|
|
| Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (101800) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 9 |
||
|
| (102424) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Tue Feb 28 22:03:12 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Line 13 on Tue Feb 28 19:18:18 2006. What about the B17? |
|
|
| (102438) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 23:01:33 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 22:02:16 2006. Yes, you are a troll! B7 4 yu0 |
|
|
| (102439) | |
Re: Brooklyn IND, la puta de trolling, quiere un b7 pronto. |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 23:03:37 2006, in response to Brooklyn IND, la puta de trolling, quiere un b7 pronto., posted by New Brunswick Station on Tue Feb 28 20:27:29 2006. ˇSí! |
|
|
| (102442) | |
Re: B7 4 BklynIND the king of trolling |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 23:04:38 2006, in response to Re: B7 4 BklynIND the king of trolling, posted by New Brunswick Station on Tue Feb 28 20:16:06 2006. No, those are drag queens, specifically. |
|
|
| (102444) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 23:06:59 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by mambomta on Tue Feb 28 11:11:13 2006. That left-handedness being a mark of the devil was a hangover from Roman beliefs . . . after all, the Latin word for "left" is sinister . . . |
|
|
| (102471) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE) |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Wed Mar 1 00:41:08 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE), posted by New Brunswick Station on Tue Feb 28 19:55:07 2006. Now, that's better. I have to remember not to stay away for so long; people might forget me and then when I come to New York no one will remember who I am. Can't have that, can I? |
|
|
| (102473) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by Dand124 on Wed Mar 1 01:15:18 2006, in response to Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by aem7ac on Mon Feb 27 09:45:15 2006. Stem CellFor. I don't think it is cure all but there is no reason to let religion get in the way of potentially useful medicine. Gun Control Against. Every citizen is has a right to own a gun for protection. When law and order breaks down I gun may be your only means of protection (think of the Korean shop owners in the L.A, riots). I favor instant background checks to make sure a violent criminal or mentally ill person doesn't have access to guns but that's it. Abortion Choice For. I would in theory support banning late term abortion unless there is a medical need, however since there aren't may unjustified late term abortions I don't want judges playing doctors. Federal Healthcare Against. A federal health system would just be filled with waste incompetence and patronage. MSAs are the way to go. Port Sale For. U.S. navy ships dock in ports run this company already without incident there is no reason to think that they would pose one here. I think it is unlikely the terrorists would use ports anyway it's not difficult to smuggle things in and a nuke doesn't take up much space. Politicians of both parties grandstanding on the issue when they clearly don’t know much about it also annoy me (like when schumer was talking about 'manifolds' on IMUS). Soc. Sec. Reform For. Social security was originally designed a form of insurance not as a retirement plan. I don't like the idea of bureaucrats deciding but investment plans people should be able to invest in, as was the case under Bush's plan. Keep to survivor and disability plans as they are make the rest voluntary like Goldwater wanted to. Morning After For. Since it's safe it should be allowed OTC. Gay Marriage Favor, this is a simple equal protection issue. Public Smoking Ban Oppose. Private business owners should decide what is and isn't allowed at their businesses. Patriot Act Oppose the controversial parts. I never trust any government with this much power, and we are already starting to see mission creep. We should tighten up the boards and be more selective in who we give visas to. Creation in Schools Oppose there religion is not science end of story. Motorcycle Helmet laws Oppose. If someone wants to do something stupid that's his or her right. Insurance companies should be able to charge higher rates to people who don't where helmets however. |
|
|
| (102475) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Dand124 on Wed Mar 1 01:48:09 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Charles G on Tue Feb 28 15:08:16 2006. Type his handle into google and you'll see where he's coming from. |
|
|
| (102482) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 02:17:47 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Charles G on Tue Feb 28 15:08:16 2006. If so, it wouldn't be "unreported", would it? . . . or hiding it. A 1,000-percent return on an investment can still be hidden. Conducting your business overseas presents a remarkable opportunity to do exactly that. That's not all I'm accusing them of hiding. Unless you think corporate executives and officers are boy scouts? I'm not an IRS officer, so I don't have the resources to expose these corporate crimes . . . but I do know how to calculate percentage. How do you reconcile a $7 total production cost with a $100 retail price? |
|
|
| (102483) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 02:18:27 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Dand124 on Wed Mar 1 01:48:09 2006. Hint: it's a parody. |
