>> ^lantern53:

Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.
Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does.
Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption.
My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.
You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know.
I'm a big believer in experience, myself.


lantern53, we've had some good times, but this will have to be my last post on the subject. Unless you make a worthwhile argument.

Point by point:

"Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions."

Bad joke, not factually off base, but minus one for style.

"Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does."

The definition of legislate: 'to perform the function of legislation; specifically: to make or enact laws' or 'to mandate, establish or regulate by or as if by legislation'

So, are you suggesting that the president only executes? The Supreme court only judges? I'm not calling you stupid, but your attempt to use language to cover your argument is. I think it's completely valid to use the word "legislate" to describe some of what the president does, as he has an effect on laws being made, even outside utilizing the veto. Besides, presidential contenders are often asked about legislation they would support. I wouldn’t think using this word would confuse anyone, unless they hadn't yet taken eighth grade American history.

"Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption."

Yeah, we're responding to what you wrote. See, when adults write things, we can tell things due to context and implication. It's not really an unfounded assumption on my part to infer that you were preaching the evils of premarital sex. This discussion is about a video concerning Santorum's views. You defended him. So, we'll assume you think he has valid ideas.

"My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage."

Okay, fine. Let's just ignore everything else. Here's your point. Same as last time, you are wrong. We can't define social problems like this and rate them from better to worse. Have you seen "Dead Poet's Society"? Remember when Robin Williams rips the intro out of their Literature textbook? He does that because the text was attempting to rate something as subjective as art. Here you're doing the same thing as that chart attempted in that movie, saying one subjective human experience is better than another. I bet you could come up with a handy chart too. Instead of a Literature text book, you're invoking religion or tradition as the authority when making such a claim. Either way, its BS.

"You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know."

Thank you, I will. Notice, I made this same point in my last post. I interpret the 'but in the end' bit as you saying: Just sleep around outside of marriage and you'll suffer, just wait.

"I'm a big believer in experience, myself."

Really? You don't seem to value experience if you think never having sex outside of marriage is the ideal path for all Americans. Some people would consider that inexperience. I consider it sad.

Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.

Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does.

Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption.

My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.

You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know.

I'm a big believer in experience, myself.

>> ^criticalthud:

that seemed utterly self deprecating. i think i'm down with this duo


Well then, here's all you need to know.

>> ^Skeeve:

A warning from personal experience: this is a "Digital Combat Simulator" and not a game.
I tend to be pretty detail oriented, I like flight sims and love the A-10 but after about 45 minutes of this program I was done.
I think this program could be used as a diagnostic tool to confirm if someone has asperger syndrome.


Eh, it's not that complicated. The quickstart guide and the tutorials tell you all you need to know to start flying missions. Maybe 5 hours total to get up to speed on flying this thing. Many hours more to master the aircraft, but to just get started? Only a few hours and the tutorials are pretty fun too.

I guess you need to know Calvin and Hobbes.

That databate doesn't seem so great, i just entered my brother, i know everything but his SS# (middle name, dob) and it couldn't find him. and i know for a fact he's a veteran. >> ^MycroftHomlz:

https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/scra/scraHome.do
But you need to know the persons birthday. I could still use some help on this videosift... Any suggestions are welcome.

https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/scra/scraHome.do

But you need to know the persons birthday. I could still use some help on this videosift... Any suggestions are welcome.

I am such a computer illiterate. I push the buttons with crossed fingers and hope for the best.

Sorry for your experience. It is all a mystery to me.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^Peroxide:

"He doesn't see the new reforms as being very effective."
"The system hasn't been cleaned up, at all."
This is all you need to know, occupy.


You might want to know this, too. I had to sit through 30 seconds of advert for one minute of video, whereupon i had to watch another 30 seconds of advert. Definitely relevant!

Heh, page refreshed by accident - another 15 seconds of advert but this time for 0 seconds of video (me skipping to where i was) and then 30 seconds of advert. Is this some sort of joke?

>> ^Peroxide:

"He doesn't see the new reforms as being very effective."
"The system hasn't been cleaned up, at all."
This is all you need to know, occupy.


You might want to know this, too. I had to sit through 30 seconds of advert for one minute of video, whereupon i had to watch another 30 seconds of advert. Definitely relevant!

Heh, page refreshed by accident - another 15 seconds of advert but this time for 0 seconds of video (me skipping to where i was) and then 30 seconds of advert. Is this some sort of joke?

"He doesn't see the new reforms as being very effective."
"The system hasn't been cleaned up, at all."
This is all you need to know, occupy.

I'd say that's the problem right there. The black and white thinking of someone much more on the conservative end of things than I think you are admitting to.

I've never said I wasn't conservative. I've said many times that I'm quite fiscally conservative, socially liberal, libertarian leaning, and a constitutional constructionist. But I certainly do not ascribe to the kind of moral relativism where everyting is 'grey' and there is no right or wrong. If that makes me 'conservative' then so be it.

However, you didn't wait for them before opining.

This woman's story hit almost 2 weeks ago. I waited over a week before saying a peep, but when I did hear about it I tried to find out more data.

I think the main point was -- why do you need any facts at all about this woman?

Because in order to properly judge F&F you need to know the facts. F&F is guilty of nothing except judging the gal based on what data they had at the time. At the time, the reports were "this woman left her family and is shacking up with some OWS dude". They jumped the gun because they didn't have "the facts" and you are saying "why do we need any facts?" Uh - we need the fact so we can form a proper conclusion about her. Dur. If her family is cool with what she did - more power to her. If they aren't - then she is - in fact - a slimeball.

