heinz fortune of a 1/4 trillion dollars do you think Kerry is willing to part with. And you don't want to bring up his scetchy military service.

lowflying90
03-04-2004, 12:57 PM
the comment about inheritance was food for thought.......why can't a poor person on the street get a "handout" when some rich boy can get one from his daddy.

i'm sure he's willing to part with some of that fortune by paying the big tax increases he's promoting. :D

sketchy military service............must be talking about bush again. haha

Jeff

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 01:03 PM
NO i am talking about Kerry. And the poor street guy can't get a handout because he didn't work for it. The little rich kids dad worked hard his entire life and built up wealth for his family and left his children the money or business he worked hard for. He didn't just go into the street and day please help me. It is those kind of ideas that are going to keep you poor Jeff if you are waiting around on someone to hand it to you.

Randy N Connie
03-04-2004, 01:19 PM
1 BAD SC QUOTE
Maybe we need a few more deadly attacks on our home soil for you to wake up and realize why we are there.


I think a good spot to do a deadly attact ,Would be DOVER,DE.

Randy

lowflying90
03-04-2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Randy N Connie

I think a good spot to do a deadly attact ,Would be DOVER,DE.

Randy

haha randy. that's priceless.

In my opinion that spoiled rich kid earned the money about as much as the poor guy on the street did. neither one has personally done anything to earn it. like i said....probably turn into one of those blood is thicker than water arguments.

kerry showed up and "did more than his duty" as some other facist loser likes to keep claiming. it's pretty cut and dry to me on who has the sketchy military service record.

Jeff

92TBurnSC
03-04-2004, 01:34 PM
Here we go again...

Gay marriage:
The constitution does not prohibit ga marriage. it does not prohibit or promote marriage of any sort. It actually says nothing specific about who can marry and who cannot. That's why there's all this "confusion." And the whole thing about gays being an abomination...that's from Leviticus, right? Let's hear what other tidbits of wisdom Leviticus has to offer...and please let me know which of these YOU are guilty of...

1. Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. (Lev 5:2)

2. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat. (Lev 7:23) Too bad, I like gyros.

3. And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses. (Lev 10:7) It's a small world aaaafter allll.

4. Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations. (Lev 10:9)

5. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (Lev 11:2-4) His one goes on and on...but basically says we can't eat anything but a cow meatwise. Hey 1BADSC, when was the last time you had pork chops? That's an abomination too.

6. Chapter 12 is just silly...
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean. (Lev 12:1-8)

7. 13 and 14 are all about leprosy. That's not much of a problem anymore, is it?

8. Beastiality isn't an abomination...it's confusion.
Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. (Lev 18:23)

9. For someone who is all loving and understanding, he sure has an ego problem...
And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. (Lev 19:12)

10. Shaving is ALSO out of the question...
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. (Lev 19:27)

11. And If I pitch a tent in your backyard and plan to stay...you'd better grin and bear it...and bring me breakfast...
And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (Lev 19:33-34)

12. Office of Redundancy Office, may I help you need help?...
Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. (Lev 20:2)

13. Yet in another part of the Bible, if your brother dies, you are OBLIGATED to take his wife...
And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless. (Lev 20:21)

14. There's also something in there where you can't wear clothing of more than one cloth. Like...polyester blends and such. This is just as bad an abomination as homosexuality. However, after reading through 20 chapters of thi tripe I can't take anymore. Care to comment on any of this though?


Why don't all you Democrats just volunteer now and pay double whatever your taxes are now.

We're not about MORE taxes. I seriously don't know where you people come up with this mumbo jumbo, we are about FAIR taxes and having enough of them so that the government can do its job properly and maintain financial responsibility...both of which Bush has failed miserably as evidenced in previous posts.


If the poor in America are so poor, why is the #1 health problem among the poor obesity?

The #1 health problem of AMERICAN CITIZENS is obesity. The #1 health problem of the poverty stricken is twofold: hunger and mental illness (clinical depression).


I am sorry Bush fired your father( yeah that happened) Go find another job.

For one, this is the most despicably inconsiderate thing I have ever seen writte in a forum ever. For two, I never said "Bush fired my father." I said that Bush's damage to the economy hit hardest the industry my father works in...engineering. He was the victim of two plant closings in two years. He has since decided to switch to real estate (because they don't care how old you are...and my dad is in his upper 50s), however, the reasl estate market in eastern Iowa has taken a real nosedive. "Get another job" makes it sound like he isn't looking. And if that it what you are insinuating then I am done speaking with you for good. That is incredibly insulting. Shame on you.


92TBurnSC I finally figured you out. You are a college student. Maybe when you grow up and get a real job things will make more sense to you.

Why is it that ignorant conservatives have a tendancy to assume that college students have no real life experience? I'm no stranger to putting in 70 hours a week between class and work (not including homework and projects). I pay taxes just like you. I have to buy gas for my car just like you. I pay for where I live just like you. I am receiving no so-called "handouts" just like you. The "real world" will bring no different challenges besides me finding health care I can afford seeing as how I am diabetic and my prescription and durable medical costs alone exceed about $5-700 per month. I intend on going to grad school...and having to pay for that all by my lonesome as well. And, while some yokels quote anything they find on the web, I quote only actual texts and scientific studies. In this case, from the World Health Organization and other non-profit organizations that are recognized worldwide. And the Bible quotes came from here. (http://wyllie.lib.virginia.edu:8086/perl/toccer-new?id=KjvLevi.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all)


Look at CA, they have the most conjestion in the world and because of the tree huggers, they refuse to build any new highways.

There haven't been any new highways built really anywhere since the 60s...not just California. Maybe one or two...but not anything that will compensate for 40 years of more cars ad drivers.

In my next post (because this one's long enough already) I will give you PLENTY of reasons to vote Democrat...granted you will then call all of them BS because that's what conservatives do, they use ad hominem (for the layperson, "against the person") attacks instead of attacking/rebutting the ideas. This has become, as you may already know, the mainstay of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. This is what's called, in the media business, a "logical fallacy." Might I suggest you avoid them in the future.

David Neibert
03-04-2004, 01:40 PM
But to be more substansive, why should richer people be taxed at higher rates? In all technicality...they don't. Hear me out here. Remember when I explained the intricises of our tax bracket system? Well, allow me to reiterate. Let's assume 2 brackets in order to keep this short. Person A makes $50k per year. Person B makes $250k per year. The brackets are 0-50k: 15%. 50+k: 25%. Person A is taxed at 15% of his entire income. Person B is taxed 15% on the first 50k of his income (just like Person A) and then 25% on the remainder. So everyone is, in all reality, on a level playing field...just some people have bigger fields than others. So why SHOULD they pay the extra? Because, considering what taxes are used for, this is what socially responsible people do.

Your numbers are not correct, just for purposes of this discussion I looked up the 2003 tax tables (see link below).Using the IRS tax calculation tables and formulas I calculated the taxes for $50K, $100K and $200K. Please keep in mind that the numbers used on the tables are for adjusted gross income (after deductions) and for a single person. Actuall numbers will vary depending on filing status, deductions, investment earnings ect.

$50,000 Income
$28,400 @ 13.76%= $3,910
$21,600 @ 25.00%= $5,400
Total tax $9,310 = 18.62%

$100,000 Income
$68,800 @ 20.30%=$14,010
$31,200 @ 28.00%=$ 8,736
Total tax $22,746 = 22.74%

$200,000 Income
$143,500 @ 24.33%=$34,926
$ 56,500 @ 33.00%=$18,645
Total tax $53,571 = 26.78%

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

If you think this is a "level playing feild", your calculator needs new batteries.

David

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 01:43 PM
For starters I have worked since I was 12 years old, I also worked 30 hours a week during college, and two jobs totaling 75-85 hours a week during the summers. I can't help that my wife and I were left an inheritance. All that means is that we lost the life of a loved one. We both still go to work every single day. I never had money growing up, i worked for everything I had. SO i don't want to hear your BS.

1) Kerry was in-country less than four months and collected, a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three purple hearts. No one including SEAL One, the Sea Wolves, Riverines and the River Patrol Force ever collected that man medals for such
pedestrian actions. The Swifts did a commendable job. But that duty wasn't the worst you could draw. They operated only along the coast and in the major rivers (Bassac and Mekong). The rough stuff in the hot areas was mainly handled by the smaller, faster PBRs. Fishy.


2) Three Purple Hearts but no limp. All injuries so minor that no time lost from duty. Amazing luck. Or he was putting himself in for medals every
time he bumped his head on the wheel house hatch? Combat on the boats was almost always at close range. You didn't have minor wounds. Then he used the three purple hearts to request a trip home eight months before the end of his tour. Fishy.

(3) The details of the event for which he was given the Silver Star make no sense at all. Supposedly, a B-40 (rocket propelled grenade) was
fired at the boat and missed. Charlie jumps up with the launcher in his hand, the bow gunner knocks him down with the twin .50 (caliber machine guns), Kerry beaches the boat, jumps off, shoots Charlie, and retrieves the launcher. If true, he did everything wrong.

Standard procedure when you took rocket fire was to put your stern to the action and go (away) balls to the wall. A B-40 has the ballistic integrity of a Frisbee after about 25 yards, so you put 50 yards or so between you and the beach and begin raking it with your .50's.

(b) Did you ever see anybody get knocked down with a .50 caliber round and get up? The guy was dead or dying. The rocket launcher was empty.
There was no reason to go after him (except if you knew he was no danger to you - just flopping around in the dust during his last few seconds on
earth, and you wanted some derring-do in your after-action report). And we didn't shoot wounded people. We had rules against that, too.

(c) Kerry got off the boat. This was a major breach of standing procedures. Nobody on a boat crew ever got off a boat in a hot area. EVER! The reason
was simple. If you had somebody on the beach your boat was defenseless. It couldn't run and it couldn't return fire. It was stupid and it put his crew in danger. He should have been relieved and reprimanded.

Here we have a JFK wannabe who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get a good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early, requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress, finds out war heros don't sell well in Massachusetts in 1970 so reinvents himself as
Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his political career, gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address Congress
and Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting, winds up in the Senate himself a few years later, votes against every major defense bill, says the CIA is irrelevant after the Wall (Berlin) came down, votes against the Gulf War, a big mistake since that turned out well, decides not to make
the same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq, but oops, that didn't turn out so well so he now says he really didn't mean for Bush to go to war! Then he voted to allow him to go to war.

I'm real glad he was sent home and didn't have to "protect" anyone else. I sure don't want him as Commander in Chief.

hmmmmm.

lowflying90
03-04-2004, 01:52 PM
well,

the fact remains you got a handout of cash regardless if you still work or not. you personally did nothing except get married to receive it.

where's this highly distinguished record of bush's?nonexistent...that's where it is.

bush couldn't protect or command his own shadow if you ask me.

Jeff

92TBurnSC
03-04-2004, 01:54 PM
It's a level playing field because the 200k man is paying the same as the 50k man on the first 50k of his income. The average percentages mean, technically, nothing. Using averages, Bush calculated that the average monetary benefit of people with his cuts was well over $1000 each. As any tax analyst would reaffirm, the generality of the population received WAY less than that. It's just that the rich folks threw off the curve.

Only use averages where averages are called for.

Slysc
03-04-2004, 02:10 PM
The references to Leviticus were specific to the son's of Aaron (the preists) and in other sections you quoted the laws were specific to the nation Israel. These were to set them apart as a holy nation and keep them from mingling with the Idol worshipers of that day. They may sound silly to us but were relevant to them at that time and there is still wisdom in much of it.

However, you were mocking Leviticus to try to discredit it's references to homosexuality. Yet homosexuality is discussed in other parts of the Bible, including the new testament in Romans chapter 1 or 2. And in anticipation of you trying to discredit the Bible as a whole, you should know, it has never been wrong as a historical document. As science catches up to it, it is continually proven to be correct by archeologists, egyptologists, anthropologists and the like. So if you disagree with God,.. you may consider that he may be right and you may be wrong. :)

David Neibert
03-04-2004, 02:26 PM
Only use averages where averages are called for.

I didn't use averages, I used real numbers from the tax book. Your argument that both the $50K earner and the $200K earner pay the same percentage on the first $50K they each earn has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Not what I'm talking about anyway..

This discussion has to do with, people who earn more paying a higher percentage and why you think it's okay and why I think it's unfair.

So far your only response to my question has been..."they don't" which I've proven wrong and "this is what socially responsible people do" which I dissagree with. I consider myself a socially responsible person and I don't mind paying my fair share.

It would be the same as two guys going to the post office to mail a letter and one guy gets his stamp for 18 cents because he drove up in a Ford and the other guy driving the BMW has to pay 26 cents for his stamp, just because the post office thinks he can afford to pay more. It's not fair.

David

lowflying90
03-04-2004, 02:31 PM
.

92TBurnSC
03-04-2004, 02:45 PM
David Neibart:
The 18.62%, 22.74%, and 26.78% are all average percentages of taxes paid. Like I said, we are all on an EVEN playing field...it's just that some of us have larger fields than others. And, one of the reasons that the higher brackets have higher percentages is because when one reaches that level of income there are more loopholes to avoid taxes. These may or may not be legal...but either way, the more taxes that are avoided, the more hurt is put on necesary government programs.

I will continue with other people later...class got cut short.

92TBurnSC
03-04-2004, 03:46 PM
Slysc:
You are correct, Leviticus is silly. And yes, there are other references to homosexuality in the Bible other than in Leviticus. Though, for posterity, I should point out that the most common verse used against homosexuality is Lev 20:22. However, be that as it may, the Bible is a religious text. Religion is always subjective considering there are more than one. Judaism, Islam, Hinsuism, Buddhism, Shintoism and such are also religions...and all of THEM think that Christianity is incorrect just like Christians think that they are. Furthermore, the Bible...is a religious text...and not the text that governs this great nation. The text that DOES govern this great nation, the Constitution of the United States of America, has a couple hurdles for Bible thumpers to clear. In the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT, the VERY FIRST SENTENCE reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Now, if you examine all the arguments againt the marriage of homosexuals, they ALL have a religious base. Those who say it is "immoral" are speaking of Christian morals. Those who say it will start the end of the world are speaking from interpretations (however flawed they may or may not be) of the Christian Bible. Therefore, it has not place in the government of the United States, and, especially, in the Constitution thereof. Now, for those of you with other intrepretations of the "establishment" clause in the first amendment, understand that when you use the morals of one religion and disrespect those of another (including denominations of the same religion), you are promoting one religion over another.

Furthermore, Slysc, you are correct in saying that a lot of the historical mentions in the Bible are correct. Or at least that is what a lot of archaelogists are finding. However, those are the tangible aspects of the Bible. Rules, guidelines, morals and sayings are intangible.

And finally, I DO believe in god. Please note the lowercase "g." I believe that he is a benevolent, understanding, loving individual who tries to care for his creation the best he can. I do believe that he did create everything...though not in the way the Bible says it. I do believe in the Big Bang...but I also believe that something beyond our understanding had to have started said Big Bang. That something could (and not definitively IS) be god. God does not promote hate. God does not promote malice. God does not promote intolerance. And these three things are what you are practicing in the name of god. For shame.

1BADSC:
Kerry served in Vietnam. Bush did not. That's our starting point here.
Understand that Bronze and Silver Stars are not given out ad nauseum. They are most definitely earned. Purple Hearts, on the other hand, are given out to anyone who sustained injury during combat...regardless of how slight that injury may or may not be. The vast majority of people to have been awarded the Purple Heart were awarded so posthumously. However, the first schmuck to sprain his ankle running up Hamburger Hill also got one. That's the nature of the award. Sacrifice during combat. Another thing...you don't put yourself in for medals. That's not how the military works. Your CO put you in for them or your men (assuming you are a CO) recommend you for them. Welcome to the world of the American military. Whether or not he ASKED to be put in/recommended for them can only be left up to speculation...which is not admissible as evidence under any civilized court.
Your point of Kerry's Silver Star also makes no sense. If some schmuck fires an RPG at you, usually your cognitive reasoning goes out the window and you react by instinct. I know I would, and something tells me you would to. The unfortunate thing about instinct is that everybody's says different things. The .50 that "knocked the Charlie down" may not have hit him, or not hit him squarely. Kerry apparently felt he was still operable and decided to take action. If he didn't, we may be sitting here talking about Edwards' military record. Assuming, of course. And the whole "we didn't shoot wounded people" is a bunch of boloney and you know it as much as I do. Not only did we kill the wounded in Vietnam (and just about every other armed conflict) but we also slaughtered unarmed civilians...most notably at My Lai. So, let's conclude this here:

-Kerry served in combat in Vietnam, was decorated for his service and and has many people who are willing to confirm.
-Bush served (spottedly) in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam flying a fighter plane while we were at war with a country with no air force...thus guaranteeing his not seeing combat. His service record has constantly been under question, he has nobody willing to confirm his service attendance...even considering several $10k awards being offered for proof he served. Including, most recently, that of Doonesbury.

Additionally, I have been working sice I was 14. I would have worked at 12 but Wisconsin labor laws won't issue work permits for those under 14 years of age. Also, I have never worked for a family member (which would have enabled me to work under age 14). I have lost several very close family members...however due to their separation from me of more than a generation I have received, as of yet, no inheritance. I go to class every single day and I go to work when I don't have class. At one point, when my schedule permitted, I was working full-time sales pulling 55-60 hour weeks while taking a full-time class load of 14 credits. Over that Christmas break it was required for full-timers to work at least 60 hours a week giving me 65-70 hour work weeks. I am still growing up (according to some) and I still don't have money regardless of how hard I am working...and everything I have I worked for. My car, my education, my everything. So I will give you all the BS you can handle.

Now, as promised, your very own reasons to vote Democratic in 2004:

-The Democratic candidate served his country when asked and did so with distinguishment. His service record has not been called into question and, subsequently, his integrity.
-The Democratic candidate wants to fix the shoddy levels of health care we currently have in this country, and claims to have a plan to do so (during election, everything has to be considered a claim until said plans are able to be put into action).
-The Democratic candidate has had more experience with foreign relations than our current president and seeks to repair the injured relations that have been created with other countries. He realizes "rugged individualism" was a good idea 100 years ago but times have since changed.
-The Democratic candidate wants to make sure that all emergency services have the resources to handle the direst of emergencies. Currently only 10% of emergency services do.
-The Democratic candidate is not connected in any way with the oil industry. Considering that most armed conflicts in the next 50 years will occur in the Middle East (the oil barrel of the world), more critical thought will be given before sending troops there. This is not to say that he would never, he would just make sure he has a darned good reason to.
-The Democratic candidate has been criticized for supporting military action in Iraq. He has been criticized for voting to go into Iraq. However, he was also lied to just like the rest of us. The Democratic candidate put his faith in the integrity of the president just like the rest of us originally did. Yes, Bush did lie during his 2003 State of the Union address which Kerry was personally present for. Kerry was lied to right in his face. So far he hasn't returned the favor.
-The Democratic candidate wants to make sure our environment will be taken care of. He will properly fund all necessary agencies and not undermine them in favor of helping businesses that hurt the environment. The environment is an important issue for the long term longevity of our great nation and of our world.
-The Democratic candidate wants to make sure all schools are properly funded to operate corectly.
-The Democratic candidate has promised not to take away the child tax credit nor reinstate the marriage penalty. Additionally he has also promised not to raise taxes on any tax bracket below the $200k mark. Your livelihood is safe.

