DaVinci

Still the best system around. And I do blame the elected people and in a way the idiots that elect them. I feel that no one should be allowed to be in the Senate or the House for any long period of time. I do not see how a guy that has been in Washington so long is a representative of anything but the system. But like I said it is still the best system around. Not perfect, but still very good.

Thats not what I meant so either I didn't say it right, or you took it wrong. My point was that I find it funny when on group wants to say something like, "Vitamin deficiency causes a person to be religious". But they will not accept that the same disorder could have other effects such as homosexuality. And refuses to even discuss the possibilities. That is hypocrisy, would you not agree?

Yeah, right. You also didn't move to Canada right? You posted this to put an attack against religion. Thats cool, I can even agree to a point with what your Dr. buddy said. But I asked a few questions that you refuse to answer since it would hurt your stance. Not answering them is lame and the best you can do to counter and avoid answering questions is to try and make it look like I never agreed and asked any questions. Your dogging is clear. This from you? A guy that posts things to start drama? Why else would you post this since you clearly do not wish to discuss it since you will not answer any questions.

But more voted for him than Kerry. So he won. Neat huh?

Oh, so its OK all around then? I mean if you support one situation/group/person to be intollerant, but not others that smacks of hypocrisy. Is it so hard to have an open mind and listen to theories that do not fit into your world? I find it funny that some grab on to this as "Proof" that religions are jacked up, but cry when their situation or group is put into the exact same situation. All I ever said is that if you are willing to to attribute religion to a vitamin deficiency, then they should be willing to attribute other things as well. Don't most gays say that being gay is biological, not a choice? So if I am willing to accept that, then I should also be willing to accept that religion could be a biological choice as well. I, in fact, think both ideas have merit and will not dismiss one based on preference.

Maybe it was just funny and they like a good joke? Maybe they don't see that as news? Maybe its just not important?

What about the second? People read it both ways. See the problem is that the Constitution can be read different ways. Just like the Bible. I personally think that is good. It allows both to change some with the times, while still standing on principles. However, it does not state Unions by name. So while I agree the people have the right to Unionize, the Corporations also have a right to not have Unions. And so do the people. So you can either have or not have Unions according to the Constitution. And if the people elect a Government that is anti-Union, then the Government, being of the people, has the right to eliminate them. Or do you not agree? Oh I don't actually think that. It was just a counter to the other poster who said he didn't know how the poor could vote Republican. I can think of several reasons why a poor person would vote Republican. One might be since Republicans are seen as stronger on Defense and after 9/11 that is a big issue. Maybe they understand what happens if the factory shuts down and wants the Factory to be strong. Even if that means that some get really rich, they see that the factory being in town is good for everyone. I also think that some with money could vote Democrat based on how they are doing well and do not mind giving back. Neither is wrong, however some do not see that. I find that funny. I tend to be Republican since I know that to have a good economy we need strong companies. The Country will not be stronger by having more people on public aid. Someone once said something like, "Taxing yourself into a good economy is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up." I think it was Churchill.

It could be. Not saying it is, but I am open to the idea that it might be. Not the standard "I believe in God" type. But maybe the "I would kill for God" type. Agreed. My point is that if a person is willing to attribute religion to a vitamin deficiency, then they should be willing to attribute other things as well. Or at least be tolerant of someone who does.

Maybe. But it would be rude and not provide much benefit. None that concern you day-to-day. You have some rights that they do not have. But nothing that should be a factor in everyday living.

And Dems penalize those who work and earn money so those that don't want to work can have a free ride. Given the choice, since I have a job, I would rather support those that have my best interest at hart. And that is not to tax me and give to those that are unwilling to work. The people do have rights. I have read the Constitution and nowhere does it say the right to have a Union. In fact Unions don't make a company stronger. Look at Delta, United, and US Airways. Friends of mine that work for UPS will gladley point out that only the drivers have good pay compared to the rest of the work force at other companies. Another friend of mine used to work for Delta at a light MX facility. She used to brag about how many books she read a week. She was getting paid 80,000 a year to read books. Then when she did get laid off, she was pissed at the COMPANY?!?!?!?! I can't either to be honest. They want a handout, they should vote Democratic. I also don't understand how anyone making a living can vote Democrat.