|
|
| (102488) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Mar 1 04:01:40 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Feb 28 12:07:20 2006. So true. |
|
|
| (102490) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Wed Mar 1 04:20:25 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 10:14:54 2006. When I got married, I was crazy for my wife.25 years later, I feel the same way! |
|
|
| (102492) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Mar 1 05:41:35 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by daDouce Man on Wed Mar 1 04:20:25 2006. You're one of the few lucky ones. |
|
|
| (102498) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Wed Mar 1 06:59:23 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 02:18:27 2006. Olog-Hai are a sort of troll created by Sauron. They are bigger, stronger and much cleverer than ordinary trolls |
|
|
| (102499) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Wed Mar 1 07:05:40 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by New Brunswick Station on Tue Feb 28 20:18:25 2006. Rabies, Chris belches out the GOP line like an Edison cylinder machine. |
|
|
| (102515) | |
Re: Brooklyn IND, la puta de trolling, quiere un b7 pronto. |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Mar 1 08:49:57 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn IND, la puta de trolling, quiere un b7 pronto., posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 23:03:37 2006. How'd you make that upside down exclamation point? |
|
|
| (102516) | |
Re: Brooklyn IND, la puta de trolling, quiere un b7 pronto. |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Mar 1 08:50:48 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn IND, la puta de trolling, quiere un b7 pronto., posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Mar 1 08:49:57 2006. He turns his keyboard upside down |
|
|
| (102521) | |
Re: Brooklyn IND, la puta de trolling, quiere un b7 pronto. |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Mar 1 08:53:53 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn IND, la puta de trolling, quiere un b7 pronto., posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Mar 1 08:50:48 2006. ROFL |
|
|
| (102522) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Mar 1 08:55:36 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 23:01:33 2006. B7 is the unofficial mantra for this subthread, I guess. |
|
|
| (102530) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 09:48:29 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Mar 1 08:55:36 2006. That or "reef" . . . |
|
|
| (102535) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Wed Mar 1 10:01:56 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 23:06:59 2006. That left-handedness being a mark of the devil was a hangover from Roman beliefs . . . after all, the Latin word for "left" is sinister . . .Actually, I believe it is actually from a misunderstanding of certain religious texts, including the Bible, where right and left are used alot when referencing good and bad respectively. |
|
|
| (102542) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 10:22:56 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by mambomta on Wed Mar 1 10:01:56 2006. The Bible? No consistency there. Every time the words "right hand" and "left hand" appear together, there's no reference to them differentiating between good and bad, except in Matthew 25:33 where the sheep are put on the right hand and the goats on the left. Certainly James and John wanted to stand on Jesus' right and left hands (Matthew 20:21, Mark 10:37). And when giving alms, when it says to not let the right hand know what the left hand is doing (Matthew 6:3), the left hand is doing good. |
|
|
| (102546) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Wed Mar 1 10:32:03 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 10:22:56 2006. Every time the words "right hand" and "left hand" appear together, there's no reference to them differentiating between good and bad, except in Matthew 25:33 where the sheep are put on the right hand and the goats on the left.That's what a lot of Christians used to justify forcing left-handed children to use their right hand. My brothers' father was like that. When I was little, he tried to get my mother to "turn me into a righty". Thankfully, she refused. However, when the older of my younger brothers was a baby, he wouldn't let him take anything from him with his left hand, which of course annoyed my mother and confused me(I couldn't understand why it would matter which hand was used). |
|
|
| (102548) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 1 10:34:01 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by mambomta on Wed Mar 1 10:32:03 2006. So, you are gauche and not adroit.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (102549) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 10:34:17 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by mambomta on Wed Mar 1 10:32:03 2006. That's what happens when "Christians" don't read the whole Bible. James and John didn't want to be on Christ's right hand only . . . |
|
|
| (102551) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Wed Mar 1 10:38:37 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 1 10:34:01 2006. So, you are gauche and not adroit.Only in someone's limited mind(if you use the more modern meanings of those words). |