How's that? Now...can you give me a few reasons to vote for Bush?

David Neibert
03-04-2004, 04:45 PM
The 18.62%, 22.74%, and 26.78% are all average percentages of taxes paid.

I went back and consulted the tax table for the $50K and $100K taxable income levels. As you can see the numbers don't change much. The tax tables end at $100K and the example I listed below is exactly how the tax is calculated. These are not average percentages of taxes paid, these are actuall numbers of what you or someone else would pay, based on your taxable income.


$50,000 Income
$28,400 @ 13.76%= $3,910
$21,600 @ 25.00%= $5,400
Total tax $9,310 = 18.62% From tax table $9,316=18.63%

$100,000 Income
$68,800 @ 20.30%=$14,010
$31,200 @ 28.00%=$ 8,736
Total tax $22,746 = 22.74% From tax table $22,739=22.73%

$200,000 Income
$143,500 @ 24.33%=$34,926
$ 56,500 @ 33.00%=$18,645
Total tax $53,571 = 26.78% No tax table avail.



Like I said, we are all on an EVEN playing field...it's just that some of us have larger fields than others.

Actually you said LEVEL, reread your post.


And, one of the reasons that the higher brackets have higher percentages is because when one reaches that level of income there are more loopholes to avoid taxes. These may or may not be legal...but either way, the more taxes that are avoided, the more hurt is put on necesary government programs.

Was this something you picked up in the IRS tax code or is it just another one of your opionions ? I'm at that tax level and there are not more loopholes, just more taxes.

I'm giving you facts and real world examples, and I'm also including the source of my data. You are responding with a bunch sayings about playing feilds, averages and general BS about people who have more money, cheating on their taxes.

You may be smart but you clearly lack wisdom or the ability to admit when your wrong. I don't wish to continue this debate, because your not a worthy opponent.

David

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 08:25 PM
blah blah blah same speech everyone gives.


1. Bush has already opened up all of his records and still not one person or paper has been able to find one thing that would support the accusations. And Bush didn't leave service and then come home and denounce it.

2. Saying you want to change something and having an idea on how to do so are differet.

3. What are his forgien credentials again?

4. Um yeah, Bush boosted homeland security but didn't raise taxes to do it. He also kicked *** in the middle east in order to prevent us from being attacked again, and we also have thousands of prisoners who are suspected terrorist.

5. Anyone in office is going to be very connected to the oil industry, always have been. The lobbiest for the oil industry have a great amount of pull in DC.

6. Kerry was shown all the same information that Bush was and he made a descision based on that, no one made the choice for him, he can back pedal all he wants. Same goes for everyone else who voted for it, (which was almost everyone) they all got the same info that bush had and they got to review it and then they made their choice. However, the democrats wanted us to leave the Iraqi people high and dry as soon as we took out Saddam.

7. Yeah the Democratic party supports all of the terrorist attacks from the tree huggers. Or we could review Gore's speech in NY about global warming. Funny thing was it was on the coldest day NY has seen in years.

8. My income bracket is not safe. I will never vote for anyone who will tax the rich more than the poor.



And Gay marriage is unconstitutional.

92TBurnSC
03-04-2004, 08:28 PM
David:
First, let me clarify the even/level thing...

Entry:__
even

Function:__
adjective

Definition:__
flat

Synonyms:__
alike, balanced, consistent, constant, continual, continuous, direct, equal, flush, homogenous, horizontal, level, like, matching, metrical, parallel, planate, plane, plumb, proportional, regular, right, same, smooth, square, stabile, stable, steady, straight, surfaced, true, unbroken, unchanging, undeviating, unfluctuating, uniform, uninterrupted, unvaried, unvarying, unwavering, unwrinkled

Antonyms:__
bent, crooked, curved, irregular, unbalanced, uneven

Concept:__
shape entity

Source:__
Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Okay...done.

Second, congratulations on your financial success.

Third, I don't know if you know this, but in Missouri, up to $5,000 of Federal Income Taxes are deductible from state taxes. I found this interesting and thought I would point it out.

Fourth, according to the IRS (http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/whys/lp/IWT3L1lp.jsp), taxes are considered fair by two standards, ability to pay and benefits received. This has been the standard since the inception of the federal income tax. Click on the link...yes it's a teacher reference, but it does a halfway decent job of explaining things...and it's direct from the horses mouth.

Fifth, when you look at the tax bracket system and look at the way taxes are levied...and then look at your tree percentages...you will realize that they are averages. If necessary, I will explain how averages are calculated in a future post. But you're pretty smart, I'm sure you already know that.

As far as me not being a worthy opponent...that's kind of a cop-out, don'tcha think? I mean...if I wanted to, I could just pull the "history shows that the future favors the liberal" and let you all sit and roast...but that's a cop-out as well. And why I won't do it.

Ooh! Also, saw in the news another Bush flip-flop. Bush, after 9/11, said he wouldn't use the tragedy as campaign material. Has anyone else seen his campaign ads he released today?

For clarification, Bush was quoted by the Associated Press on 01/23/2003 as saying, "I have no ambition whatsoever to use [9/11] as a political issue." If you watch the "Safer, Stronger" ad on Dubya's own website, www.georgewbush.com, you will see images of the World Trade Center aftermath and a firefighter's funeral.

Shame on him for campaigning with the blood of 3,000 American citizens.

XR7 Dave
03-04-2004, 08:39 PM
Ok, I gotta comment. This is directed specifically at Mr. 1BadSC and Mr. 92TBurnSC. For two people who work SOOO many hours and have SOOO much responsibility, I cannot believe that you have the time to a) endlessly debate this stuff, and b) dig up all these facts, quote, and figures. Wow. I am overwhelmed. Really.

:eek:

92TBurnSC
03-04-2004, 09:32 PM
1. Bush has already opened up all of his records and still not one person or paper has been able to find one thing that would support the accusations. And Bush didn't leave service and then come home and denounce it.

Yes, Bush DID open his records...to a degree. However...they really didn't say much. And they ESPECIALLY didn't say where he was in the time of question. Let's go to the press room for this one.

Albany Democrat-Herald (http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2004/02/11/news/nation/nat05.txt)
The Daily Times (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-2-2004_pg4_5)
KEZI -Eugene, Oregon (http://www.kezi.com/content/contentID/6700)
Channel News Asia (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/americas/view/70528/1/.html)
I would also add the Washington Post's coverage, but it's in their "archives" and I would have to pay to look at it.


2. Saying you want to change something and having an idea on how to do so are differet.

Okay...if you insist...
-For starters, there's the 100 Day Action Plan (http://johnkerry.com/issues/100days/).
-Then there's his proposed Civil Rights Legislation (http://johnkerry.com/issues/civilrights/).
-Aw heck...here's the whole blessed thing. (http://johnkerry.com/issues/). Just click the links in the window to find the detailed plan.


3. What are his forgien credentials again?

From the "About John Kerry" section at www.johnkerry.com, it reads:

In April 1971, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he asked the question of his fellow citizens, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Sen. Claiborne Pell, (D-R.I.) thanked Kerry, then 27, for testifying before the committee, expressing his hope that Kerry "might one day be a colleague of ours in this body."

Subsequently, John Kery has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since 1985 through today. What was George W. Bush doing in 1985? He was in the middle of sinking his own oil business. He then worked on his dad's campaign in 1988 and bought the Texas Rangers in 1989...and sold Sammy Sosa to Chicago.


4. Um yeah, Bush boosted homeland security but didn't raise taxes to do it. He also kicked *** in the middle east in order to prevent us from being attacked again, and we also have thousands of prisoners who are suspected terrorist.

Bush (and Kerry) supported the addition of the Department of Homeland Security to the presidential cabinet. However, there was one difference in their ideads of the department. Bush refused to give federal protection to all enforcement members of this department (like the FBI, CIA, etc get) and sent it back to Congress for final approval with this stipulation. This gave Democrats (who were in control of Congress) two options...support the Department resolution and deny protection to our protectors, or vote it down in favor of legislation that DID protect our protectors. Most of the Democrats (including Kerry) took the latter option. However, this cost them dearly because in the folowing Congressional campaigns, Republicans who campaigned used this as a sign of Democrats being AGAINST Homeland Security. As far as Bush kicking ash in the Middle East...he started off okay...and then started kicking the wrong ashes. The Iraqis never attacked us and Bush brought us into a whole new level of foreign diplomacy...a first strike mentality. This hasn't been tolerated by ANYONE and was last perpetrated by Adolf Hitler and his march into Czechoslovakia after the Munich Convention. What lovely company to be in.


5. Anyone in office is going to be very connected to the oil industry, always have been. The lobbiest for the oil industry have a great amount of pull in DC.

Clinton wasn't...and I don't think Carter was either. I'm not saying Reagan was, though it's possible...but considering the Bush family oil business...well...yeah. It's not hard to figure out and under no circumstance should be defended.


6. Kerry was shown all the same information that Bush was and he made a descision based on that, no one made the choice for him, he can back pedal all he wants. Same goes for everyone else who voted for it, (which was almost everyone) they all got the same info that bush had and they got to review it and then they made their choice. However, the democrats wanted us to leave the Iraqi people high and dry as soon as we took out Saddam.
The argument that the Congress was shown ALL the evidence is dubious at best. Senator Rockefeller, though he indirectly calls Kerry an "idiot" makes a valid point.
Senator Rockefeller speaks out. (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=623&letter_id=67176536)


7. Yeah the Democratic party supports all of the terrorist attacks from the tree huggers. Or we could review Gore's speech in NY about global warming. Funny thing was it was on the coldest day NY has seen in years.

And the Republicans support terrorist attacks from crazy pro-lifers on abortion clinics. The worst that the "tre hugger" do is go and vandalize Hummer dealerships. The Pro-life nuts actually kill people. However, label what you will, neither one of these acts are defensible. And, for the record, I thought Gore was a moron. However, in his defense, though many Republicans claim Gore said he "invented the internet," what he DID do was vote for additional funding in from Congress to develop what was then known as ARPANET into what we now know today as the Internet.


8. My income bracket is not safe. I will never vote for anyone who will tax the rich more than the poor.

This is conservative myth #2,872. Unless you are making more than $200,000 a year (and if you are I retract this statement), your income bracket is quite safe from Kerry. He's not going to touch any other bracket. Refer to the above links to Kerry's site to verify for yourself, if you wish.


And Gay marriage is unconstitutional.

Well, since it is logically impossible to prove something DOESN'T exist (short of copying and pasting the entire Constitution in this thread, which will piss a lot of people off) perhaps we should reverse the role. Where in the Constitution does it say gay marriage is prohibited? And, if it DOES say that, then why is Bush promoting a Constitutional amendment specifically barring it? Once again, Office of Redundancy Office.

92TBurnSC
03-04-2004, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by XR7 Dave
Ok, I gotta comment. This is directed specifically at Mr. 1BadSC and Mr. 92TBurnSC. For two people who work SOOO many hours and have SOOO much responsibility, I cannot believe that you have the time to a) endlessly debate this stuff, and b) dig up all these facts, quote, and figures. Wow. I am overwhelmed. Really.

:eek:

Spring break started today for me. ;) That's MY excuse, at least.

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 09:56 PM
Q: Aren't there state and federal laws forbidding gay marriage?


A: Congress and 38 states have passed "Defense of Marriage" acts that define marriage as the union between one man and one woman and that permit states to reject gay marriages from other states. But these laws may be challenged. Opponents of gay marriage fear these laws won't survive a challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court.


Q: Why would the Defense of Marriage laws be overturned?


A: Two clauses in the U.S. Constitution could be used to challenge state laws banning gay marriage. The so-called "contract clause" requires states to recognize legal contracts from other states. A gay-marriage license from Massachusetts, for example, would have to be considered a legal contract in, say, Louisiana.


The other constitutional challenge could come under the "full faith and credit" clause, which requires states to recognize similar laws in other states. This is why the word "marriage" is so important to both sides of the issue. If a state allows gay marriage, it opens up the marriage laws in other states to the full faith and credit clause.


And yes, I will be affected if taxes go up. And yes the oil companies pull weight big time in DC, no matter who is in office.

Most every bill that gets passed has the same tricks done to it. There was a very nice gun bill that went to congress that would have prevented gun manufacturers who legally make guns and legally sell them from being sued when people use them illegally. It would have also required background checks on anyone buying a gun at a gun show. This bill would have been great for everyone, but then, in an effort to make sure it wouldn't pass the anit gun anti constitution people tacked on a section that would have expanded the ban on different weapons. This is nothing new. A law needs to be passed that would allow them to accept only parts of a particular bill.


And the NY times found nothing on Bush either.

But anyway, we can all agree to disagree. So lets get back to the tax issue at hand. And please don't take any of my remarks personally, they were not meant to be so.

Have you ever looked at www.fairtax.org

92TBurnSC
03-04-2004, 10:43 PM
1.FairTax is apparently having service problems. I'll try them again at a slower time.

2. Congratulation on YOUR financial succes. May it continue.

3. The only thing that's going to happen to your taxes is that, on whatever you earn over 200k you will pay 39.1% (what you used to pay) instead of 35.6%. In all reality, this is almost chump change.

4. The New York Times DID have coverage on the records release...but, once again, it's locked up in the "must pay for" vault. Care to donate $2.95 for clarification?

5. According to what you just posted, the Defense of Marriage Acts passed by Congress and state legislatures are unconstitutional. It also won't hold under US Supreme Court scrutiny (which is comprised of 3 conservative, 3 moderate and 3 liberal judges, currently) is because Defense of Marriage acts are unconstitutional. Their job is not to play with the laws, it is to uphold the Constitution. A job they have been, so far, doing a decent job of...which is why Bush wants to CHANGE the Constitution. The last time the Constitution was changed was by Clinton...and that only was in regards to compensation of US Congresspeople. Before that it was to lower the voting age to 18. Neither of these took away or hindered rights like Bush's amendment will.

6. Tricky bills, yes, are a fact of democracies. However, they have rarely, as now, been used in the way that Bush used it to. Your firearms example, for instance, was well intentioned to keep the sale of assault weapons to a minimum. Bush's adjustment could only have one result, hurting those who work for the Homeland Security department.

7. The whole oil company comment is, for one, very speculative. You didn't see Clinton opening up the Alaskan wilderness for drilling...nor did any members of his administration have direct connections with Enron. So they may have influence...but how much depends on the scruples of our Chief Executive.

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 10:53 PM
well, we know those weren't very high with Clinton. :) sorry you sort of walked into that one. :)

Bush has also passed 4-5 laws protecting our environment this year alone. And why is it ok to drill in Texas and in the desert but not in an obscure coast line where no one lives. And with all new techniques in drilling the effects would be next to nothing.


Americans for Fair Taxation is unique in that we began primarily as a research organization whose focus was to find out what the American people wanted in a tax system, what they felt was the best way for the government to collect revenue, and how this could be achieved in an economically viable manner.

Extensive focus group studies were conducted in a diverse group of Americans, and the FairTax emerged as the most reasonable and viable plan possible. The FairTax has often been referred to as the most thoroughly researched solution to the current ineffective and antiquated income tax system.

We have made extensive policy research available, as well as a variety of issue papers detailing the economic impact of the FairTax on various sectors of industry and individual taxpayers. Click here to read the research papers and find out more about the FairTax and how it will benefit our nation as well as your specific industry.

The current tax code has morphed into a costly, complex maze of paperwork and bureaucracy. From its humble beginnings, the income tax has grown like a cancer by taxing our hard work and discouraging savings and investment. Click here to learn how the income tax began, and what our forefathers had to say about it._










WHERE INCOME TAX STARTED

The federal income tax was established in 1913. It actually required an amendment to the United States Constitution to make it legal. Why? Our Founding Fathers believed that taxing individuals on their private income was economic folly. They were right. The absence of an income tax, a tax on productivity, allowed our economy to grow and individuals to prosper for 124 years.

The original income tax legislation affected only individuals earning $4,000 or more per year, at a time when the overwhelming majority of Americans earned far less. The 16th Amendment was eventually ratified and added to the Constitution, and a national income tax was born.

That 16th Amendment was simply worded, the tax return consisted of only one page, and the entire tax code itself consisted of only 14 pages. No one could have imagined the vast impact it would have on the lives of their children, grandchildren and future generations of Americans.

Since then, the federal income tax system has become so complex that it requires tens of millions of Americans to seek professional help to comply with it, not to mention the enormous, expensive federal bureaucracy required to enforce and administer the tax. The Internal Revenue Service employs more investigative agents than the FBI and the CIA combined, and with 144,000 employees, employs more people than all but the 36 largest corporations in the United States.

In addition to the $8 billion needed to operate the IRS, at least $250 billion (that is $850 for every man, woman, and child in this country) must be added to account for the cost of complying with the tax code. Massive amounts of our national wealth are consumed merely by measuring, tracking, sheltering, documenting, and filing our annual income.

MIKE 38sc
03-04-2004, 11:06 PM
Once you get onto the Fairtax website you will see why he loves it sooooo much.
No corporate tax's
No buisness to buisness tax's
Here's one for you and maybe you will like it if you can figure out how this will be accomplished.
Your schooling costs will be cut by 50%, of course they dont say how they will do it, they just state that it will happen.
Theres more but I dont have your endurance to typing.
1BADSC: Since you have so much money(and I'm glad for you,really I am) Do you think you could pony up $15.00 for SCCOA membership to help pay for your used bandwidth on the site?:confused:

MIKE 38sc
03-04-2004, 11:17 PM
I like this one, its fairtax's disclaimer.

The information on this website is provided as a public service only. This website is not intended to provide legal, accounting or any other professional advice and should not be relied on for legal, accounting, or professional advice regarding your taxes. Individuals with questions about their taxes should seek the advice of qualified professionals.

1BADSC
03-04-2004, 11:57 PM
your school taxes would be cut because a tax on spending would generate far more revenue than personal income tax. The same goes for business.


Yes it is sad that people file so many lawsuits these days to make money off their stupidity. Otherwise we could live through life without having to read the small print and disclaimers that come with things. Like don't use an electrical device in water or careful, your steaming cup of coffee may be served hot. So if disclaimers are make something bad then I guess we can just assume that anything with one must be bad too.

MIKE 38sc
03-05-2004, 12:05 AM
I have a much better idea. Lets just do away with ALL tax's period! I could support that beings as I dont see any need at all for them. Lets just throw everything into the wind and see where it lands. yeah....I like the sound of that.

David Neibert
03-05-2004, 12:38 AM
As far as me not being a worthy opponent...that's kind of a cop-out, don'tcha think? I mean...if I wanted to, I could just pull the "history shows that the future favors the liberal" and let you all sit and roast...but that's a cop-out as well. And why I won't do it.

Why would that bother me ?....I'm not a rich conservative. No, I really don't think your capable of understanding other viewpoints or perspectives.

You fish and probe around on the internet for mountains of political jargon and for some reason you keep including Bush in our discussion. I'm not talking to you about politics or Bush..I'm talking about federal income taxes.