OK and I agree that lack of vitamins could attribute to many disorders. My question was that if religion is one of those disorders....What else could be? And if those that wish to grab onto this tidbit and wave it as proof that religion is wrong. Are they also willing to admit that maybe some of the choices they have made could be "simply a mental disfunction caused by poor eating habits"? I think that a person being gay just makes them a person who is gay. They are not wrong, nor right basied on that alone. However, I find it funny when anyone is willing to claim something, but not answer questions of the same ilk that may effect them

All you need to do is look at your own sig line. I speaks volumes. Also check this post of yours http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1711035#1711035 Then Jimbo asks this :http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1755463#1755463 And now your sig line reads "First Class Immigrant" Very interesting huh? Ill repost my questions so you can ignore them again. 1. OK, so....Who is correct, or are they both correct in your opinion, or both wrong? 2. Or are you just wanting the one that supports you to be correct? 3. If you are willing to support that religion can be "a mental disfunction caused by poor eating habits". Are you willing to say the same about homosexuality, being a Republican/Democrat, prefering blonds over brunettes. 4. Will you support how some have the right to think that way if it does not agree with your views? 5. Do you think that a pastor having a dinner party might have a Dr. that could say things about homosexuality being a "mental disfunction"? So you can't quit claiming I never asked any questions that were related. How about you just answer #3? It is very related. If religion can be a "mental disfunction"...How many other things do you think could be, and do you think Homosexuality could be one? Thats because you are busted and rather than admit it you just will take you ball and go home. Funny

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did they get labeled as "evil" due to changing to the euro, or did they change to the euro due to not liking the US? Either is possible. Also since more and more nations use the euro....It makes sense for more and more to want to use the euro. You have not shown causality.

No need to ask you...You have posted it on here over, and over, and over, and over. Just look at your sig line. Yeah, it says that I can see right through your BS. And your only defense is to throw some self help jargon back. Thats called a red herring. I see you answered NONE of the questions asked. Which just goes to show you are not interested in discussing anything, just trying to bitch. Nothing wrong with just bitching, but admit it. You were pissed that you could not get what you wanted here, and you left. Good for you. However, you would have gained respect by standing and fighting for what you wanted, not running away. I don't blame you for leaving, and I don't think anything less of you for it. A good number of good people don't stand and fight for what they want and run. But to then just bitch about how badly they were treated gets old. Kinda like the sour grapes story. Also the whole trying to be a martyr thing is stupid. Everyone sees right through it. And just like the kid with 100 jumps who must turn every conversation into skydiving, your crying gets old. You moved, great. Now be happy with the life you built and quit throwing pitty parties in your own honor. Care to answer the questions I asked..Or would you just rather buy supplies for your next guilt trip?

Well the whole thing seemed funny. Stephen Colbert is pretty funny. I would have loved to have seen "The president had talked to the crowd with a Bush impersonator alongside, with the faux-Bush speaking precisely and the real Bush deliberately mispronouncing words. At the close, Bush called the imposter "a fine talent. In fact, he did all my debates with Senator Kerry." Sounds like Bush did lighten up I bet it was funny.

Yes. Provided: 1. People who use it can not turn around a sue the companies that provided it for health problems. I would hate to legalize it, just to have people sue like they did to the cigarette companies. 2. Like Quade had said that there could be a test to find out if someone was under the influence too much to drive. AND that there were punishments for DWT (Driving While Toking ). 3. The tax money was spent on drug awareness. I don't see much problem with weed. The illegal aspect creates more problems than the drug does. However, I don't want a bunch of people later claiming that it ruined them and its someone elses fault.