|
|
| (102552) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Wed Mar 1 10:43:57 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 10:34:17 2006. That's what happens when "Christians" don't read the whole Bible.I think it more like what happens when "Christians" either want to justify a prejudice or don't question religious(or other) authority, which is of course completely counter to Christianity to begin with, considering that the religion wouldn't have even existed had Jesus not questioned the "rules". |
|
|
| (102564) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 11:27:52 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by mambomta on Wed Mar 1 10:43:57 2006. Exactly, when "Christians" don't read the whole Bible.Jesus didn't question the rules. He reinforced them, in fact, in an atmosphere where the religious leaders wanted to cling to heathen practices . . . |
|
|
| (102592) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by JPC on Wed Mar 1 14:48:30 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by daDouce Man on Wed Mar 1 04:20:25 2006. I was crazy for my wife.Hey, me too, minus the "for my wife" part. :) |
|
|
| (102596) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by JPC on Wed Mar 1 14:57:47 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by Dand124 on Wed Mar 1 01:15:18 2006. Gay MarriageFavor, this is a simple equal protection issue. Exactly. I don't see why there's any opposition to this issue at all. Nobody's forcing you or me or anybody else to get gay-married. It's two people, acting consentually of their own volition. It does not affect anybody outside the two getting married and their immediate circle of peers, wo what the hell business is it of theirs to stand in the way? Then, some people say that marriage is a sacred tradition and the government has to protect it. Bullshit. Marriage existed for thousands of years before the US Government ever existed, and according to the righties, that's when it was doing so well. Others will say that they just disagree with gay people getting married for one reason or another. Well, (a) it's none of your business, and (b) if you're squeamish about gay people being "married," then call it a "civil union." But then the equal protection clause applies - whatever legal protections and responsibilities are afforded married straight couples must also be offered to gay couples in civil unions. So the simplest solution is this: Everybody, gay and straight, gets civil unions! That way everybody gets the same legal treatment - protection against testifying against your spouse, pension and medical benefits, inheritance rights, joint income tax-filing, and so on. If you want to go to a church, mosque or synagogue and get "married," that's up to you. I'm sure there are plenty of Unitarian, Episcopalian and Reformed churches and synagogues that will do same-sex marriages, so the Baptists need not get their undies in a bunch. Just bear in mind that the church-issued marriage certificate has no legal standing whatsoever. And isn't that the way it's supposed to be? Separation of church and state. I guess we form the libertarian faction of subchat, since our answers are almost identical... |
|
|
| (102597) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by JPC on Wed Mar 1 15:02:39 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Booge on Mon Feb 27 15:05:27 2006. http://www.ontheissues.org/quizeng/XPolitics/start.aspTry this. It's not ideal but it's a good starting point. I'm a "moderate libertarian" on this quiz. |
|
|
| (102640) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE) |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Mar 1 18:55:26 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE), posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Wed Mar 1 00:41:08 2006. nnnnnnnnnnope :) |
|
|
| (102655) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 1 19:35:58 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by mambomta on Wed Mar 1 10:38:37 2006. I wasn't, brah.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (102660) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 1 19:42:02 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by JPC on Wed Mar 1 14:57:47 2006. American Pigs proposed this last year and I agree. The state has no right to decide the sanctity of marriage, so everyone gets a civil union and if you want the sanctity, go to the house of worship of your choice.your pal, Fred PS I don't need a lot of science to see that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. I've seen farm animals at play... |
|
|
| (102665) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Mar 1 19:53:59 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 11:27:52 2006. The "Sadduccees" probably knew there was a draw in the rules, but the pagan Romans ruled the roost at the time, seeing as they had the chariots and the spears, so, yeah, there was some kowtowing to heathanism among the "Sadduccees". Of course, Jesus (while he was generally about supporting The Rules, which many of his countrypeople were familiar with and supported) was kinda liberal at times, along with John the Baptist (remember, baptism in the Jordan RIVER and not in a mikvah!), and he liked to wander around, too, something his agrarian country might've found a tad strange.Also, he somehow fostered so close a bond between himself and his congregation that his students started focusing more on him than on the "rules" of society in general, and soon the people spreading his teaching started to talk more and more of him. So Jews in general started getting annoyed with this, leading to controversy, which (in turn) led to people propagandizing to the outside world. This led to Jewish principles getting slapped onto pagan principles, which led to the new religion (and the new "rules"). Of course, by this time, rebels would be attracted to this new mindset. |