Your comments about MO state tax laws and my financial success, further illustrates your ignorance. I'm not copping out..I just think it's a waste of time talking to you, because you seem to think you already know everything. I would love to hear what you have to say about all of this 20 years from now, when your the one getting screwed by the tax laws.

Just keep telling yourself it's a big level even playing feild.

David

SUMFEAR
03-05-2004, 02:10 AM
:rolleyes:

SUMFEAR
03-05-2004, 02:18 AM
:D

92TBurnSC
03-05-2004, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by SUMFEAR
Very well put Dave.

92TBurnSC, I can't wait until you get out of college. I hope you have great financial success so you too can pay "chump change" at the rate of 35 - 40%. You will be singing a different tune.

At this point in life, I wish I had a problem like that. However, seeing as how I am 2/5 sheets ot the wind (for the first time in months) I will refrain from further conversation. Typing is difficult now.

Doug Franklin
03-05-2004, 05:18 AM
Estate Tax? Wish this had been eleminated a few years earlier. Work for a company that used to be one man owner who just could not hand the compnay over to his daughter when 75 yrs old. She would have had to put 50% of the company in debt to pay the inheritance tax. No kidding! Even selling to the employees has tax trouble. So now we the employees are in trouble with lay offs and lower salary by the stock market owned parant company now.

He paid cash for every machine. He looked at his company as "We have 700 families to support and keep in a job". What an attitude. So even though in S-CA and expensive he did not move production to Mexico as our competitors have done. We just keep growing though. We had to expand into a new building and he put it up to a vote to employees. Most being in the shop they voted for a building in their low rent neighborhood where office folks won't live. But to those who make the least the plant is close to home. Never met a better man in business.

There are other owners of businesses like this who need tax brakes to keep jobs in America. These independents do not want to send jobs into other countries like the big corporations. Give these high paid individuals a personal tax brake and it does work. They invest in more machines and employees to compete against big boys who have huge overhead costs and stock holders to answer to.

I SEE AN INCREASE in independent businesses these days. Folks had to because of large corps becoming so global. These independets working out of truck need the tax brakes. If a person does not use tax laws to reduce their tax they cannot stay in business. I would love a flat tax but it won't happen, so one must use advantages. I have suffered financially because I got out of activities that gave me good tax deductions. I am getting back into it because I would rather buy SC parts made in America. There are several departments in Fed Gov I would like to see us just shut down and leave to the states. Why pay Fed Tax that is given back to states? What a waist. I am in local gov. and it is a shame we have to get Fed grants to get things done. If we had less Fed tax we could raise local tax and save money overall, but we don't dare.

XR7 Dave
03-05-2004, 12:33 PM
I know I am not part of this discussion, but I am watching it.

It seems to me that we have basically two people debating an issue that is way bigger than themselves. Now in this case there is no way that either one can change anything relating to the issues themselves, so there should be a point to the debate.

It seems that there are two possible practical purposes for this debate. Either a) one of you hopes to convince the other that they are wrong or b) you hope to expose the fallacies of the other to the extent that others (people reading this debate) will change their opinions and be swayed to your line of thinking.

In the case of "a" there is no possibility. Aint happening.

So that leaves "b". If this is the case, then each of you should consider the impact of your "arguing" on us, the viewers.

As a non-biased viewer having no prior disposition to either liberal or conservative sides of the issues, I have tried to find reason to pick a side based on your arguments. Hasn't worked.

1BadSC, your comments are often very generalized and full of assumptions that you have failed to support. This weakens your argument to the point that your valid points come into question. It would be better for you to stick to points that you can support. For example:

1) "with all new techniques in drilling the effects would be next to nothing." Evidently you are not aware of how long it takes to "repair" damage to arctic vegetation. Nor do you seem to acknowledge the delicate balance of the arctic ecology or the importance of it. We get all up in arms about the states wanting to actively dispose of old cars because they make some of us "feel neet", but the migratory breeding grounds of endangered species (for one minor example) are put at risk for the sake of oil exploration. If it were the last oil on earth I would be willing to make that sacrifice, but is it necessary today?

2) "Our Founding Fathers believed that taxing individuals on their private income was economic folly. They were right. The absence of an income tax, a tax on productivity, allowed our economy to grow and individuals to prosper for 124 years. " This is an entirely false assumption and it dramatically weakens your argument. There is no way our "Founding Fathers" could have invisioned what our world has come to today. To insinuate that they did is absurd. One could just as easily say that it is a miracle that we survived that long without a decent infrastructure. If there were even ONE moderately successful country EVER to exist without some form of taxation of it's people, you could have presented that as evidence.

3) "Saying you want to change something and having an idea on how to do so are differet." Statements like these are commonplace in your arguments. You do not support your statements in a convincing manner.

4) "Bush has also passed 4-5 laws protecting our environment this year alone." You did not attempt to support this statement that was clearly intended to show Mr. Bush's concern for the environment. Once again, a clear lack of support weakens your stance.

5) "And the NY times found nothing on Bush either." Another vague statement that skirts the issue. An unbiased person would like to know what they DID find on Bush. I can make my own assesment as to what constitutes "nothing". Statements like this one indicate that you have already decided for me that whatever Bush did amounts to "nothing" (wrong? - I assume that is what you meant here). You are putting yourself in a position to decide for me what is right and wrong. In contrast you presented a shut and closed case as to what Kerry did that was wrong. If you think that "ordinary people" like me can't see through your one sided argument, you are sadly mistaken.

I could go on, but if you don't get the point then there is no point in my going on about it. It's not so much your ideas that I question, it's your method of debating that is so dissapointing.

I am not asking to be involved in the debate, but I would like to see if you could provide any convincing reasons why you are right without making generalizations and without attacking others. You haven't done that. Instead you have mostly repeated a lot of rhetoric and you have succeeded in calling a lot of people and different "thoughts" idiotic, but I'm afraid you have failed to convince anyone that you are right. You come across as arrogant, closed minded, opinionated, and abusive to people who do not share your perspective. See, it is not that you are wrong or right, it's that you have an attitude towards others that turns people off. Certainly that doesn't make you a freak, on the contrary it makes you quite typical. If you ever hope to make any difference to anyone, you will have to lose the attitude and discuss the issues without resorting to attacks on the person or making unsupportable generalizations about your oponent.

Or if you are just arguing for the sake of arguing then have at it! It is mildly entertaining.

1BADSC
03-05-2004, 01:34 PM
1. Modern technology has made it possible to build the oil fields on gravel pads that make a solid foundation for the equipment and insulate the underlying permafrost. Previously, oil drilling pads had to be big enough to accommodate many reserve pits to hold the waste water and mud from drilling. Now, however, a new technique of pumping the wastes back into the ground eliminates the waste of space, maintains a sub-surface pressure high enough to keep oil flowing, and reduces the possibility of spills on the tundra. If oil is not found directly beneath the well location, the well can be drilled horizontally, again reducing the area of land affected by the oil development. When the environmentalist say it will use x- amount of acres they are counting the acres a pipeline would pass through. So the pipe may only take up a very small section of the area they still count it as an entire acre.

his means that about 15,000 acres, or .004 percent of Alaska, would be affected. Actual production facilities including roads, drilling pads, living quarters, and pipelines would cover a thousand acres.

At Prudhoe Bay the vast majority of oil spills are small and never leave the gravel pads. All spills are promptly reported to government agencies and thoroughly cleaned up. There are about 250 spills each year, which sounds terrible, but a "spill" includes a single drop of oil. By this standard the average parking lot has more oil spills than that each year. Of those 250 spills, nearly half are zero - to five-gallon spills that never leave the gravel pad. The contaminated gravel is all scooped up and taken to an incinerator where the oil is burned off.

Environmentalists claim that oil drilling affects the wildlife; however, if the drill sites are any indication, most animal populations are not affected or their numbers have risen. Caribou numbers, for example, grew from 3,000 at the beginning of Prudhoe development to 5,500 at the end of development. From there the population steadily increased to its present number of 20,000 animals. A group of about 100 caribou usually winters in the Prudhoe area. The oil producing companies have taken great care to elevate the pipeline or build ramps over it for caribou migration. The only snow goose colony in the United States has also steadily increased from 50 to 180 nests.
And it is funny that one of the biggest opponents to the drilling, the Audubon Society, made 2,000,000 dollars a year for letting oil companies drill on Rainey Preserve. But now that they have nothing to gain they do not want to support it.


2. Those quotes were taken from the fairtax web site and had you really been observing you would have known that.


4. Laws that Bush passed for environment.
Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003.
Clear Skies Initiative



Background on The Clear Skies Initiative


1. Clear Skies Dramatically and Steadily Cuts Power Plant Emissions.

Cuts sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 73 percent, from current emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and to 3 million tons in 2018.
Cuts emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 67 percent, from current emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018.
Cuts mercury (Hg) emissions by 69 percent -- the first-ever national cap on mercury emissions. Emissions will be cut from current emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and to 15 tons in 2018.


2. Clear Skies Brings Dramatic Clean Air Improvement to Many Cities and Counties. Clear Skies, in combination with new EPA requirements on diesel engine emissions and current state and federal programs will enable:

111 counties nationwide to attain the stringent new fine particle air quality standards; only 18 counties will need to take further steps to meet the standards.
263 counties nationwide to attain the stringent new ozone air quality standards; only 27 counties will need to take further steps to meet the standards.
Help thousands of Americans with asthma and other respiratory illnesses to avoid attacks, and reduce the risk to children who may otherwise be pre-natally exposed to mercury.
Bring improvements in visibility to some of the most popular national parks, and will make great strides in protecting the health of our ecosystems by reducing acid rain, nitrogen deposits, and mercury in the environment.


3. Clear Skies Uses a Proven Market-Based Approach.

Expands America's most successful clean air program -- the 1990 Clean Air Act's Acid Rain Program.
Cuts pollution further, faster, cheaper, and with more certainty than current clean air programs by using an emissions trading program that creates an economic incentive for early reductions.
Creates incentives to develop and install the newest technologies to control emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Replaces a cycle of endless litigation with rapid and certain improvements in air quality.


4. Clear Skies Saves Money for American Energy Consumers and Promotes Job Growth.

Helps communities meet health-based air quality standards without significantly increasing the price of electricity.
Allows manufacturers to expand and grow businesses -- creating jobs.



NY times could find no fault in any of Bushes records or any instance of being awol.


I don't really care about making anyone change their minds about what they believe in. The reason I don't post all the facts at once is because as you will see takes up a lot of room and makes the post less readable.

lowflying90
03-05-2004, 01:36 PM
:D

This is a Car Related BBS. How about keeping that in mind when you post.

Duffy Floyd

Doug Franklin
03-05-2004, 01:59 PM
I don't know why I botherd to post. I hate both these guys posts usually. At least 92TburnSC is articulate and sometimes one can communicate with him. But believe he threw out gay rhetoric one time that turned me off.

92TBurnSC
03-05-2004, 02:28 PM
Gay rhetoric? Care to explain that one?

Randy N Connie
03-05-2004, 03:08 PM
Edit by randy.I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC

any body that claims to be richie rich.
And makes 2238 post.
But can't afford to join SCCoA.
And post while they are supposedly working.
is a bum were I come from.

Yes I am name calling,But I am holding back.

Doug Franklin
03-05-2004, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by 92TBurnSC
Gay rhetoric? Care to explain that one?

http://www.sccoa.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39900

1st page. Although who knows maybe 1badsc pissed you off so bad you said some of that, he is good at that on any subject. But as always I don't believe we should censor this topic as some ask for on other topics. Wish I had avoided this in a way. It would be ok if topic discussed but you 2 really go after each other and make the reading too long, much like what XR7Dave said I agree with about this thread and others.

lowflying90
03-05-2004, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by lowflying90
:D

This is a Car Related BBS. How about keeping that in mind when you post.

Duffy Floyd


so you deleted the picture of "the turbinator" aka G.W.Bushwacker in my post.

Would you care to explain to me how any of the political/religious and many other posts are car related besides in this thread on this Car Related BBS?

Jeff

XR7 Dave
03-05-2004, 08:14 PM
I don't really care about making anyone change their minds about what they believe in. Then why in the heck do you post this crap?
any body that claims to be richie rich.
And makes 2238 post.
But can't afford to join SCCoA.
And post while they are supposedly working.
is a bum were I come from.


Randy is my new hero. Man of few words, but gets right to the heart of the issue. I love it.


I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC

I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC

Sorry I felt I should punish myself for my indescretion by writting some lines. Why do I feel like I am in grade school again? :D

Randy N Connie
03-05-2004, 08:19 PM
1BADSC;Besides your rich dad or wife will not give you the money to join
the SCCoA.

Do you even own or have you ever even owned a THUNDERBIRD SC.

Don't you think 2238 post would be enough post to think about joining.

MR. BAKER TO YOU

Randy N Connie
03-05-2004, 08:43 PM
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC

I can't help it I am out of control !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could this be IBAD SC dashing out to vote for jr bush

(Inappropriate picture deleted by Admin - George Davenport)

Randy N Connie
03-05-2004, 08:49 PM
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC

I would like to apologize to everyone for my bad taste in
this photo I lifted from this board except 1badsc.

Randy

1BADSC
03-05-2004, 08:51 PM
why pay 15 bucks to post in the members only section. And I didn't start this post (Edit by Admin - George Davenport).

Randy N Connie
03-05-2004, 08:55 PM
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC

1BADSC Thanks HEEHAAHEEHAAHEEHAA

Randy N Connie
03-05-2004, 09:01 PM
should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC

1BADSC If you would pay your dues.you could read how
we are all laughing at.

HEE HAAHEEHAAHEEHAAAHEEEHAAHEEHAA

Randy N Connie
03-05-2004, 09:12 PM
should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
1BADSC I AM REALLY SORRY FOR LIEING .
about you not paying your dues and the members side is laughing at you.
THAT IS A BELLOWING LAUGH AT YOU

1BADSC
03-05-2004, 09:13 PM
The real question is why would I care, and why do you care so much about a stupid post that it has to occupy your time on this forum and the members forum. It is just a post, I know your 80yrs old and all but you still have some growing up to do.

92TBurnSC
03-05-2004, 09:21 PM
Man, I get drunk one night and feel horrid the next and when I stop back by this whole political debate has gone straight down the tubes.

1BADSC:
Randy DOES kinda have a point. I've been meaning to show my support for SCCoA...but for me that $15 is a couple meals for while I'm at work. Lousy mall food courts are ridiculously expensive. And I'm fat...that doesn't help any either. :p

Randy:
I appreciate your point of view...but lighten up, man! I'm sure racing your SC raises your blood pressure enough...no sense in giving it any more of a boost. lol Anyhoo, any insight or personal views you can inject into this conversation (to it's not so much of a 2 man deal) would be greatly appreciated. Always nice to hear what everyone thinks.

Doug:
Yeah...he pressed my buttons on that one. I can't, for the life of me, understand why some people want to add hate and segregation back into the Constitution. It didn't fly in the 60s and I thought we were past it by now.

Randy N Connie
03-05-2004, 09:25 PM
should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC

Randy N Connie
03-05-2004, 09:37 PM
92Burnsc
Just for I will stop.




















































UNTILL 1BADSC STARTS BACK UP

THANKS RANDY

92TBurnSC
03-05-2004, 09:58 PM
Take care, man.

Hey, since you're in downstate IL...and so am I (in Normal), keep me up to date on any SC get togethers around here. I've never actually met anybody in person.

For what it's worth, my AIM is bigJmetzger...and that's for anyone who should so care to speak with me outside the board.

92TBurnSC
03-05-2004, 10:12 PM
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
- Thomas Paine, from Introduction to Common Sense, 1776

Does anyone else find this to be relevant to this conversation? In all aspects of it at least...both pro and anti liberal and conservative.

Randy N Connie
03-06-2004, 01:17 AM
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."



Only if you have a short attention span.


RANDY

Doug Franklin
03-06-2004, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by 92TBurnSC
Man, I get drunk one night and feel horrid the next and when I stop back by this whole political debate has gone straight down the tubes.
...
I can't, for the life of me, understand why some people want to add hate and segregation back into the Constitution. It didn't fly in the 60s and I thought we were past it by now.

It is not hate at all, what you are comparing. You know what it is. Gosh those words are a repeat of the tactics used these days. Smart tactics. I cannot believe the twist in truth. Please!

But yes it would be great to have more participation. If we do then here comes Plev or someone.

Sorry about your getting drunk. I got out of line by not doing my chores around here and got into this. Shame on me!!!

Good point you made about meeting people. We are all human and it is all to easy to not think of each other that way on the forum. Got a big meet down here Sunday between TCCoA, SCCoA, Fordbastards, & the SHO guys. I will be late, but will be there. Made a diference meeting those in Gulf Coast chapter at Mardi Gras regardless of our politics, etc, etc. Later.

Oh RANDY: Your pic makes a good point for me.

David Neibert
03-06-2004, 02:13 AM
Hey, since you're in downstate IL...and so am I (in Normal), keep me up to date on any SC get togethers around here. I've never actually met anybody in person.

BigJ,

I'm sure we will be having a TBU meet early this spring in the St. Louis area, Randy and his wife Connie usually drive over and meet us at the track. Your certianly welcome to attend too...you just can't discuss politics or religion, or we'll throw you in the pool.

BTW, We always have a party the night before going to the track, and everyone sleeps at the host's house...can you guess who's house we usually have the party at ? I'll give you a hint...It's not 1BadSC's

David

Doug Franklin
03-06-2004, 02:23 AM
.

92TBurnSC
03-06-2004, 03:34 AM
It is not hate at all, what you are comparing. You know what it is. Gosh those words are a repeat of the tactics used these days. Smart tactics. I cannot believe the twist in truth. Please!

In all fairness, it's no repeat...it's my own feelings on the subject. However, allow me to elaborate on said feelings...

I believe that we can all agree that 99.999995% of arguments against allowing homosexuals to marry are based on morals of religion. Morals of one religion, specifically that not all practicers of agree on. This seems to be pretty brass tax. Now, while looking at the first amendment's clause of not allowing the state to establish (and in turn promote) one religion over another, the religious arguments are out. That means there is no real reason to DENY them the ability to marry...as far as the state is concerned. That means the Defense of Marriage Act...and the subsequent proposed amendment to the Constitution are out of the question.

As far as reasons why we SHOULD guarantee this right in legislation, there are many that have no religious base whatsoever. It's, in all reality, pretty cut and dry. As of right now, if a homosexual couple, who live together and support each other both emotionally and tangibly, if one of them were to pass away, the other is entitled to no collection of the estate unless specifically stated in the will. Of course, not all people have Wills and not all people pass away when they intend to. Secondly, if one homosexual partner winds up in critical care in a hospital, the hospital is not allowed to let the other partner visit the patient unless the patient (who may be non-responsive) or a family member of the patient expressly permits it. Also, insurance coverage will not cover a homosexual partner who is not a direct policyholder. There's this nasty word in those policies that is "spouse." If one is not married (including civilly unionized) one does not have a spouse...and therefore the potential spouse has no rights. Also, homosexual relations start and stop just like heterosexual ones. However, since they are not married, they technically cannot divorce, and neither one has any protection from the other under the law. They just kinda have to fend for themselves.