OK, so....Who is correct, or are they both correct in your opinion, or both wrong? Or are you just wanting the one that supports you to be correct? If you are willing to support that religion can be "a mental disfunction caused by poor eating habits". Are you willing to say the same about homosexuality, being a Republican/Democrat, prefering blonds over brunettes...ect, or support how some have the right to think that way? No one doubts that a Dr. said that to you at dinner. However, a person should take the whole picture into account. A gay couple that left the USA to be married having a dinner party with a Dr. there. Do you think that a pastor having a dinner party might have a Dr. that could say things about homosexuality being a "mental disfunction"? Thats funny. You posted something to try and get a response that you WANTED to be negative. Ever wonder why people do not take you seriously? You wear being gay like a badge of courage. Your sig line is you trying to make a martyr of yourself. You would get MUCH more mileage for your cause by not trying to start shit and not trying to shove being gay into the center of everything. Its like the guy with 100 jumps. All he talks about is skydiving, and all his conversations have to involve skydiving. People get tired of it. If you are gay and want to and be treated like just anyone else....Try acting like just anyone else and not making everything about you being gay.

Bing! Well said.

Honestly, I have dial up at home until my new house is done. So it will have to wait until Monday when I am at my office. Unless someone has a transcript link? I'll look at it Monday. But like most politics I am pretty sure it is a mix of bang on, and exaggeration to make the point of the speaker. My point was that a good number of folks are not stupid enough to come to a thread a try to defend something when you have posters that are well known for very strong attacks on Bush and anyone that supports him.....Or much more accurately attack anyone that does not agree with THEM. "Its good to see there might be SOMEONE in the Republican party that is not just your run of the mill ideaolog." And no one seems to care he same thing could be said about Dems, "Its good to see there might be SOMEONE in the *Democratic* party that is not just your run of the mill ideaolog." Same thing, but I am sure even me pointing that out will get me a few comparisons to the NAZI's Or if you supported the War based on a number of things...... "It would be nice to hear some of the warmongers counter this speach........... Nah fuck'em" "You won't hear anything from the righties because they have too much hubris to admit they've pissed away nearly a $trillion and killed tens of thousands, all for nothing." "I'm just hoping we can make it through the next Two years and 9 months without the Neo-Cons starting any more wars...." It seems that most already think you are stupid and are lying in wait to start a fight. I find it quite funny how some can attack one political party, and defend another when both are wrong and right at different times. Then some poster brings up some other political person and how they were jacked up...Clinton for his low morals, or maybe go way back and grab Nixon for watergate. My point is that most politics and politicians are fucked up....And I find it very funny how some blindly follow only one side...No matter what side that is, it is funny. But I'll look at the speech...And then come back here, read through the barrage of attacks on me for not agreeing with all these folks, post my opinion, then get attacked again since I might not agree 100% and lockstep to the music that that poster demands I hear.

So any Republican is a dumbass? Wow always a pleasure to see someone so balanced express themselves so well.

Or maybe they don't just want to walk into a trap where a bunch of you are waiting to yell at them and insult them? No real point in trying to talk about anything if you all already have preformed opinions and are just looking for targets for your anger.

I use the VA for my health care...Its pretty good. Never had a problem with it. I also used the GI Bill. Some people are not happy with anything it seems.

I think two people. Oswald and a shooter from the front. I have been to the 6th floor and looked at the shot . It would have been easy to take. The car was moving slow and almost directly away. However, 3 shots in that time, with that weapon. Not as likely. Also, the fatal shot does seem to come from the front by the bodies reaction. I would guess that LHO was supposed to do it by himself, but there was a second to ensure a fatal shot. Also from a tatical standpoint the hairpin turn right before the road that the attack took place meant that the car had to almost slow to a complete stop. That is the best location to strike IMO. Almost directly infront of the nest.

My experience with the VA has been good.

Yes. It is a shame, but it was one of the few options left. I find it interesting that people get upset about the two atomic weapons, however they don't seem to get upset at the fact that just prior to the dropping of the atomic weapons the US fire bombed Tokyo killing more people with "conventional" weapons over about a week than with the two atomic ones. The weapons were so shocking that even when conventional weapons did not work those two did. Correction, the threat of the US having a bunch of them did. If Iran had the choice of a mainland attack in which every redneck with a gun would fight to the death, VS an atomic attack....Yes. But that would not be the case. Would you be OK if Iran just conventionally bombed the fuck out of middle America?