|
|
| (102666) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Mar 1 19:56:01 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 1 19:42:02 2006. oink oink MOOOOO hssss oink ma-a-a-a-ah MOOOO......Eeew~! |
|
|
| (102669) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 1 20:18:36 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Mar 1 19:56:01 2006. Feh...leave it to beaver..your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (102687) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Wed Mar 1 21:26:38 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 1 19:35:58 2006. I wasn't, brah.I know you weren't. Otherwise, my response would have been different. |
|
|
| (102689) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Wed Mar 1 21:33:11 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Mar 1 19:56:01 2006. Sick f**k |
|
|
| (102700) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by JPC on Wed Mar 1 22:29:12 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 1 19:42:02 2006. Exactly.PS I don't need a lot of science to see that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. I've seen farm animals at play... But even still - not my life, not my business. Now, if someone were trying to gay-marry me to Jerry Fallwell, then I'd be a hootin and a hollerin and for plenty good reason, but if Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps want to go in a closet and cornhole each other until their testicles are whistling O Come All Ye Faithful, that's up to them. And I'm sure that they do. |
|
|
| (102702) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 22:32:22 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by Fred G on Wed Mar 1 19:42:02 2006. How come the anus doesn't have Bartholin's glands, then . . . ? AHA! Farm animals don't penetrate when they do that. It's a dominance display . . . |
|
|
| (102704) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Mar 1 22:33:48 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 22:32:22 2006. Oh, shure. It's sex anyway. |
|
|
| (102715) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 23:01:20 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Mar 1 22:33:48 2006. No climax though, so can't be . . .
|
|
|
| (102717) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Wed Mar 1 23:02:30 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 23:01:20 2006. Maybe, maybe not. >:-) |
|
|
| (102766) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Thu Mar 2 09:21:28 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 22:32:22 2006. Sez you. :Dyour pal, Fred |
|
|
| (102771) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (NEW: Dubya deal w/ India) |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Thu Mar 2 10:20:14 2006, in response to Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by aem7ac on Mon Feb 27 09:45:15 2006. Dubya nucular deal w/ India: Not sure whether I'm FOR or AGAINST.Items in favor: a) India is a big country, b) it's a democracy (unlike the big country just over the Himalayas which claims Tibet as part of its territory), c) alliances with multiple countries, often rivals of one another, can help promote the peace, or tip the balance of world power so as to favor America ("divide and conquer lite"). d) Siding with India can give us an excuse to eventually turn our back on the People's Republic of China (or at least pay less attention to the economy there), e) I kinda like Bollywood movies (ok, weak reason, but omgwtfbbq.) Items against: a)it's illegal (technically, since India never signed the Nuke Nonproliferation Treaty), b) numerous Indians and probably Congresspeople are against the idea (and it comes after the Dubaicacle), and c) friendlier relations with India may contribute to further outsourcing of jobs to said country. |
|
|
| (102787) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by JPC on Thu Mar 2 12:04:43 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 1 22:32:22 2006. Farm animals don't penetrate when they do that. It's a dominance display . . .Sort of like prison sex... except the penetration part. |
|
|
| (102788) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 2 12:16:30 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by Fred G on Thu Mar 2 09:21:28 2006. You do know what Bartholin's glands are, though . . . ? |
|
|
| (102803) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by New Brunswick Station on Thu Mar 2 14:15:40 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 2 12:16:30 2006. nope |
|
|
| (102804) | |
Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 2 14:21:56 2006, in response to Re: Subchat politics: at a glance (in more detail), posted by New Brunswick Station on Thu Mar 2 14:15:40 2006. Durnit, whyja not look them up? It's because the tuchis doesn't have them that stuff like "Kentucky Jelly" was invented . . . |
|
|
|
Page 7 of 9 |
||