Imagine you, being the heterosexual, were in the minority and you were in the same place as them, how would you feel? It's bad enough that people hate you just because you love differently than them. But when you have so few rights that the rest of the populous has...well...it's just not kosher no matter how you slice it.

Just to put a face on the perspective, check out this ad (http://www.millionformarriage.org/hospital_commercial/) produced by the Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org).

David:
My girlfriend and I would love to attend. Please keep us posted.

XR7 Dave
03-06-2004, 04:14 AM
I have a couple of questions for those who seem to have the time to dig up lots of info about controversial subjects. Keep in mind that these are actual questions and not an invitation to debate anything.

Is marriage mentioned in the constitution of this country? Or in other words, is marriage specifically sanctioned by the consitution. If so, in what manner? Or, what exactly does it say?

Under what authority does a judge marry a couple? Where/when did that authority begin? Specifics if you will.

Thanks.

Doug Franklin
03-06-2004, 04:16 AM
Your lose interpretation of the first amendment does not leave morals or religion out of the issue. Morals are established/determined by the majority, like speed limits used to be. haha. We as a Nation and a people have the right to establish morals and majority will is used to determine this in the law on these issues. Presently gay marriage is against the law and we have, as in many caesses on many subjects, have judges making juducial law.

In our new town we would not grow by voluntary anexation if we accepted all judicial law, which on the surface appears to go against statutory law. So we have 3 yrs for some other city to challange us in court. If not our boundaries remain. We had to make a decision as to which was the greater law. Statute law was our course. Judges sometime love to impart their will into the law.

My experience with gays has not been favorable. I do not HATE them. I have seen lives destroyed by dabbling in this practice. You know one can justify anything to try to convince themselves that it is OK. I don't justify things I do that are wrong as being ok, there are no morals, and then try to get everyone around me convinced that my bad actions are not wrong, and then get furious if thay don't agree with me. I don't have that kind of agenda that the gay community does. Some satements are the rhetoric that is going around now. Smart deceptive wording. It is not hate to deny them what the majority deem ofensive and wrong.

I think it best we take this to email if you care to.
DF

Randy N Connie
03-06-2004, 11:56 AM
"Oh RANDY: Your pic makes a good point for me."

Doug F.: I do not know your thoughts on the picture that I had posted.
I apologize if I offended you or anyone else, except 1BADSC.I find the photo
amusing but definitely more offensive.

But I am tired of 1BADSC posts that are meant to degrade individuals.Just so
he can boost his own low self esteem.

I definitely did not mean to make fun of any physically/mentally handicapped
persons. My wife has worked in this field since the early 70's and has donated
a lot of time and money to help in this area. She was involved in getting
the Special Olympics coordinated in the Effingham area. We have both
enjoyed helping others.

Unlike 1BADSC who is making a profit from selling needed medications to this
population. I'm sure he looks down his nose to these individuals as he sticks
his money in his pocket.

RANDY

SUMFEAR
03-06-2004, 12:32 PM
:p :p :p :p :p

Doug Franklin
03-06-2004, 03:27 PM
Randy: no offense taken. It points to me to stay off this subject in sccoa. But guess I had to get my .02 in rather than just get runover.

SUMFEAR: part of the problem is a very political agenda with little regard for the majority. It goes beyond marriage and always has, that is just the current hot topic.

92TBurnSC
03-06-2004, 04:14 PM
Doug:
To be frank, it is not the place of a democratic government to dictate morals. Their job is to protect our rights, our safety (speed limits), and the prosperity of their constituents. The reason is that almost everyone agrees on what is safe, what are rights, and how prosperous they are. Morals are too subjective and when you select one set of a "majority" (which, in this case, is a little over 50% of the country) you disparage those over the remaining "minority" (in this case, a little less that 50%). Ethics, on the other hand, are a separate issue. Ethics of government usually have to do with integrity and the level at which our elected officials protect our rights, safety, prosperity, etc. The "will of the majority" in morality issues has no bearing on public legislation.

To put things into alignment with the current topic, Congress protecting the right of homosexuals to marry harms not YOUR safety, YOUR rights, and YOUR prosperity. However, it DOES protect THEIR rights...and that's the job of our elected officials.

Tu put a further edge on the argument on the constitutionality of legislation barring homosexual marriage, in Section 1 of Amendment XIV of the Constitution of the United States of America, it reads as follows...


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is as noted from here. (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html)

Also, the June 6, 2003 verdict in the Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence vs. Texas (http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lawrence.htm) states, in essence, that the state cannot classify homosexuals, much like they cannot classify different races and sexes in cases of protection of rights. If you read some of the transcripts in this case as presented in the link...it's VERY interesting how the case is made on both sides. Considering that we currently have about as fair of a Supreme Court in regards to political leanings (3 Conservatives, 3 Moderates and 3 Liberals) I think we can rely on the integrity of said court.

SUMFEAR:
The financial and medical benefits of marriage are merely the tangible benefits that we can directly point out and say that these people are being denied. However, they, more than anything, want to have the fact that they are in love recognized by all who care to see. The case of marriage in Massachusetts was sparked by a little girl asking her adoptive lesbian parents, basically, people who love each other get married. If you love each other, why don't you get married?


I am a pretty strong conservative on most subjects, but I have an open mind. If gays are in love want to marry for that reason I say let them.

Bless you.


If you beleive in christianity then you believe they will burn for what they do.

I was raised as a Christian but have grown up to be a Deist. To explain, Deism states there is one god (with a lowercase "g") and he is responsible for our creation and for caring for us, but is relatively benign in action. He loves everyone. Additionally, my personal brand of Deism (My personal mantra in life is, "The only church that matters is the one which holds congregation within your mind.") dictates that hell is illogical and is essentially a scare tactic. If you think about it rationally, there is no crime you can commit on this planet in our short, mortal lifespan, that can deserve an eternity of punishment. Our feeble minds (collectively speaking) do not presently posses the power nor capacity of thought to fathom the intricises of an "eternity." So to spend an eternity in punishment...makes no sense...however, to put another spin on things, heaven and hell are states of your mind in spirit. If you die knowing, deep down without doubt in your mind, you deserve rest in pleasantness, than you will, and visa versa. I am not casting disparagement on they way you believe and the way you develop your spirit in life, I'm just explaining my own views on religion that apply to me and how I live my life. This should, hopefully, garner a better understanding of myself.

In related conversation, everybody has different arguments on whether homosexuals are created naturally or societally...it seems the answer is yes to both. I did a little hunting around to see what the scientific community has to say about it and found this argument of homosexual causality (http://www.ohanlan.com/lhr.htm#causes) at least as it applied to women (to be fair). The whole article is written for OB/GYNs and seems to be fair in all aspects. It's nature AND nuture.

Now, here comes the sting (I had to)...

According to Genesis, God created nature. ;)


I have said some pretty harsh things to you & I am sorry for that.

At some point, I am sure I have crossed the same line. I would imagine we're even, but I appreciate the sentiment. Thank you.

92TBurnSC
03-06-2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Doug Franklin
SUMFEAR: part of the problem is a very political agenda with little regard for the majority. It goes beyond marriage and always has, that is just the current hot topic. [/B]

You make it sound much more malicious than it really is. The majority of the population is not homosexual and this legislation would not affect them whatsoever. So I say leave it up to those it affects...the homosexuals. If the majority of THEM are against homosexual marriage, then so be it.

If you might recall, the majority of the population was against racial integration, female suffrage, and the ending of slavery. This is just another extension of guaranteeing the rights of ALL Americans, even those in the minority.

SUMFEAR
03-06-2004, 07:07 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Slysc
03-06-2004, 09:48 PM
You guys sound like your making up your own god. How convineint. If you make up god, I bet he/she is gonna be a lot like you, or at least he/she will agree with you politically and morally.
God is who he is. It doesn't matter what you think about him. If you want to know what his will and character are, he has reveiled himself and his will and character in the Bible. It would be folly to tell God what he should be like.

Also, I don't think you can seperate ethics and morality. If you say politicians should be ethical, what do you mean? Do you mean that they shouldn't lie or steal or cheat? Well.... those are moral issues. If you tell people they shouldn't lie or cheat or steal, then you are imposing your morality on them. Laws agains theft are legislating morality.

Doug Franklin
03-06-2004, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by 92TBurnSC
Doug:
To be frank, it is not the place of a democratic government to dictate morals.

92TburnSC, Good at least you respond intelligently. I appreciate that and do not want to make this a war against our persons if you will.

It will take me awhile to dig thru and totaly respond to you. Like me there is a lot of things form my opinions.

Before I start I want to say that though there are groups with an agenda there is also just plain individuals that when you put it all together goes beyond the one subject of marriage.

Community morals and opinions are the bassis for making many laws in communities and always have been. It is a matter of record. We jold hearings on every major issue in Cresson. For instance controling pnography, though not prosecuted much in the past 11 yrs, is prosecuted based on what is offensive to a community. I am sure those morals are looser now. Comunity opinion does play a part in legislating law on several subjects including marriage. It always has.

Seperation of church and state came later in 1900s I think based on an old Jefferson letter to a church? The Gov was not going to have a state church nor the church control the state, thus a wall of seperation. That does not mean that religious morals are excluded just because a church teaches them. That was not what Jefferson meant at all. Folks twist the meaning now days or take it further than considered originally. I see it on state levels on subjects that have nothing to do with morals. Gov and Church were intertwined in other countries before this nation was formed. I could get into some of the conduct back then but it might offend.

There is no reference in letters or notes of discussions of the framers of the constitution & bill of rights that even considered gay people. It was not a very common thing back then. We are on new turf here, and so we as a Nation have to decide what to do now.

Look it has/had become politically incorect to not speak up for certain morals or against the gay community. This is a form of making the majority feel guilty if they speak up for what they believe in and how they want their communities and government run. Not that there was necissarily a big plot. I am OK with saying it just turned out that way. Whether I am Democrat, Republican, or Independent I will say I am glad of 2 things Bush HAS DONE. 1: He requested China to give their people freedom of religion (WOW). I wrote him a letter on that one and got an answer from him. 2: He has said enough about religion to make it politically OK to speak up against the anticeptic trend and some legal judgments that basically put a form of censorship on morals and religion. That isn't exactly how I want to word it but maybe you get my point. I don't have a lot of time right now.

When I get back home I will have to review some of your statements and respond. Hope we are not stoped but if we are I hope we take it up in email, OK?

Basically this. You have an opinion. Great. So do I. And it is not based on hatred!!! But I have the right, like you, to voice my opinion and to take government and political action on my causes. Just like the gay or any other community. I do not heckle and insult them as they do those who believe different or oppose them. It is OK for us to lobby right back. Of course there are those who go to far opposing them, too.

If god judges us (my beliefe), he also judges us a whole or as a nation as well while we are alive and after. Yes I believe in a final judgment a bit different than what you stated but I have no time now to explain, later. Never mind god history repeats itself quit often, when a nation decays moraly it falls. Natural resources won't matter, we learned that on 911. We drop our guard.

Longer than I wanted, I have to go, later.

PS: Boy sure hijacked the crud out of this thread and its all my fault, I know.

JSC
03-07-2004, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by SUMFEAR
I agree that the god I believe in is a forgiving one not a punishing one. I was just saying people look at this whole situation differently.

My own belief is that gays choose to be gay. I have not seen enough scientific evidence to sway my opinion. I have known several lesbian women who were molested by a male family member at a very young age. I am not saying this is always the case. Again just my opinion.


Really..... Did you start liking girls at an early age (i assume) by choice ? Seems to me that my intense enjoyment of the female sex was pre-determined and i had no choice! Why are some guys "breast men" and some are "leg men"? You don't make this choice ...it just happens naturally. Of course this is the part where people will start hurling quotes from the bible, but are'nt you being awfully presumptious to think that gay people were'nt pre-determined by someone with a much higher level of judgement than yourself? As far as scientific evidence goes, scientists have not proven that God created the universe.....do you sit in doubt over the creation of the world you live in as well?
Oh well,,at least you guys seemed to have put a cork in 1BADNOSC
:p

1BADSC
03-07-2004, 01:05 AM
Not really, just been reading everyone's post. Only difference between most of the posts and mine are that I don't worry about stepping on toes. I speak my mind openly. And the Bible (NIV King James) tells us that everyone at some point in their life will be given the opportunity to turn to God and those who except him will forever have their name written in the lambs book of life. Even the sinner who truely repents on his death bed. It also teaches that once you have accepted God, he will be their to help turn you from your wicked ways.


And for those of you who think Homosexuality is not spoken against in the Bible then maybe you should read Romans 1st chapter 18th verse through 32nd verse.

You can also look at 1st Corinthians Chapter 6 Vs. 9

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.



Maybe you should read the Bible before speaking about how much of it you know.

JSC
03-07-2004, 01:37 AM
I did not say that i knew a lot about the bible. I was merely trying to explain that i seriously doubt that homosexuality is a choice in most cases. Sure, your'e going to have some confused people trolling about trying to figure out who they are,but most gay's are probably born that way. As far as all of your pulpit pounding goes, keep it. You bore me. You as well , cannot say that God didn't create homosexuals, I know, I know the bible say this and that. The bible is an interpretation of Jesus' teachings, guidelines if you will, but just because the bible says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God does not mean that they weren't created as some sort of example and were not meant to!
You may not be wrong,but you sure are not right!

1BADSC
03-07-2004, 01:48 AM
I didn't mean anything towards you JSC. That was for someone else who was qouting Leviticus. :)

JSC
03-07-2004, 02:48 AM
;)

SUMFEAR
03-07-2004, 04:51 AM
:rolleyes:

JSC
03-07-2004, 05:47 PM
LOL ! I'm with you there........no ! no ! naughty jungle of love !
I like the whole package as well, but do have a particular fondness for the headlights.:D:D

Slysc
03-07-2004, 10:45 PM
JSC,

I personally believe that homosexuality is a choice. But even if people were born with those desires, if God says something is wrong, its wrong. If I happen to be attracted to women other than my wife, does that mean that I am naturally an adulterer? If I am naturally an adulterer, does that mean that it's OK? Should I just go with it? Express my adultery because God made me that way? NO! God says it's wrong. So if I feel drawn to do something that is wrong, I have to resist that. If I find myself stealing stuff and figure I'm just a theif by nature, does that mean I should just go with it? Should I expect everyone else to accept me as a thief and not be kleptophobic towards me? Should I interpret laws against theft as hate speach? NO! that's silly. It's wrong and I should resist the temptation. I don't care if they find the homosexual gene (which they won't), it doesn't mean that it's OK. What if they find a pedophile gene? Does that mean that pedophilia is OK? Of course not.
I realize lot's of people who have norma jobs and live otherwise normal lives are homosexuals. That's their problem. I'm not gonna say that they can't do that. There are lots of sins that are none of my business and people will live their lives. But don't ask me to say that it's OK or that it is a valid form of sexual expression. ANY form of sexual activity outside of a marriage is a sin. (now I'm really gonna step on some toes). So don't let the guy shacked up with his girlfriend enjoying premarital sex point a bony finger at the homosexual and say "your a SINNER!" cause he's not innocent himself. We're all guilty of some kind of sin. God knows that. He knows that we ALL deserve death and hell. Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Billy Graham, there's no one who is completely innocent. That's the whole reason we need a savior. If I was OK and I was acceptable to God, what would I need to be "saved" from? Jesus came to save that which was lost. That's all of us. All who will come to him and receive his sacrifice can be covered by HIS righteousness. Because ONLY his righteousness can justify us in the sight of God the father. If you think you can do it on your own, you are on the broad road that leads to destruction. Proverbs says "there is a way that seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof is destruction."
So I guess what I'm getting at is that homosexuals, adulterers, theives, liars, (people), need to be born again, cleaned and justified in the sight of God. Only then can they be with him for eternity. And when they are born again, they become a new creature, by God's power in them, they can then resist sin and be more like Jesus. (Jesus said" if you love me, follow my commands")

This all started with an analogy on how taxes are collected :rolleyes:
I didn't like the way this thread was going a week ago and so I erased the tax analogy but it just kept going and going.....

Oh well.

By the way, I had a chance to work on my SC on Saturday and I should be able to finish my double IC this week and it should be running by next week. Watch out!! I'm gonna be pushing on that 11 sec barrier this year!:D

JSC
03-07-2004, 11:57 PM
All i have to say is that i am not condoning what gay people do. I was just trying to say that some things in life may be following a different plan......obstacles that show the majority that they are on the right path doing Gods will. I was just raising the idea that these people may not have that choice. You can throw around all the Verses that you want....the bible was written by man and that fact alone leaves alot for interpretation.
Glad to hear things are going well with your SC
Good luck attaining the 11 sec.mark

Jeff

Doug Franklin
03-08-2004, 06:54 AM
Link to organizations or support groups for those who have or want to reverse their gay tendencies. Took me awhile but knew they existed.

http://www.pathinfo.org/

Doug Franklin
03-08-2004, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Slysc
This all started with an analogy on how taxes are collected :rolleyes:
I didn't like the way this thread was going a week ago and so I erased the tax analogy but it just kept going and going.....

Oh well.

Slysc
I take responsible for hijacking this thread to the latest subject. Owe an apology but I agree it wasn't going so good. With me it gets back to threads being stoped on non SC issues, particularly if religion or sometimes politics get involved. Taxes do that, so I did not look at this thread for some time.

I also sided with those in the member section, for awhile, that only car topics or SC topics should be disgussed. I did this, reversing my former no-censorship stance, because of a post or 2 by 92TburnSC which just got into statements I have heard for yrs that to me twist truth about gay issues. I never got past the 1st page or 2 of that thread. Maybe it was stopped to, don't know.

Then I met Vernon from Houston and it prompted me to search for past threads to figure out why he doesn't post anymore. I looked at a thread that I think compared our SC to something in the Old Testament which then drifted into some guys expressing their religiuos past. I never posted and I felt no beg deal about it. But then one asked that it stop and a couple more did as well. Nobody was trying to recruit, just folks past experience like people do, harmless.

The more I thought about it the more I realized I have the right, as all of us do, to express morality, religion, & politics as much as the guys who oppose views they don't like, post opposing views at times, then ask that moral views be expressed elswhere than this forum. I never asked for some of their threads to be stopped. So I have reversed back to my original thinking. On the other hand, rather than post maybe I need to report and ask for threads be locked that I don't agree with. Just isn't my style, I guess. If any of this makes sense and maybe I overstated a little but hope you get my drift and somewhat my feble explanation.
Doug

Randy N Connie
03-08-2004, 10:49 AM
To start with this board is all ready under censorship.And is baste on a religous beliefs.

I see nothing wrong with having a discussion on religion,or any other matter.

But religous people will start there" if you don't beleive."AS I do your lower than me.And try to gather
a group of religous people to get there doctrine force on others.By means of censorship,
by cutting out any subject that does not fit in there beliefs.Shunning,guilt trips or by any other means.

They will even do this to other people with a differrent religoun.Instead of respecting there basic rights,
to practice there own religoun.As they have.

I think myself and others will try to stop a religous discussoin.When it gets to degading others.
Because of the fear that religous people have a track record pushing there cult beleifs on others,
by any means censorship,all the way to murder,if you don't side with them. For thousans of years
this has been the norm.

So to stop religous censorship from spinning out of control.The only civil action to take is
to demand censorship of religuos people.To make a happy middle of the road,so every one can
practice what they please to do.


VERNON does not post here because, every one did not beleive the same as him.NOT
BECAUSE HE WAS CENSORED.

RANDY

1BADSC
03-08-2004, 02:19 PM
ONE NATION UNDER GOD! Is how this country was founded. No matter what God you follow.

Randy N Connie
03-08-2004, 03:39 PM
should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC

92TBurnSC
03-08-2004, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by 1BADSC
ONE NATION UNDER GOD! Is how this country was founded. No matter what God you follow.
Actually, that's how they decided to change the Pledge in the 1950s...a "day or two" after it was actually written. Contrary to "popular" belief, this is not a Christian nation founded on Christian beliefs. This is a secular nation founded on the basest of ethical standards...and is often contorted to fit fundamentalist religious beliefs (as in the Defense of Marriage Act/Amendment).

Slysc:
There are several arguments in your statement that don't hold water under scrutiny. For example...

-Pedophilia: It may or may not be biological (I haven't read any scientific studies that say either way like I have with homosexuality) however, there is one fundamental difference. Pedophilia harms the child physically and/or emotionally.

-Adultery: Same issue...it harms your spouse, primarily emotionally.

-Kleptomania: Harms the victims...financially and, possiblky, physically and emotionally.

-Homosexuality: Harms...no one. Yeah, there may be the occassional case of heartbreak...but where does that NOT exist?

And yes, there are more documented numbers and percentages of homosexuality today than before,but there's a major reason for that...it's now more societally acceptable, therefore people are more willing to come out.

Everyone else (I've lost track of who said what):
Contrary to what you THINK or BELIEVE...homosexuality DOES have a biological causation. Find a nationally accredited scientific study that says otherwise. Quote the Bible all you want, but it is, in no way, admissable as a resource for ANY scientific study. Here's why:

-It was written by man as an interpretation of events that involve blind faith and belief.
-It was originally written in 3 languages (Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek) and subsequently translated into Latin (and then to German, English, etc) by translators who had different biases and, at the time, lacke dthe scientific discipline to put them aside in order to closely preserve the actual meaning of the texts.
-It was controlled for centuries by an elite group (the Catholic Church) who had a tendancy to play with the meanings and implications.
-Different denomination...different Bible. Not only different translations, but different iunclusions of books or even entire cannons.
-Now, a current rash of different translations (King James, American, Good News, etc)...all which say different things about different subjects. For example, the depictions of sexual deviance in the online Bible I quoted from in a previous post is FAR less fire-and0brimstone than the King James and others.
-In modern day America...people tend to make it mean what they want to mean...especially parts of it that contradict itself (Gays are abominations...Jesus loves everyone equally).

Furthermore, ethics and morals ARE different. Ethics are more cut and dry. For example: stealing is bad, murder is worse, letting your dog ***** in the neighbor's yard is pretty lousy as well. The implications of people going against ethical standards has the potential to affect everyone. For example: the person you stole from, the person you killed, the person who received your dog's *****.
Morals are subjective and not accepted by all. For example: sex before marriage is bad according to Christians, taking the lord's name in vain is bad according to Christians, eating cows is bad according to Hindus, etc. However, transgressing these morals have no implications that would affect potentialy EVERYBODY. For example: sex before marriage could possibly cause orgams, the desire to raid the fridge, and a happier and healthier (according to some studies) life; taking the lord's name in vain could possibly piss off some hardcore Christian...maybe cause road rage, but then we get back into murder which is an ethical issue; and eating cows...kills cows...but tastes good and feeds the hungry.

Think about it like that. That is where at least I draw the line between ethics and morals.

1BADSC
03-08-2004, 09:33 PM
No matter what version you get of the Bible they will continue to say the same thing about gay marriage. What is even more amazing is that after all the different translations almost all the religious Bibles all say the same stuff.

kuhnga
03-08-2004, 09:58 PM
I should not take part in this thread and incourage IBADSC

:D :D :D
I just read this whole mindless thing. Do these 2 have any non-internet friends? Do you hear voices? Did you see your mother naked when you were young?
~~~ is wrong with ya!

Sounds like all the worlds problems are getting solved right here!

doug you were right the first time.

Dont take censorship or freedom of speach out of context. Things are censored or deleted because they do not belong.
You do not go to church to talk about cars and you dont go to car clubs to talk about religion. Dah.

If the club decides to have a religious forum, so be it. We now have new PAYING members asking why all the religious and political threads? I wish that was not their first impression of a car club.

I feel touchy situations can be talked about amoung friends. The TBU has demantrated this, besides if they dont like you, you get run off anyway.:D :D

David Neibert
03-09-2004, 12:14 AM
Gary,

The TBU is inviting both of them to the next meet/party and we're going to have a celebrity steel cage grudge match. 92Tburn vs. 1BadSC.

The loser has to fix Diddys transmission.

David

Randy N Connie
03-09-2004, 12:39 AM
Can I be the underhanded ref.please please :cool:
guess who will loose.And will not be number 1 any more.
Randy

MIKE 38sc
03-09-2004, 12:55 AM
Randy could you and I be tag team refs?:D Please oh please:D

Vernon
03-09-2004, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Randy N Connie
To start with this board is all ready under censorship.And is baste on a religous beliefs.

I see nothing wrong with having a discussion on religion,or any other matter.

But religous people will start there" if you don't beleive."AS I do your lower than me.And try to gather
a group of religous people to get there doctrine force on others.By means of censorship,
by cutting out any subject that does not fit in there beliefs.Shunning,guilt trips or by any other means.

They will even do this to other people with a differrent religoun.Instead of respecting there basic rights,
to practice there own religoun.As they have.

I think myself and others will try to stop a religous discussoin.When it gets to degading others.
Because of the fear that religous people have a track record pushing there cult beleifs on others,
by any means censorship,all the way to murder,if you don't side with them. For thousans of years
this has been the norm.

So to stop religous censorship from spinning out of control.The only civil action to take is
to demand censorship of religuos people.To make a happy middle of the road,so every one can
practice what they please to do.


VERNON does not post here because, every one did not beleive the same as him.NOT
BECAUSE HE WAS CENSORED.

RANDY

Vernon
03-09-2004, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Randy N Connie
To start with this board is all ready under censorship.And is baste on a religous beliefs.

I see nothing wrong with having a discussion on religion,or any other matter.

But religous people will start there" if you don't beleive."AS I do your lower than me.And try to gather
a group of religous people to get there doctrine force on others.By means of censorship,
by cutting out any subject that does not fit in there beliefs.Shunning,guilt trips or by any other means.

They will even do this to other people with a differrent religoun.Instead of respecting there basic rights,
to practice there own religoun.As they have.

I think myself and others will try to stop a religous discussoin.When it gets to degading others.
Because of the fear that religous people have a track record pushing there cult beleifs on others,
by any means censorship,all the way to murder,if you don't side with them. For thousans of years
this has been the norm.

So to stop religous censorship from spinning out of control.The only civil action to take is
to demand censorship of religuos people.To make a happy middle of the road,so every one can
practice what they please to do.


VERNON does not post here because, every one did not beleive the same as him.NOT
BECAUSE HE WAS CENSORED.

RANDY

This entire statement after the first sentance by Randy is exactly the opposite of the truth in this instance.

Vernon

Randy N Connie
03-09-2004, 02:47 AM
VERNON:Tell me what in my observations that I had written about that you think you
should call me a lier.

RANDY

kuhnga
03-09-2004, 09:19 AM
Gary,

The TBU is inviting both of them to the next meet/party and we're going to have a celebrity steel cage grudge match. 92Tburn vs. 1BadSC.

The loser has to fix Diddys transmission.

David
I would pay for that. These type of people would not show up in public.

Randy is my hero!

Vernon
03-09-2004, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Randy N Connie
VERNON:Tell me what in my observations that I had written about that you think you
should call me a lier.

RANDY

Honestly Randy I've got better things to do than argue post by post for the rest of my life. But just to prove a point to you, when did I call you a liar? I didn't call you anything, yet you say I have.

I went to the TBU where I don't agree with a lot of what goes on but I'm not censored.

Religion never started to spin out of control on SCCOA, rather posts to protest their existence here do. Yours is a perfect example. None of it is based on the facts. Censorship by definition cannot allow people to practice what they please to do, it prevents that. Though as Doug stated the only posts that do get censored are religious or morality based.

You yourself and others stop religious post by degrading those involved in some instances, not to stop them from degrading others which they have never done. And it's just as you have finally stated, it's because of your fear of them or past experience with a few of them from a "who knows where" cult. Not because I or anyone else involved have or ever would degrade, murder, or censor you. I haven't and I won't.

The way I see it you and a some others here only repect your own rights to avoid religion but not others rights to discuss it. That's the general attitude with you and a few others here, your rights are more important than mine because we want to talk about something you fear. Yet you feel it's okay to talk about things I don't agree with or things who's repercusions to society in general I fear for the welfare of us all.

Can you find a single post anywhere in the SCCOA or TBU to back up your claims that I or others will start "If you don't believe as I do then you're lower than me." at any time? Don't waste your time, no you can't, and none are edited.

"I see nothing wrong with having a discussion on religion,or any other matter. " -- Randy

Prove it and allow it without all of this anti religious posts propeganda. -- Vernon


Now that I've fullfilled your request as well as I can seeing I don't want to make it a passtime please retract your false statements about me at least. You can still stand behind your opinions but you shouldn't state things about me unless they are true, yours were not. I'll say thanks and go back into self imposed exile to allow you to carry on however you choose.

Vernon

kuhnga
03-09-2004, 10:53 AM
It has nothing to do with censoring ONLY religous post. As a matter of fact it has nothing to do with censorship.
People that state the FACT that posting non-relvant or contoversial subjects is bad for the site our wrong?
No, they are saying there is a place for everything, it is a fact of life to do not twist to support your claim.
INTERNET should be treated just like you would handle yourself in the office.

It is like me hangin car propanda on the copier here at work because I have the right to be heard!

No I surround myself with people that like cars to discuss them

Kinda like church, Uh?

Or P-diddy bringing his Barbie dolls to work for show and tell. It is not the place!

I know who I am to deny you, whatever.

Slysc
03-09-2004, 02:16 PM
This post didn't start as a religious post. It was a joke about taxes.

That provoked statements about political affiliations which were then accused of being faith based. We all know how intolerant some folks are of faith based statements. So.. now we have a 10 page argument.

Randy N Connie
03-09-2004, 03:32 PM
Vernon thanks for your responce.I do not need to do a search. The religous
degraging factor is right here in this thread.By claimed to be religous individual.

I am sorry that you have misunderstood the point that I was tring to convey.
I realize you have not read all the posts by others being discussed in the past
few months.So I realize you do not know fully what is going on.

This is a board for SC Thunder birds.Not a board for non-members to twist a post
around to express their religious agenda.To purposely stir up trouble.
And I might add do not even own a t-bird.

When I wrote my observations of what can and is happening in society.
Then I next responded to Doug F. about you not wanting to post here any longer.
Was a answer to a earlier post of Doug questioning why you left.You were not
included in my observation part of my post, to answer Doug.I had deleted
part of my post between my observation part of my post and an answer about you.
So I will apologize to you for doing a bad job of deleteing part of my post.
And I will even forgive you for calling me a lier once.

For me to discuss the negative part of religion,does not make me not religious.
But for me to be close minded and say all religious peoples practices is right .IS
to be small minded.Or a religious fanatic.I have no place for these types.Because
they ruin it for religious and nonreligious people.

RANDY

PS I have no fear for myself,but I do fear for others that have fears.

Doug Franklin
03-09-2004, 06:21 PM
As much as I want to appologize, at times, to 1badsc for some of the times I have mentioned him I have to agree that many times his aproach is argumentative, or appears that way. He has stated he does not care what others think, or something like that. Then he throws out scripture. Which if I look it up isn't always bad, but other times does run down others, in a way. But like some of you I have grown up around folks who do put themselves above others because of their religious beliefe. It hurts, but I ignore a lot of that now.

Whether right or wrong you don't usually convert someone by telling them their going to Hell. HaHA. I mean really. I suggest many a preacher has run people off with that tactic. One can use scripture to convey hate and I think that is what some do.

If others have a right like 92TburnSC to put out the homosexual argument. I feel I should have the right to put out the argument for heterosexual. I don't think others posting that their going to Hell helps anything. But then again 92Tburn seems to think, as does the typical homo tactic, that saying anything diferent than what they believe is a hate statement. Rosy even called it imoral. It is why I searched & posted the link to a organization of former gay lesbian people who have got out or wanting to get out of that life style. Even then they have this HATE twist thrown at them by other homo's, just because they want out. In there you will find links to sites where many of the issues brought up here are discussed.

If others have the right to say there are no morals, I believe I remember who but better not state unless for sure. I feel I should have the right to say yes there is.

I understand getting rid of the irratants. I dislike seeing us get rid of subjects because of them. Other clubs bar trouble makers. If they come back they bar them. Looking back there were some quit OK threads and yet they were stopped. Not even sure either one of these 2 guys posted.

It does more harm than good to censor a subject than a person, is about what I am saying I guess.

I sure don't like this whole situation and me in it. Sorry to you all but to de-moralize this country and this club just rubs me wrong, because that is what has been censored so far, as for what I have seen. Maybe I am worng...

Bye

1BADSC
03-09-2004, 06:55 PM
I never said that anyone who wasn't religous was wrong. I just simply quoted the scripture from my Bible that backed my belief. And I said, that I don't mind stepping on people's toes in order to support my beliefs.

Vernon
03-09-2004, 10:33 PM
1BADSC wrote on 03-09-2004 02:29 PM:
That was very well written Vernon. I hope that someday you will post more often on the sccoa.


Thanks, it was just the truth. Apparently Randy will settle for weasling out of it and I'll let him. Like you, everyone got the point. Doug had sent me an email informing me that he had included my name in a post and appoligized if he shouldn't have. I haven't been reading SCCOA posts like this so I had to start at the beginning. Once I got to my name being brought into it I saw the point Doug was trying to make. Then after I read Randy's rebuttle I knew I had to respond. Doug knows me personally, Randy doesn't. Randy was just plain wrong on all counts about me and my intentions. I have never entertained the idea of turning any SC organization into a church or Sunday school but I won't accept the one sided censorship of Christianity which is really what it is all about in my and many others opinion, they email me.

As for posting more on the SCCOA I don't plan on it. SC things here in Texas and Louisiana are finally starting to pick up and that I'm in a leadership position of much of it. I need to start concentrating on the locals who have become good freinds more than my fellow leaders in the Midwest, NE, or Canada. I'm working many hours with my step father at his garage that I stand to inheiret eventually and business is insanely good. Between the business and the locals which intertwine since I do a lot of SC work nowadays this constant back biteing chitter chatter on the SCCOA merits none of my time. I do skim though the tech posts but only for something innovative. It would be nice to be able to converse peacefully about our religious beliefs in the place that brings us all together. But these anti-religious fanatics won't allow it and seem to think preventing it at any costs is more important than giving everybody some room and concentrating their time on topics that interest them. If you think about it the posts against religious or morality based discussion on the SCCOA is much more of a eyesore than the posts they protest.

I do appreciate the stand you're taking and sticking to it. If I didn't have anything else to do I might still be fighting the good fight. I figured out that there's just to many people who have just pure desire and all the time in the world to argue over every word I painstakingly write trying to be fair yet still prove my points.

They can have it, I'd much rather live in the real world anyways, you can't drive a PC into a set of curves on the edge of adheision, drift gracefully from apex to apex until you catch up to a Porsche guy who thought he was doing all the good then blast past him when the road straitens out and he's giving it all he's got. Anyone who spends all his time on the internet politicing the content thereof is an internet enthusiast, not a Supercoupe one.

Vernon

Randy N Connie
03-09-2004, 11:15 PM
VERNON: Good luck on your southern venture.
RANDY

92TBurnSC
03-10-2004, 02:31 AM
To all the people who don't want non-SC threads:

To be frank, this is the most interesting and educational conversation I have had in a LONG time. Whether or not you can tell, I am enjoying it. (Crowd: "Duh!") I have avoided stepping on toes as much as possible by backing up my arguments with critical analysis, scientific study and the occassional "pardon my French" moment. Let's just let this one play out. It's got everybody talking and it's got everyone wanting to be more personal with the other members of this board. That's just my pair-o-pennies, of course.

To Randy:

I'll be up for that cage match...but make sure you are "distracted" when I bring in that folding chair. lol

To those who think that my view is anti-Christian:

I have nothing against Christians as a whole. I refrain from making generalized judgements about groupd of people. I used to be a Christian. However, I have grown in a way that promotes free thought. Blind faith and contradiction in print doesn't help me...however, I realize that religion is necessary. Without it, people will have nothing in the basest forms of thought to believe in. However...it is still a belief system. Just like Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc etc etc. There is no right nor wrong belief system. If you go back a few posts of mine, and look at how I view the world religiously, you will realize that I am both not without religion nor does my belief system exclude yours. What you feel is right for you is what you will be, for lack of a better phrase, judged by. For example:

1. For clarification, heaven and hell, and the definitions thereof, are within your mind. This also includes the gates to both.
2. If you believe homosexuality is the path to your depiction of hell, and you are guilty of homosexuality, then when you pass, you will pass through your gate to your hell.
3. If someone else believes homosexuality is a normal course of life, and they are guilty of homosexuality, then they have nothing to worry about.
4. This surpasses thy hypocrites in them saying one thing and doing another. If one person says one thing, but believes another to be true to them, then the latter is what they should be concerned about.

Now, to bring this full circle...Christians are the primary bearers of the anti-same-sex-marriage torch. I am not a Christian. And most homosexuals are not a Christian of the same belief system. This is why we make sure the state and the church do not get to close. I am not pulling the hate card (though I realize I have out of frustration in previous posts) what I am saying is this: Gays are people. Gays are citizens. Gays hold jobs, pay taxes and obey the same laws as us. They pay the same dues as us. Therefore they should be allowed the same rewards and priviledges as us. If we deny them that, the Constitution, the very contract on which we have built this great nation, has become meaningless. It will be the final sell out to the "angry mob" and will take basic human rights away from some of the most understanding people our country has...possibly someone you personally know. They just want to take their love and affection for one another to the level that we are able to. They want the world to see their love. They want to be recognized as being in love. This transcends religion. This transcends sex. This transcends politics. This is a basic human right, and, if I may be so bold as to say so, human need.

If you disagree with the statement that gays have the right to marry, especially after reading all the arguments posted by both sides, there is nothing more that can be rationally said. However, let the homosexuals determine their own fate. Their right to marry will not infringe upon nor demean the value of your right to marry or, if you are blessed with a spouse, your current marriage. If you are married, you know the joy, the pain, the commitment and the wonder. How can you deny an equally deserving group of people the same joy, pain, commitment and wonder? If you seek to be married, you know the fun and thrill of the pursuit. How can you deny an equally deserving groups the same fun, thrill and pursuit?

Our Constitution guarantees to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The outright banning of same-sex marriage violates the latter two. Disagree with the actual act of homosexuality all you want. But how can you disagree with upholding the Constitution? How can you disagree with guaranteeing all Americans have the same rights as the next?

JSC
03-10-2004, 02:38 AM
Just my .02

I don't mind having a conversation about religion,my problem i guess is a religious conversation. I attend church and can read the Bible for myself. It gets under my skin when having a discussion, even on the subject of religion, that i get bombarded with verses. I want to have a conversation with another person ,and if someone wants to say " i agree with what is conveyed in this book/verse, that is fine. If i need to know what it is in reference too, I'll go look it up. Quoting verse is often lengthy and comes off as preachy. I know that part of being a christian is spreading Gods word, but a public forum is always going to be a dicey thing. People are still dying in the name of religious persecution in many areas of the world,so it is probably going to get tempers up here too. A discussion about religion is two or more people trading opinions,Quoting scripture is the ultimate opinion,and people tend to think "well, discussions over"
When that may not have been your intention.
Vernon, Good luck with your increasing business.
Doug, Don't worry about where the threads go.......It's a forum...if a thread goes wonky after you reply, it's not your fault. You are doing fine. Nice to see someone who cares that much.

Jeff

Doug Franklin
03-10-2004, 04:37 AM
92Tburnsc as I have time to find what I am looking for I will post. I like some of the replys here. Of course the argument over subject sometime get in the way.

Have to thank you somewhat, as your posts have helped me step into political action, in the real world.

Though I have seen that some folks have a genetic problem, most have got into this on their own. Like KSC or someone said that just because they may be attracted to another person does not mean they act on it.

My experience with gays is a very self gratifying bunch. Yes hetero's are too but not as full force as I have seen. Many go to jail for not obeying laws. Many party too hard and disturb the peace. Many don't pay traffic fines, rent, household bills, car payments, etc etc. Talk to them and they just want more pleasure. Yet when they work they are usually very good workers. When they are kind to family and friends they are very kind. But then they return to the addiction.

Now many are as you have said and are very strict to never do anything but exactly the law.

We all have weaknesses and problems. We don't have to give into them. Religions whether Christian or otherwise usually teach the same morals. I would rather have a good budist family next door than some professed christians. I shock family when I say this. Without decent morals society will turn chaotic as laws are reinterpreted for the few by judges in lawsuits.

Since somewhere in the 80s the Supreme Court and some judges have stepped out of bounds by making law. I even see it here in TX on small matters concerning towns as mentioned earlier.

We are slowly loosing our rights of elected representation to the courts. So who rules? We the people or judges. The judges just make the law interpreted as they please. It gets into symantics and word games leaving out majority will.

If I have not mentioned it already Pres Poosevelt had to threaten the Supreme Court that he would pack the court as congress establishes the number of judges if they did not stop the monetery judgments they were making. They knew he could do it so began to change. Bush does not have this power today so no need for your group to worry.

We have abortions as a means of birth control due to Supreme Court. We now have this situation. And just because those few judges split hairs on the meaning of a word does not mean they are right.

Civil right amendments and laws were not for gays. I understand they are pulling at any legal string they can for the argument. Without morality there would have to be a host of additional laws in this country making the system more complicated than it is. In these matters we need popular vote. It is too bad in this case it must be 75% of the states rather than a simple majority. But that is the way it is.

Where do we stop with no morality? No good or bad? In many casses it still is majority rule or what is offensive to a community. I feel you are fighting that.

There is a choice. Men and women have roles regardless of desires. Self discipline. Love is not an excuse to cheat on your wife or to be gay in my opinion.

Maybe not much of an argument here tonight. I had other things to think about and do.

Doug Franklin
03-10-2004, 05:03 AM
There are some gays I know exactly their background. Had discussions with others. Just because I go do something wrong I do not change my beliefe that it is OK. I know it is wrong. I am not going to deceive myself because of my bad actions or desires. Most Gays get furious and out of control when I state this, because I will not agree with them that what they do is is OK. Relentless with the words. I have had many Gays bring the subject up and try to convert me into thinking what they do is OK. Gays are very agressive in this!!!

LightY3arZ
03-10-2004, 05:45 AM
Doug,
A truely MORAL man, would not judge others, or their behavior.
Whether right or wrong, it is not our place. A MORAL man would do his best to love all of his fellow brethren, despite their differences, weakness'es, or shortcomings. The fact is when, push comes to shove their are no innocents, we are all guilty of something.

Doug Franklin
03-10-2004, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by LightY3arZ
Doug,
A truely MORAL man, would not judge others, or their behavior.
Whether right or wrong, it is not our place. A MORAL man would do his best to love all of his fellow brethren, despite their differences, weakness'es, or shortcomings. The fact is when, push comes to shove their are no innocents, we are all guilty of something.

Most gays I have met need just that.

We are talking a much bigger picture where these guys hate moral beliefe and issues. There are those who would have many things more changed other than marriage laws. They have no regard for the majority and it is an all out fight on their part.

Edit: Repeat see below.

Doug Franklin
03-10-2004, 07:54 AM
Someone had a good point that the constitution says nothing of marriage. Our laws recognize marriage and regulate it somewhat.

If marriage is a religious idea. Why are they wanting marriage? If the bible is where this practice comes from then we get full circle back to the bible which does condemn homo activity and those who call bad good, etc.

Both Bush and all the Democrat candidates have offered an alternative legal bonding I guess for financial and medical reasons. But no. They want marriage.

They also want our religions of the various sects changed to accept their practices, accept them into their ministries, and their marriage. We have seen this change and fight taking place for many years in various denomonitations. (Hmm wonder if any of them have any legal grounds to force a church to accept them)

So they want to change their environment so they feel no guilt. They do not want me to think their actions are wrong even though I don;t practice them.

This is a typical action of anyone who wants to do imoral acts. Justify what they are doing worng as right and change the environment and influence others so they won't feel guilty.

So I guess we should roll over and have yet another version of the bible written just for those of them who want nothing to remind them that what they are doing is wrong.

This just is not going to work. Married or not.

I do not hate gays. I had a step brother whom I know exactly his back ground and those of his friends were. I know just how much love and compassion they need. But I also know that for most of them they will not find peace and hapiness in that life style. The thing is I used to be mad at my parents who just would not sit and make him feel as if he could talk. I was the only one who tried to help him. I have run into others who just want ot talk.

Sorry I see no need for the world to change for these folks who for the most part do not need to live that way. I am sorry they feel bad and would love to help them, but no matter what wins they gain legaly they will not find the happiness they seek. It just won't last.

Anyone has the right to judge but need to be carefull about it and judge rightously. If we want to finish the scripture it says that with that same judgment we judge we shall also be judged. Doesn't mean I do not care for them. I cared a great deal for my brother. I never try to deceive myself for anything. If I do wrong I do wrong and have chosen to do wrong because I know better. Should I lie to myself about it?

XR7 Dave
03-10-2004, 10:09 AM
Most people do not post on this thread because even though they have strong feelings about this issue, they are not sure enough about why they feel how they do to step up and put it in print. No one wants to be "targeted" and made to look bad, which is exactly what people like 1BADSC will do to you if you make a statement that he doesn't agree with and which you are not equipped to support in detail. Personally I am divided on some of these issues and will not be swayed one way or the other unless I can get to the bottom root of the issue and work upwards with there.

I still don't have a firm opinion on these issues, but I did take the time to research the gay marriage issue in the United States. Interesting reading.

First off, neither the constitution or any of its amendments speak about marriage in any way. Therefore, the constitution can not be used to directly support the legality of marriage.

The constitution can only be used to guide the courts relating to the RESULTS of marriage on the indivuduals involved and the interest of the common good of the people.

The arguments in the courts center around two basic issues. First, that marriage assumes male and female. In order to have marriage, you have to have both, or by definition you can't have marriage. This is a very simplistic approach, but it hits at the heart of the issue for many people. Marriage, by definition *used* to require male and female. Dictionaries were written that way but have recently changed to say "union". Go figure. Discussions about the rights of citizens (tying in the constitution here) is mute if the type of contract that is being created (by marrying) requires a male and female. This issue cannot be resolved in the courts.

The other argument (again relating to the constitution) is the effect of a gay marriage on the general "health" of the state and the people in it. Some would say that legalizing "immorality" will weaken the fabric of society and jeoprodize our children. Others argue that gay marriage is necessary to gaurantee the well being of the children. This has been a weak argument on both sides. I won't go into the specifics, it takes too long.

Point is, and this is what Doug was saying, is that allowing the courts to decide the fate of the gay marriage issue is not going to be in the best interest of the country. Trying to resolve the issue by testing it against the constitution is not going to work. The constitution was not written with gay marriages in mind, and therefore it cannot properly address the issue.

That means that the best course of action is a legislative action. The people of this country need to decide how they want their future decided. It is NOT a question of equal rights. It is a question of how America chooses to define itself. It is key to remember that America is different than Australia or Canada, or any other country. If we were all the same there would be no point in having any boundries.

The gay marriage issue has been put to vote in other countries, and it has been put to vote in several states in this country. Guess what? Americans clearly view the issue differently than other nations. We are different. That is not a bad thing, it is what makes us American. To say that Americans are intolerant and a bunch of bigots is just plain wrong. We as a people have opened our arms to the people of the world in ways that NO OTHER COUNTRY EVER HAS. Don't forget that when you are tempted to call some American intolerant.

We have the right to shape our future based on what we THINK and what we BELIEVE. The courts cannot make decisions based on those principles. The courts have to "bow" to the better argument with nothing other than the written and sometimes antiquated lawbooks. That is why the courts cannot decide this issue. Courts rely on precedent and law. There are some pretty lousy precedents on this issue that cannot be striken from the books. These mistakes have come back to haunt the judges trying to reconcile the issue now. It would be a mistake to allow the courts to make decisions against the "will of the people". The recognition of gay marriage is a very big statement for America to make. We need to be certain that this is the statement that Americans want to make.

Oh, and one more thing.

Gays are people. Gays are citizens. Gays hold jobs, pay taxes and obey the same laws as us. They pay the same dues as us. Therefore they should be allowed the same rewards and priviledges as us.
Please dont degrade your argument by using this very bad tactic. This is an entirely pointless statement and unfortunately you made several more of them like it that I didn't quote. This is an entirely false argument. Just because a person holds true on nine counts out of ten that does not make them right. I am also a person. I also have a job. I also pay taxes. I am registered with the selective service. I also raise a family in a hetrosexual setting. I also obey and am subject to all your laws. I am highly educated. I blend in ethnically. I speak excellent english (and I can type). I know American history better than most. I am patriotic and I love this country.

But I can't vote. I am not a citizen and I can be deported with 24 hours notice. I am not protected by the US courts system, and I do not have the "right to a fair and speedy trial". That's right friends, I am not an American citizen. There are many thousand others just like me. We have no voice in this country. But we understand why and we accept that.

Doug Franklin
03-10-2004, 05:02 PM
And guys this bunch from the poorest to the richest in evey walk of life is well versed in their tactics and justification of actions. Word in that community spreads like wildfire. I have seen it in action. They all talk about the same. Someone thinks of something new and all use it. It is part of the reason why it is difficult for some of them to get out of that life style. Sometimes they will not leave the guy alone. Recruitment is agressive, and not necissarily in a mass organized way. They don't want anyone leaving because it undermines their justification. Most are willing to follow the trend in tactics. I guess I should say the justifications for their lifestyle mixed with tactics. Yes they need love. Many are lonely. I can love them but I cannot justify their actions, much less anything I have ever done wrong. But I am not trying to change the world because of my bad actions.

No way do they want this a popular vote. No way I am going to just sit by and be brainwashed into accepting there actions as good, and be told I hate them. I don't. But this is a threat to our constitution and our legal system in this country.

As I have said before we have been lead to believe in a way to be politically correct is to not insult any group. To be tolerant. While legal tactics go on and on which most are unaware. And if you pipe up or question you get heckled as hating and throw out amendments etc etc. They have no tolerance. This is a fight and they the minority are taking advantage of the legal system and winning thru judgement. A step at a time.

I have said about enough on this. Maybe some statistics I have and other things if it comes up, but so what about those. This fight will go on unless we can amend the constitution. Supreme Court is out of control again.

92TBurnSC
03-11-2004, 02:35 AM
Heavy recruitment tactics? You make the homosexual community sound like a hard-core left-wing military movement. And by doing that, you almost make homosexuality sound like an infecteous disease. Both of which, I can guarantee you, are false, just to clear up any ambiguity. lol

Doug, you are right, the homosexual community has a very active and extensive communications network, usually served by e-mail group lists. This is necessary because the majority of news and other material pertinent to them does not flow well in any other way. For example, until George W. Bush started his anti-gay crusade, when did you hear public debate and discourse over homosexual rights? Heck, I didn't know so many states (including my own) has legislation against same-sex marriages. It's not newsworthy and the majority of the populous (read: heterosexuals) don't care. They need this communication to keep them from being isolated in the world. The same effort is being provided to Vietnam veterans, cancer survivors, adults who were abused as children, people who were displaced by the Holocaust, etc. You, once again, make it sound far more malicious than it really is. They just need to know who is out there.

The entire problem with the whole "majority rules" argument is that the majority has been against so many no-brainer questions that if the majority really DID rule we would be living in the same society as when this country was first founded. The majority was against splitting from Britain. The majority was against the abolishment of slavery. The majority was against guaranteeing the right of women to vote. The majority was against the integration of minorities into mainstream society. The majority was against interracial relationships. The majority was against lowering the voting age to 18. The majority was against funding research to stop the spread and eventually cure AIDS, a disease which has killed over 44 million people worldwise since its discovery. And, finally, the majority are against the concept of same-sex marriages. However, a very SMALL majority (to my recollection, 53%) are in SUPPORT of an amendment banning same-sex marriages. The reason it takes 75% plus 2/3 of both houses of Congress to agree on an amendment is because pissing off 47% of the country is, well, a poor way to run a country.

Doug, something tells me your interaction with the homosexual community has been sparse and, if I dare say so, a bit jaundiced. Never once have I nor my girlfriend, both being allies, have been made the target of "recruitment" efforts. Never have we seen violence or hate speech from them against heterosexuals. Granted they get a bit huffy when you call their entire lifestyle wrong, but, reversing roles so would I and, I would imagine, so would you. As a matter of fact, I have (and I apologize for) called your stance on homosexuality being wrong wrong. And you have, thus far, defended your view to the death. I also imagine you will continue to. I would expect nothing less. If you did, what fun would this debate be? I would just be sitting here bickering back and forth with 1BADSC. lol

XR7 Dave, the Constitution's primary purpose of existance is to define and guarantee our rights. Our right to free speech, our right to a fair and speedy trial, and so forth and so on. In more recent times it has also guaranteed the right of the people to vote, regardless of sex (the essence of the language used in the Women's Suffrage amendment). It has also decreed that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States..." It also says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," and yadda yadda yadda. How would an amendment that reads, "The right of citizens of the United States to be married by the state without regard to sexual orientation," be, functionally, any different? It would not promote agreeingly damaging acts such as pedophilia and beastiality, which seems to be an overly voiced conservative concern. It would not permit public displays of sex and sexual perversion as others fear. It would say that any two consenting adults can marry and have their love recognized by the state and all else who care to see. And as far as your comment about my comment being a "bad tactic" and degrading my argument...how is that so? I honestly don't see it. If you could point it out to me, I would appreciate it so I don't make the same mistake anymore, but it seems like a pretty simple and sound line of reasoning. The courts made the same decision regarding "separate but equal" laws involving segregation in the south. These people are people no less than any other. Therefore everyone should be guaranteed the same rights and access and inclusion to society. Separate is not equal. It never has been and, given the nature of the human spirit, never will be.

And finally, to Doug, the question of why they would want to marry if they regect religion and marriage is a religious institution. Well, as the Episcopal church in New Hampshire has displayed, not all gays regect religion. Not all gays regect conservative values. (http://www.logcabin.org/l) And, to provide further clarity as to the religious orientation of marriage, well, I'm sure you know as well as I do that marriage was around before mainstream religion...and DEFINITELY before the Christian church or any other monotheistic religion.

In all reality, I honestly don't see why there is such a royal fuss over this issue. I personally say let this decision rest with those it affects. And, since this issue only affects the homosexual community, let THEM decide. And before you say "we could do the same with thieves and murderers," remember, thievery and murder affects EVERYONE because EVERYONE has the potential to be on both sides of those equations. Only homosexuals are on ANY side of the same-sex marriage equation. Can we agree on this perhaps?


My experience with gays is a very self gratifying bunch. Yes hetero's are too but not as full force as I have seen. Many go to jail for not obeying laws. Many party too hard and disturb the peace. Many don't pay traffic fines, rent, household bills, car payments, etc etc. Talk to them and they just want more pleasure. Yet when they work they are usually very good workers. When they are kind to family and friends they are very kind. But then they return to the addiction.
This is really silly. I have met more rednecks with these problems than you have probably met homosexuals. This is really general and broiad to say about anybody, for that matter.


We have abortions as a means of birth control...
This is downright ignorant. Now, I am not trying to open up this bottemless can of worms, but I do have to say this: Abortion has been and always will be used as a last resort by any woman. Women who are faced with this decision know what they are up against, and abortion doctors are NOT the profiteering mongrils that conservative extremists make them out to be. Abortion is a serious decision. One that nobody takes lightly. It is difficult and for you to imply that it receives no forethought nor post-abortive regret is doing those who are involved a great disservice, not to mention revealing the ignorance of arguments against letting people make up their own minds. I personally would choose against it. This is why I am PRO-CHOICE. I support the notion of self-determination and the right to reproductive privacy and, moreover, the right of people to make up their own darned minds. So I am FOR the right of people to CHOOSE whether they like it or not. I don't care for it. You apparently don't care for it. You made that choice. Now let everyone else make a choice.

Sorry...I let that one go a little longer than I originally desired to.

1BADSC
03-11-2004, 09:07 AM
Just to chime in 92Tburn :) Abortion is taken very lightly. I know three people who have had one with no regrets. I know another Girl who has had 4. She liked to sleep around and bring guys home from the club and have a lot of one night stands. She used abortion as birth control and she didn't care at all. She even had a partial birth abortion with no regrets. So, while it may not be the norm, people do use abortion as a means of birth control.


2nd. Do you think I could get my local judge to marry me and my dog. That way we could file taxes jointly and get the benifits of marriage. Or maybe I could marry my fish.

As dumb as that sounds, that is where this will eventually begin to lead. That is another reason why this whole gay marriage thing is a slipper slope for law makers to decide on.

I can tell you one thing though. One of the big reasons this country has declined so much morally over the years stems from destroying the sanctity of marriage. When marriage was valued and respected you didn't have divorce, because society would shun you for not working things out. When a man got a woman pregnant he would do the right thing and marry her to support his new family. Marriage was not something that was rushed into and then thrown away as nothing.


Today, marriage means nothing to most other than a tax break. Marriage is so worthless now you can get married and be divorced in the same day. Now you have men who leave their pregnant girlfirends, or men who leave thier wife and kids without thinking about it.

This leads to broken homes, unwatched kids, worse home life, drug abuse, depression, sex, teenage pregnancy, and so on.

Believe it or not, how marriage is viewed can affect a great deal of society.

Slysc
03-11-2004, 09:14 AM
Abortion.. another great topic.

Medically and scientifically, a child in the womb is as much of a child as a child outside the womb. It is as much dependant inside the womb as it is outside the womb. If you have ever had a baby, you know that they are not independant as soon as they are born. (some folks say they won't be independant until they are at least 30).
Yet many people think it is OK to kill the child as long as it is inside the womb.
If we have a law against murder (a moral law) which I think is a good law, and murder is the defined as taking inocent life, (not self defense, war, or captial punishment), then by all accounts, abortion is murder.
I agree that the constitution is very necessary from protecting the individual from the majority. Under a democracy (which is majority rule), a majority could vote to take the rights away from the minority. That would be bad. That is why the founding fathers established a constitutionally limited republic. Not a democracy. This constitution established inalienable rights that were endowed by our creator. Notice that the government didn't give us our rights, they were given by our creator and the government only protects those rights. Also note the word inalienable. Which means that no "lien" can be put on them, not that they are safe from aliens.:D These rights are listed as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So..... if the government is to protect one person's right to life from another person who seeks to take their life, then clearly the surpreme court was in err when they decided the Roe vs. Wade decision. Since that decision medical science has made great progress and show that clearly babies in the womb are living, thinking, feeling, seeing, hearing, fully human beings and therefore deserving of protection.
Now, because they happen to reside inside another person, they can cause that person inconvenience, pain, expense, etc. but that is not just cause to kill them and therefore they should be protected by law.

Also, I disagree with you that abortionists are not greedy butchers. I think that they are motivated only by money and they sacrifice the health and welfare of the mothers by their shotty practices. I have heard interviews with a few abortion providers and abortion nurses who worked in the industry for years and they will say that it is 100% about making money. The "care" given to suffering women is "horrifying" and cruel. More women die from complications from abortion today than ever died from illegal abortions.
If your interested in further discussion on the topic, I'll find the web pages that have tons of info on it. The murder of innocents is always gonna be a passionate topic.

XR7 Dave
03-11-2004, 10:32 AM
92Burn, you have ignored the content of my post above. Let me explain it a little more clearly.

1. I stated that I have not formed an opinion on this subject.

2. I made a crack at 1BADSC because I find his methods of discussion to be antagonistic. This was probably uncalled for but it has nothing to do with you.

3. I sumarized what the courts of this country have been debating in recent years. These are simply facts, not my opinions. For you to rebutt me about those statements is out of line since they are not my comments but the findings of the supreme courts of this country.

4. I cautioned you about refering to mainstream Americans as intolerant. Attempts to fight the majority and insult their intelligence is not an effective way to sway public opinion.

5. I remarked about your 9/10ths tactics. Those are poor persuasive methods. You may "win" the argument if your opponent can't see throught the "crap" or "fluff", but you have failed to address the real issue and therefore have not really "won" anything at all. Your analogy is simply incorrect, but evidently you can't see that. Trying to overwhelm your opponent with a mirade of similarities such that they ignore the differences is akin to the "mob mentality" that you have accused others off. Since homosexuals fit 9/10ths of a marryable couple, you would suggest that we simply ignore the 1/10th that makes them inelligable. There is no reason to bring in all the other things that we are already well aware of. It would do you justice to stick to the actual issue and not try to overwhelm or confuse your adversary.

PS. I am not your adverary, but so far you have failed completely to convince me of anything. If you cannot convince someone who is already on the fence, they how do you suppose to convince someone who has already taken a stance?

SUMFEAR
03-11-2004, 10:39 AM
;) ;)

Doug Franklin
03-11-2004, 11:25 AM
You have no idea what my experience is. Figured you would attack that if I even mentioned. Good reason to not allow your community to decide. Because you will not and have not stopped there.

Marriage was instituted of God. It was not just around. The lord of the old testiment is Jesus. Adam and Eve were made in gods image. They were to multiply. The old testement teaches of the coming of Jesus Christ. Religion did not change, on the contrary the proficies of his coming and life in the old testement were fulfilled in the new. Genesis 19 tells us of judgments that can come to a civilization which deterietes into gay practices. 1BADSC had some pretty powerful scripture he threw out earlier, I just get shocked over Gen 19. So again I cannot justify the gay community as being ok for our society. It is dangerous.

There is very good reason to not accept gay marriage and a gay lifestyle in our society. It gets back to some of what I said earlier. You guys won't stop your pushing to be accepted as normal in mainstream America. You will demand that education in the schools will teach that it is normal. You will and already have adopted children and made like it is a normal family. Laws will be if not already in place to ignore whether an adoptive couple is homo or not, or foster care.

Every time the gay community gets a foot hold in a church it makes a big rift. Sure there are conservatives and god believing gays. I have known them as well. But it does not make their activity right. This is where they get upset with me because they will not accept their immorality. Again I will say if I do something immoral I know it and accept it as such, bad is bad, but I do not try to change religion and laws of the land to my immorality. You guys are. And you guys are relentless in this effort.

Something I have learned over the years is that it is almost worse for a person to cover up their sins than the actual act itself. You guys are going beyond that and trying to change religion and laws as if god won't mind. Which you more or less stated from your point of view. God is unchangable.

My reference to recruitment I suppose had to do with those who have dabbled in it and then not left alone by a hard core bunch. Guess I have seen a bad side of it. Guess I have seen the side of suicide and addicts of one thing or another. And yes those that had none of those problems. I didnt want to get into the young boy abuse but I have seen it. It is sickning like any child abuse. Many a gay cannot control themselves. But we have that same problem in hetero world so it was not my issue other than it is real.

Heck a person cannot even go to a park at night in TX anymore. Full of men. Had no idea yrs ago. Had to dive into a parts house cause one old man kept following me all over town braking traffic laws like me as I tried to get away.:D :D

Maybe I should have done what used to be done and stomp his ***. Not because he is gay but because the guy would not leave me alone after driving through his park. Trouble is if you cut your knuckles on his teeth or something maybe you'll get aids. At least aids has stoped a lot of gays from getting beat up as they used to. Of course a lot of tolerance has been taught so this this does not happen like it used to. But it used to be when I was young that gay men would pick up kids or hitchhickers and drive to a lake or something. Had some friends who were hitching somewhere & went along with a guy to a lake once, got there, and beat him up and rolled him and took his car and left him out there. The guy left no doubt why he picked them up and good thing there were 2 of them. But that is the old days when they were in the closet.

Sorry I brought up abortion because as typical you don't care about life. Don't care about families. Don't care about morals. It is a greed and with your definition of god you have no reason for self control. A girl having sex knows the risk. But again it is an attempt to remove the guilt with laws making it legal. Minority rule. And I don't mean ethnick! Actually abortion is the right comparison. Because your wanting to legalize immoral activity. No guilt. No responsibility. No punishment. Trouble is it costs all the rest of us. A father mother family reduces burdon on the government which reduces tax expenditures. Do I need to pull up statistics?

You are wrong about civil rights. I was there and about your age when it all took place. The majority was in favor of civil rights. Part of the problem was the solution. Many were against busing and forced integration. Forced is the key word here. In the South blacks and whites have lived together for always. We talk and work together. The blacks did not want their kids forced onto a bus shiped across town to a white school just like the white families did not. We already had integrated schools depending on the geography of where you lived. We all thought there was a better solution, but that is not what courts decided. The mojority did not believe the signs of sitting in the back of the bus were good, nor the seperate drinking fountains. It just needed the restrictions removed. We already had equal education in my city. The blacks did not necisarily want to live around whites. My parents lived in a black neighborhood for yrs after white flight.

Slysc
03-11-2004, 11:31 AM
SUMFEAR,

Rape and incest are horrible crimes. The people who commit them should be punished. If they result in a pregancy, one should remember that the baby is not guilty of a crime. Why should the baby be killed? It's not their fault.

The victim of a rape will not be comforted by an abortion. It's a unthinkable position to be in, but abortion is not the answer.

Doug Franklin
03-11-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by SUMFEAR
Slysc,
Do you truly believe that a woman who is raped or a victim of incest should not have the choice of abortion??

If I could jump in on this. You know the religious right went way to extreme wanting no abortions for any reason period. All or nothing was their aproach. I knew they would lose and told them so and so did many who were with them in that fight. They were trying to prevent a girl from lyeing. But they were hard headed. The mojority as far as I could determine would have allowed rape and incest cases but ban abortion on demand. Let the girl lie if she wants and it be on her head if she lied. It would have saved lives.

Sometimes you have to know what your limitations are in a legal fight. It would have been better to save some babies, then fight later on the other issues if they felt that way.

Basically it is used as a means of birth control now. Which puts some responsibility on the nation as a whole instead of the individual.

Doug Franklin
03-11-2004, 11:44 AM
Sometimes there is a medical reason to end the pregnancy. Some endanger the womans life and both will die if it continues. It is best to take care of that so she can live to raise children she already has or live and try for a child another day. These type of abortions were taking place before any abortions laws came along.

1BADSC
03-11-2004, 11:51 AM
in many cases modern technology has made rape abortions a thing of the past with RU-486, the morning after pill. Which would terminate the egg before fertilization could take place.

Slysc
03-11-2004, 11:54 AM
Doug,

As much as I agree that homosexuality is wrong, a sin, and should be discouraged, I don't think Christians are called to stop it or outlaw it or anything like that.
God manifested himself in the person of Jesus Christ in the time when the Roman empire ruled most of the known world. The Roman empire was ripe with homosexuality, idolatry, fornication, etc yet Jesus didn't call for social action to change the Roman Empire. He came to save those who were lost. Changing their hearts one person at a time. Their behavior was changed by their heart being changed, not vice versa.
Also, the apostle Paul didn't try to change Roman law, he was trying to change the hearts of the people. Only when someone knows God will they understand. When they are born again of the spirit and become a Christian, then we are called as bretheren to hold them accountable for their actions but the law of God is foolishness to those who are not his children. Here's a couple of things to think about: 1st Corinthians 1:18" For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." I think this applies not only to the gospel but to many aspects of God's word and his law. So until God changes someones heart, arguing with them is not going to sway them.

Doug Franklin
03-11-2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Slysc
changes someones heart, arguing with them is not going to sway them.

Yep your right and this is turning into that about the last couple of my posts anyway. I got into this because I see too much judicial law being made. And because of censorship in one direction. I guess I have said enough.

Slysc
03-11-2004, 12:03 PM
RU486 is not a morning after pill. It is a dangerous drug like chemotherapy. The makers of RU486 and the FDA origonally listed the treament required along with the administration of it and it requires a doctor to observe the patient for at least a week after. Senator Barbra Boxer harshly critisized these recommendation saying that they were just trying to hinder a womans right to safe and convinient care. (after all she knows more about medicine than the FDA or the pharmecutical company). One person already has died from taking RU486 without subsequent treatment and she developed a massive infection from the poisoned baby inside her which was not delivered and the infection killed her too. RU486 is nearly as traumatic to a woman as a surgical abortion.

Doug Franklin
03-11-2004, 12:53 PM
Here are some of the resources I found on the net this week. Many links to some interesting articls and policies even in the UN.

http://www.unitedfamilies.org/

http://www.defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/index.cfm

http://www.ldsmag.com/familywatch/031125decision.html

And the one I sorta like best with links, because they want to struggle to recover from this and other problems.
http://www.pathinfo.org/


This whole discussion has brought up a couple of things for me. Get more involved in Gov than I am already. And I understand school vouchers for those who want to use private schools and home school. Also censorship and self imposed censorship by guilt, politically correctness, and those who are redefining words to mean opposite of what they have always meant in the past as a means to quiet others mainly the majority. Media which my wife agrees to cancel some programing because our money funds programs with too much of a ponography and gay twist. Now I need to repeant of all my wrong doing and see if I can clean up my life, huh? Tough chore!

Oh and sorry to all if I went to far with this. Regards.

SUMFEAR
03-12-2004, 02:10 AM
My Father called today to remind me not to talk politics or religion. He said don't make me take off my belt.:eek: :eek: :eek:

92TBurnSC
03-12-2004, 03:10 AM
Believe me when I say this or not, but trust me, wading though these piles of ignorance is becoming wearing as of late. However, to continue the presentation of my stance in as best a manner as I can, I will just go in backwards order of posts. If things seem backwards to you while reading it, you now know why.

Doug: (the website post)
These are some of the most laughable websites I have seen in a long time. Well, with exception to Homestar Runner (http://www.homestarrunner.com), Happy Tree Friends (http://www.happytreefriends.com), and eBaum's World (http://www.ebaumsworld.com). Let's take a few excerpts.

From Concerned Women for America (http://www.cwfa.org), which is not a link you posted, but is linked to from your United Families (http://www.unitedfamilies.org/) website:

Homosexual marriage will always be an abomination to God regardless of whether a clergyman performs the ceremony. When God calls something unholy, man cannot make it holy or bless it.
Homosexual marriage is as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister or a group.
This is funny because the book of Deuteronomy (if memory serves) DOES permit, nay, PROMOTE, the idea of men being able to marry multiple women. Also, some Christian denominations regard the word of the clergy as being the word of God. Food for thought. Feed as you will.

From United Families (http://www.unitedfamilies.org/) themselves:

Same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue.
They try to make this point by quoting a certain poll (done by a company I personally do not recognize, though they may mean little) that says the majority of African and Hispanic Americans oppose same-sex marriage. ::scratches head:: I'm diabetic, which is, to a further extent, a minority group, and I support it whole-heartedly. Whoo ha. That still means nothing.

Disallowing marriage for homosexual couples is not sex or gender discrimination.
This one is silly. They argue that if same-sex marriages are allowed, it will widen the rift between equality of the sexes. Tell me, how often do you hear of a homosexual man beating the tar out of his partner? Or a "butch" lesbian breaking the arm of her "feminine" counterpart? Though I am not saying this has never happened (merely by process of elimination, really) but it is a much rarer concept. Homosexuals haven't been able to love for a long time. Now that they are, to a degree, they (at least the ones I have met) are cherishing it a bit more than I see heterosexual couples do.

Homosexual couples can already, without marriage, protect their basic interests with simple, inexpensive contracts.
No really, honey, I DO love you. Now just sign on this dotted line...
How romantic.

Homosexuals are not an oppressed minority.
I have a hunch that the thousands of homosexuals who have been mauled, maimed and even killed in hate crimes would beg to differ. If necessary, I can find statistics if you deem them necessary.

Marriage is NOT just about love and commitment.
You're right, Billy! It's also about, according to some fundamentalist groups, being able to claim your heterosexual wife as physical property and being able to do with her what you will. I could go on and on...but that would just detract from my point that this statement is completely invalid and...well...odd.

Same-sex marriage discriminates against children.
Two things, gay parents, according to children adopted by them, are better than no parents at all (which is usually their only other choice). Not to mention, if adoption is not desireable, creative people have found ways around such hurdles including surrogacy and in-vitro fertilization...and combinations of both.

Mothers and fathers DO matter.
And two are usually better than one, or, for most kids adopted by homosexuals, none.

Legalizing same-sex marriage opens the door to the legalization of pedophilia, polygamy, incestuous couplings, etc.
This is one of my favorites. I will start my rebuttal by quoting one of my favorite pundits, Bill Maher.

"Not everything is a slippery slope." -Bill Maher from Politically Incorrect

Furthermore, as I have said before, pedophilia harms children, polygamy harms women, incest harms the health of the resulting children (look at the British royal family, for god's sake. Their all hemophiliacs from generations of inbreeding). Homosexuality harms...no one in particular.

Legalizing same-sex marriages will accelerate the promotion of homosexual behavior in our public schools and in our culture.
Allow me to correct this sentence. Ahem. Legalizing same-sex marrieges will accelerate the acceptance of homosexual behavior in our society in general. Our base of intolerance needs to DECREASE, not do otherwise.

Opposing same-sex marriage does not mean a person is hateful and bigoted.
Though they technically do not have a CAUSAL relationship, they are correlated.

Okay okay, enough of that site.

Then there's the Defend Marriage (http://www.defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/index.cfm) website which says, right in Doug's link:

Yet, even though a solid majority of Americans oppose same sex marriage, unless we do something activist judges will certainly impose same sex marriage on us.
Apparently BOTH sides of the argument are prone to bad lines of poorly thought out rhetoric. These "activist" judges are only upholding the Constitution...which just so happens to be their job...not pandering to ANY agenda whether liberal or conservative.

Then there's the Latter-Day Saints Magazine (http://www.ldsmag.com/familywatch/031125decision.html) article regarding the issue. For these guys, I have to throw in a pointless and irresponsible ad hominem attack. They practiced, and in some isolated cases still do practice, polygamy. Latter-Day Saints is the five-dollar word for Mormon.
For the more meaningful and respectful rebuttal we have this gem:

In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, relying upon the reasoning of Lawrence by a four to three vote, announced that the “everyday meaning of marriage” is “arbitrary and capricious.”
For those who don’t have a law degree: marriage has just been declared irrational.
Okay, let's go to the more basic set of semantic and mechanical rules for the English language we all know and love today.
-"Everyday meaning of marriage" is referring to the part that means marriage is between a man and a woman only.
-Arbitrary means: "Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle."
-Capricious means: "Characterized by or subject to whim; impulsive and unpredictable."
-Conclusively, this means that the Massachusetts court stated the the man-woman definition of marriage has no basis in reason and no basis for existance. Not that "marriage is irrational."

And then there's PATH (http://www.pathinfo.org/). PATH, meet my good buddy, scientific research (http://www.iglss.org/media/files/Angles_41.pdf) and psychological analysis and study. (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html) This is the report of a study done by the psychology department at the University of California-Davis. You see...these people live in the real world where facts are backed up by research, observation, study and analysis, not by religious dogma and speculation.

Slysc:
You are correct that RU486 is not the morning after pill, as so many misalign it to be. However, your speculation about the dangers are, though not untrue, are more sensational than they really are. For one, RU486 is a serious medical undertaking and doctors DO require a follow-up examination after prescribing it. It's success rate is, I believe, 95%, though I may be wrong on that. However, it can only be used within the first 16 weeks of gestation. As far as Senator Barbara Boxer, after checking her background, I will admit, she is no medical expert. However, I am quite sure that she is more experienced at reproduction, femininity, and the medical problems that females face than FDA director Dr. Mark B. McClellan...who is a white male. And to say that one person has already died (and, by the way you make it sound, it was the result of negligence on the part of either the doctor or the patient), taken at face value that makes RU486 safer than chemotherapy, insulin, Clarinex, Tylenol and most forms of plastic silverware.

However, your comments on homosexuality in the post beforehand are discouraging but at the same time relieving. Okay, I realize that doesn't make much sense, but bear with me. The disappointing part was your first sentence. But All either of us can do there is really agree to disagree on the ideology. However, your statements about Jesus and the Romans (though I cannot verify the validity thereof considering I only have read sparse scripts of the Bible myself) are intriguing...and a good jumping off point for those who oppose homosexuality and same-sex marriage. For example, let's assume the Christian fundamentalists are correct and that gays will burn. However, your job, as Christians, is to provide direction to those who seek guidance and to be good, honest, upstanding, loving people to everyone else. Assuming they are sinners and so forth, calling them "dirty" and "abominations" and "devilspawn" will do nothing more than strengthen their resolve and eventually bellow a burning hatred of you from them. Make their life on earth as comfortable as you can (just like you should with everyone else on this planet). Let them marry. Let them go in though the out door and so forth and so on until their heart is content. Then, when they die, they will burn. At least their ENTIRE existence isn't a punishment. Let us not forget the primary teaching of Christianity and of Jesus himself: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." I do believe this is relevant to this debate.

Doug:
Refreshing comments on abortion from a conservative. You are close to being an upstanding individual on this topic. I commend you.

Slysc:
As far as the rape incest comment, think of the bigger picture. To do that, let's roleplay...
You are the child product of a rape. Your father was killed a few months later because of a drug deal gone sour. These things happen. However, your mother was violated and mentally wounded and has no means of finding restitution. Whenever she looks into your eyes she sees him. You know, deep inside, that your presence pains your mother who, of course, still loves you. She has flashbacks at night and wakes up in complete fear and paranoia. You cannot comfort her because she sees you in him and reacts violently to your presence in these trying circumstances. She turns to drugs, drinking and becomes destitute. Though you know you are guilty of nothing, you cannot help but feel responsible. This is, of course, a worst-case scenario. Things could have been much different for you and her if she was given the OPTION to choose. But no, some conservative politician FORCED this life upon her just to keep his conservative base of voters happy. You will never see him. He will never see you. But he wants to take your ability to choose away from women.
I will be the first to promote adoption over abortion. However, I will defend to my end the right of every last human being to make this decision on their own. Not everybody agrees it's a human yet. Let those who don't agree make their decision and live with the consequences, both positive and negative. It has no bearing on you.

And finally Doug...again:
You have truly shown your lack of compassion (which is supposed to be a Christian trait) and integrity with this post. Face it. Gays are deserving to be recognized as human beings equal in every way to the hetero community. Their acts harm no one. If one makes a pass at you, politely inform them of your disinterest and they usually release the "gay-tractor beam" or whatever magical powers you think they have in their "recruitment" arsenal. Let them be and they will return the favor. Let it rest at that.

However, your comments about AIDS are despicible, heartless and mean-spirited. You should be ashamed of yourself. AIDS, for starters, affects more heterosexuals than otherwise. As a matter of fact, 60% of AIDS patients in American studies are African-Americans regardless of sexual orientation. Using your same logic, I would worry more about them than homosexuals. Frankly, I am sure you think that the 44 million people who have died so far of AIDS worldwide DESERVE it. Yes, I know you didn't outright say that...but it was pretty plainly inferred.

Doug Franklin
03-12-2004, 06:15 AM
This is getting old and I just as soon we take this up by email. There is no point in taxing these other members.

Well I am surprised at you picking at some of that stupid stuff, whereas others have posted some good comments which you don't address. I am a bit disapointed in those links in that I have to dig for good info, which I have had little to no time for. All I found so far.

Leviticus 18 talks about who you can and cannot. Leviticus 18:22-25 is what says to "not lie with mankind, as with womankind". No animals either. And judgments happen on the land. Now this, 26-30, and Genisis is the one justification where I see Christians have in trying to keep this activity out of the land. We only have legal means for that and teaching.

Even profits practiced polygamy in the old testement at times and obviously was acceptable. So what? I guess the other points were not worth addressing. Most of those articles are writen for those who already don't accept gay activity. I searched more in UN topics and even then had little time.

I was reluctant to post any of my experience working with gays. No matter what, I am sure I fall short of knowing as much as you, which is fine. I don't like gay activity and believe it is a bad influence on our society. We have our place, & roles. We have our weaknesses to overcome. Yet that does not mean I don't care for the individual. I have counciled, taught, and helped where I could. Care yes I do and have.

I can fall in love with another woman and be attracted to another, but do I just go to the other? I have to have self discipline regardless of love or attraction. This has been addressed by others but you have not responded to it.

Any anger or frustration is the tactics of the gay community. They do have the same rights as all of us as it is. They are presenting a deception. Like I joked about earlier I guess they need to write their own version of the bible.

This argument will never end because it does get right back into the bible it looks like. In that the gay community has very little to stand on the way I see it. Now legally, and with all the various media to decensitize us and now change meanings of words, you are making very good headway.

There are some other key topics in this that have not been brought up. But you will not address a lot of good statements by others like Dave said.

Doug Franklin
03-12-2004, 06:20 AM
Self discipline must be practiced to keep society civil. We would not have to have laws if folks were more disciplined.

Already the gays and those marrying them are breaking the law in CA.

ThunderTurkey
03-12-2004, 06:49 AM
If I decide to get married in a Church or a Temple, by a Priest or a Rabbi or a Pastor, since Marriage in this case is a 'Religious Ceremony', WHY do I have to get a LICENSE from the State to practice a religious ceremony??

I will sit down and listen for my answer. Thank you.

;)

Slysc
03-12-2004, 09:33 AM
92Tburn,


You said "Let us not forget the primary teaching of Christianity and of Jesus himself: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." I do believe this is relevant to this debate. "

Yes!! Excatly!! That's the basis of how a disciple of Christ is to operate. People like Fred Phelps the "GOD HATES FAGS" guy who pickets funerals of people who die of AIDS are NOT followers of Christ. Many people say that they are Christians but they don't know what their talking about. 1st John 2:4 says" He that saith, I know him (Jesus), and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him". Lots of people say that they are Chritians but it's a cultural thing to them. A real born again Christian Loves God, trys to do God's will, AND loves his fellow man. (Jesus said not only to love your brother but to love your enemy). That is why I said that homosexuality should be discouraged. If I'm on my way to destruction and you know it, what's the loving thing to do? Do you warn me? or do you just let me wander off into my eternal torment? Duhh.. the LOVING thing to do is to let someone know that they're wrong.

Here's the gearhead version of that. Let's say you decide to get an MP Inlet plenum and ported MP blower, you plan to run it with a 10% OD pulley and the stock injectors and stock exhaust and bosch platinum plugs on an otherwise stock engine. Should I say "that's great! I wish you the best"? or should I say. " dude! your gonna blow a gasket if you don't open up that exhaust, and you're gonna lean out and melt something if you don't get some bigger injectors, and bosch?? come on! You really need to get some different plugs...etc". I think the LOVING thing to do would be to warn you that your setup is gonna give you problems BEFORE it's too late.

So... If I were gay, I would hope that someone would tell me that it's not OK. That's doing unto others as I would have them do unto me.

I don't like to focus on just the homosexual issue cause homosexuality is a rare case compared to most people's problems. It's just that the context of your statement was refering to homosexuals.

I know hundreds of people who are apart from God, doing things their own way and they need to be made whole spiritually not only for their eternal state but to give them joy in their lives now. Out of those hundreds, only a couple struggle with homosexuality. So focusing on homosexual issues brings little fruit. It's just getting lots of attention because there is pressure to label homosexuality as acceptable, and it's not.

David Neibert
03-12-2004, 09:35 AM
If I decide to get married in a Church or a Temple, by a Priest or a Rabbi or a Pastor, since Marriage in this case is a 'Religious Ceremony', WHY do I have to get a LICENSE from the State to practice a religious ceremony??

You don't need a licenses to perform the religious ceremony, the licenses is only a document provided by the state to register your marrige.

David

PS: 92Tburn...can you please limit your answers to 1000 words.

1BADSC
03-12-2004, 10:05 AM
92tburn, are you fighting for your right to marry? Are you a homosexual? :) :)






Just kidding with you. So don't post a 10 page response. :)

SUMFEAR
03-12-2004, 01:02 PM
http://www.berkeleybreathed.com/Images/fav_strip9_full.jpg

Cat Girl
03-12-2004, 01:19 PM
Great cartoon!!
One of my favorites. :)

~c

ThunderTurkey
03-12-2004, 03:27 PM
Quote :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You don't need a licenses to perform the religious ceremony,
the licenses is only a document provided by the state to register your marrige.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

David - HOWEVER, I know of NO Church that will perform the ceremony UNLESS you have your Licence!! Call any Church, tell them you'd like to get married but the State will not give you a license. Listen for the 'click'. WHY IS THAT?? Since when does a Church knuckle under to the MANDATES of the State??

:mad:

92TBurnSC
03-13-2004, 03:48 AM
Okay, another reverse order post...

ThunderTurkey:
You've got a point, man. Heck, some of them will give you the dial tone because you and your soon-to-be wife currently live together. They did a big, whole news story on the boloney of getting married in Eastern Iowa while I was home over the summer. I was...amused...to say the least.

SUMFEAR:
Cute cartoon. Double funny for me, since I work at Sears (which is what the sign on the desk says). I hate that place.

1BADSC:
Though we disagree on everything politically and socially, and you sometimes cross the line in your arguments, you can be good people. Perhaps you should make more of an effort to convince Randy and some of the other people who have been watching this thread of that.

Slysc:
You make a LOT of good points here and I appreciate this post. Those like Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell and so forth are NOT followers of the same Christ I grew up to know. They do not believe in the same God (or god) as I grew up to know either. Their god is hateful and vengeful. Their god is an eliteist. Their god is not my god. However, my god is VERY different from your god as well, to be very frank.
But let's complete your Thunderbird analogy. Okay, I am going to do a bunch of upgrades to my car without opening the exhaust. You say "Don't do that! It will cook your gaskets!" Okay. You warned me. I am stubborn and we both know that, though the chance of the gaskets getting toasted are pretty high, they are not a solid 100%. Statistics just work that way. What the Defense of Marriage act/amendment is doing, in this analogy, is the same as you going to the town board meeting and seeking to have legislation passed to prevent me from driving my car because the gaskets may blow. You are pretty certain they are going to blow. And you don't think I should drive my car until I have the exhaust done. Thing is...if my gaskets blow, what is it, honestly, to you? You served your part. You warned me. You made your case to me. You did what you would want me to do in the reverse case. However, would you want me to try to legally prevent you from driving YOUR car if you put an S-Type blower and FMIC and 85mm TB on your car without upgrading the fuel pump? Of course you wouldn't. That's overstepping my bounds. And straight people seeking to ban gay marriage are overstepping their bounds in the same manner. They can warn and preach and try to reconvert (which that scientific study I posted shows doesn't work to a positive degree) and that is fine. They would want someone to try to lead them away from a bad life choice if the roles were reversed. But they wouldn't want that choice FORCED on them. They wouldn't want the decision TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM. They wouldn't want to be DENIED THE RIGHT to disagree. And that is where they transgress.
On the religious note, regarding myself...I am without God. I am with god. You might have to sort that one out for a while, but you're purty smart, you'll understand...about now. Okay. Up to speed. I am without the Judeo-Christian God and am in no need of "fulfillment." I lead what I think is a life of good ethical standing and integrity. Ask anyone and they will tell you I put my needs behind those of others at all times and, often, to my own peril. I will stand up for what I believe is right until I can be convinced otherwise (which has happened) or until I go blue in the face (which is kinda happening here, lol). I have known hardcore churchies who have known me closely, and the only thing they can find wrong with me is that I don't believe. So, in conclusion, just because one is without Christ and God does not mean that their life is lacking or that they're bad people or that they're living a lie. They just believe differently than you...and we need that to have a successful, progressive society that will survive the hardships the future may (or may not) bring.

Doug:
Rosa Parks also broke the law. Is she an evil deviant as well?
We have an outstanding history in our nation of civil disobedience. It brought us the foundation of racial equality. It brought us the foundation of gender equality. And it will eventually bring us the foundation of sexual equality.

Here's the problem with your position from the standpoint that our government has to view it. Leviticus says gays (and 50/50 polyester/cotton blends) are bad. Genesis says gays are bad...in a more roundabout way. Romans also says gays are bad. Okay. Let's take this information and assume it really is the word of God, like you (and most other Christians) say it is. These words come from the Bible. The Bible is the holy text of Christianity. Christianity, last I checked, is a religion. And Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion. Let's jump from here on to two different landing platforms. The extreme bad news route, and the realistic route.
The extreme bad news route:
If Congress passes the Defense of Marriage AMENDMENT (not law), then they will have to take out the first sentence of the first Amendment (the religious establishment clause) and Section 1 of the fourteenth Amendment (the one that says everyone gets equal protection under the law) in order to make the Constitution consistent. You see, our government was founded with only ONE underlying belief...a signed contract is golden and mustn't be violated. The Constitution is the ULTIMATE contract between the American government and the American citizen. So for it to be inconsistent would not be allowable. So, once the establishment clause and the equal protection section are erased...well...President Falwell will make sure that gays are second class citizens with their own set of laws, rules and regulations; Jews, Muslims, Hindus and anything else not Christian will be either converted or shipped out; we will turn to a post-modern aristocracy and we will piss enough of our own people off to cause another Civil War will casualty possibilities doubling our last one making it the bloodiest war this world has ever seen. Yes...this is a bit of a reach and not realistic, but it opens up a lot more cans of worms than we would want to because this, or something LIKE this, has a distinct possibility of fruitition.
The realistic route:
Congress will realize that the Defense of Marriage amendment will NOT fit into the constitution because of the inconsistencies with amendments 1 and 14. It will get shot down, most likely in the Senate (which seems to be a house of conscience and less politics...though this is my personal observation) and will never make it to the states. Assuming it DOES make it to the states, there are currently 38 states with Defense of Marriage legislation. You need 38 states to ratify an amendment for it to be added to the Constitution. Assuming 1 of those 38 states has a pang of conscience...goodbye amendment.
The religious problem:
Every reason you come up with as to why gay marriage is wrong, and why homosexuality itself is wrong, stems from the Bible. The Christian Holy Bible. Yes, there are a few other rinky dink sects of other religions who oppose it...but really, they don't count. So, when the only reason to do something stems from religion, passing that legislation in a secular nation does not fly in regards to ethical integrity and with upholding our nations contract (read: the Constitution).
Now, if you can give me some good reasons why this should be disallowed without using God, Christ, Jesus, Bible, abomination, "Adam and Steve," or any other piece of ethics or morality stemming from ANY religion...please post them and I will entertain the notions they present. A couple forethoughts before you do though:
1. The "majority rules" thing doesn't work. This is a republic. Not, technically, a democracy. We elect officials whom we trust to insure the greater good of our nation and ALL the people who claim it as their home. This includes gays. If the majority really DID rule...we would still be a British coloney.
2. Your analogy about cheating on your wife is, as I have explained enough times that I have to take my socks off to count, a piss poor example of a proper analogy. I will explain why for the last time now. If you cheat on your wife, it hurts your wife...and your kids if applicable. If you have sex with a child it hurts the child. If you try to marry a goat...the goat has no way of understanding the complexities thereof and is, really, merely an object of exploitation...and is therefore hurt. If a single gay man desires to date and subsequently marry another single gay man...it hurts no one. If a married gay man cheats on his husband and goes out with your wife...it hurts both you and the other gay guy. See the pattern? I hope so. I have explained it to you many times now. Please catch on.
2a. The whole "give me a reason" thing is not merely a request to Doug Franklin...if anybody can come up with one, please join in. I want to hear the RATIONAL and USABLE part of the other side of the story.

Also, Doug, I picked out those laughable parts of those websites because A: these groups are some of the strongest proponents of the Defense of Marriage bills and B: they were the links YOU posted. Have you found anything worth a chuckle in any of those scientific studies I posted links to? Or have you checked them out? It's intriguing reading. Even I learned a thing or two.

1BADSC
03-13-2004, 10:29 AM
Gay marriage in absolutley no way what so ever compares to equal rights movement. Ask anyone who was there. Or ask John Kerry, he was booed by a black audience during one of his speeches for saying that.

Slysc
03-13-2004, 11:06 AM
92TBurn,

The Defense of Marriage act sounds to me like more of a definitions of terms issue. Offers of "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions" have been made but the representatives of the homosexual political agenda are not satisfied. The want to call it "marriage". The problem with that is that by definition, it's not marriage. No one is trying to defraud them of their civil rights. They would receive every benifit of marriage in the domestic partnership thing. So..... here's the way I see it in another supercoupe analogy.

Some guy "John" joins the page and he drives a Firebird. He really likes the sccoa and want's all the benifits of membership. OK... he can be a member. No big deal. But now this guy isn't satisfied. He wants his Firebird to be called an SC and he want's it listed in the Fastest SC list. Well.. no, we can't do that. Why? Do we HATE Firebirds? Do we Hate John? no, John can be on the fastest SC list when he buys and SC. A Firebird is not and SC no matter what you do to it.

People who call themselves homosexual, CAN get married legally just like you and I. So no one is discriminating against them and they can't claim that. They can just go find someone of the opposite sex who is consenting and they can get married. But what they can't do is create a union with someone of the same sex and call it a marriage. It's just not a marriage.

ThunderTurkey
03-13-2004, 04:02 PM
Political Correctness and a Discrimination-free Society for All!!
(A future scene at City Hall in San Francisco in the near future)
"Next."
"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest? No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same opportunity to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license.
"NEXT."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? You didn't draw the line at tradition marriage.
There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples only.
The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right, here's your license."
"NEXT."
"Hello, I would like to marry my dog"
"What!! Marry your dog --are you crazy?"
"How dare you insult me and my dog."
"But, you cannot marry your dog!"
"Who says so? I want my consitutional rights. You marry everyone else so you must marry me and Fido. I'll sue you if you deny me my rights."
"All Right, All Right here's your license"
"NEXT!"
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"Sam Supercoupe."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return. I have constitutional rights!!"
Think about it................
:D

SUMFEAR
03-13-2004, 07:48 PM
It's funny because its true:D :D

1BADSC
03-13-2004, 09:18 PM
That is the way things work when you get people in law making positions who are afraid to take a stand and do whats right.

ThunderTurkey
03-13-2004, 09:47 PM
I guess that means just about everybody! Not since the Framers of the Constitution has anyone tried to 'do what is right'. How many people know what the Federalist Papers are, let alone read them? Anyone know the evils of 'paper-money' or what the fractional reserve banking system has done to the country?
The founding Fathers knew what would happen if the Government ever coined anything but gold or silver as money. They HATED paper 'Notes'! Check Article I Section 10 of the Constitution which declares : "No State shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."
This was meant to be a GREAT check-and-balance against the Government ever issuing paper and CALLING it money.
The Founding Fathers have GOT to be SPINNING in their graves!

:(

MIKE 38sc
03-13-2004, 10:57 PM
You're right Turkey but dont expect any of them to understand or agree with you because Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard and very few if any Republicons will ever admit that being a bad thing for our country.
Hell most people think the Federal Reserve is a part of the US government. Man I wished I could get a deal on printing money for the US like they have, its pitifull how the Federal Reserve rapes us just for the right to print or paper money. But hey who cares, the economy is making a comeback the stock market is soaring and nearly every American that wants a job has one. Now if we could only do something about this pesky marriage thing this would be Utopia.:)