And you have soooo many opinions about her lack of character based on a few minutes of video.

If you read carefully, you'll note I've never stated my opinion about HER. I've always said, "if". If she did this... If her husband was... If. I have stated my opinions about what she did "IF". There's a difference.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Very creative! Here's what you need to know about BHO.
He's a child of privilege posing as a downtrodden victim who somehow climbed out of America's drowning pool of "racism".
Every president ever has existed under an altered image. George Washington didn't really cut down a cherry tree.
He isn't terribly bright but he knows what he's doing. He was nominated to assuage idiots' "White Guilt." He is an affirmative-action president with no real political credentials.
Right, people who aren't very bright become professors of constitutional law at Harvard all the time.
He's got a grudge against America, American Exceptionalism and free market capitalism. What the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright believes, BARACK believes.
I have a grudge against Exceptionalism and free market capitalism, but still love America with all my heart. Do you still beat your wife?
He's likely a closet atheist, but for now obviously can't admit it.
There he goes proving his intelligence again. Bush wasn't a Texan either.
He has had no achievements to speak of since taking office, unless--UNLESS--you understand what his true motives are: turn America into just another forgettable Euro-dump with no identity. Suddenly it makes sense!
Does getting Osama count? Before you say that it's the Seals that got him, remember that Obama came under heavy fire for thinking we should reach into Pakistan.
"BULLPLOP QM! Barack wants JOBS for Americans!" As long as he embraces Keynesian rubbish, it won't happen. And he can't turn back now.
You don't know that his strategy won't work, this problem was a long time in the making. And it will be a long time getting out. (I've seen Morganthau quote)
The libmedia works for BHO as if they were being paid directly from the White House. They hide his gaffes, downplay his goof-ups and hide the results of his schemes.
I can't argue with this one. I stopped watching the news a long, long time ago.
America is worse off now than when this jug-eared socialist was elected.
Again, no one... no one... could have stopped the giant snowball yet.
I'm not a liberal (anymore) so I can't match wits wit the brilliant geniuses here, but the results of the BHO Fraudsidency speak for themselves. Every day.
I don't know why I feel the need to defend this president. Especially considering that I think all politicians are completely full of shit. I guess I was just way more comfortable with him than any of our other options. Do we really believe that he's anything but a powerless figurehead anyway?

Also, as far as the video is concerned, the problems we face are way more complicated than "working harder" and "getting more". A complex system composed of billions of individuals cannot be boiled down to a few simple rules. And the rules we have will constantly have to change as people adapt to the new system anyway. All kindergartners are taught that one plus one equals two. It takes a lifetime to even visualize what it truly takes to have a functioning society.

Very creative! Here's what you need to know about BHO.

He's a child of privilege posing as a downtrodden victim who somehow climbed out of America's drowning pool of "racism".

He isn't terribly bright but he knows what he's doing. He was nominated to assuage idiots' "White Guilt." He is an affirmative-action president with no real political credentials.

He's got a grudge against America, American Exceptionalism and free market capitalism. What the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright believes, BARACK believes.

He's likely a closet atheist, but for now obviously can't admit it.

He has had no achievements to speak of since taking office, unless--UNLESS--you understand what his true motives are: turn America into just another forgettable Euro-dump with no identity. Suddenly it makes sense!

"BULLPLOP QM! Barack wants JOBS for Americans!" As long as he embraces Keynesian rubbish, it won't happen. And he can't turn back now.

The libmedia works for BHO as if they were being paid directly from the White House. They hide his gaffes, downplay his goof-ups and hide the results of his schemes.

America is worse off now than when this jug-eared socialist was elected.

I'm not a liberal (anymore) so I can't match wits wit the brilliant geniuses here, but the results of the BHO Fraudsidency speak for themselves. Every day.


>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^quantumushroom:
And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?

Never cause he's a Manchurian candidate created by the Kenyan Illuminati who control the world's drug companies. That's why he was so insistent on getting healthcare legislation passed, so he could make sure everyone could have access to the drugs and get them addicted so they can all be his mind slave zombies he'll use to make war on the peaceful utopian capitalist society on planet orbiting Gliese 581. If he had actually gone to college someone would have remembered him graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law, but not surprisingly nobody ever saw him graduate, even his 238 year old lizard man Illuminati grandmother who's actually the queen of England never saw him graduate.

Did I do it right, can I vote republican now?

Actually, I have to say Freddie had a reasonably profound effect on my world view. When I discovered he was gay, I was a typically bigoted ignorant young teenage male (the fact that I didn't realise he was gay probably tells you as much as you need to know about me at that age).
I only found out he was "a queer" when he died, but I'd always thought his voice and music were epic. It forced to re-evaluate my stereo-typed view of the world, which lead to a number of important epiphanies in my life.

I don't believe in an afterlife, but if I'm wrong, I hope he's up there jamming with Hendrix, John Bonham and John Entwistle.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

It's only sane to think that one should have to prove eligibility to vote in a certain district.

Sure, but why does the proof have to be a driver's license or state ID?

Right now in Ohio you can use any photo ID (including things like student ID, or employee ID badges), or alternatively you can use a utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or any government document that includes your name and address.

They want to change the law here as well, so that it has to be a driver's license, state ID, passport, or military ID.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
It's not really a roadblock, though. ... Drivers licenses and ID cards come at a price, but where ever this is gives the ID FOR FREE if you need it to vote.


Again, it most certainly is a roadblock. First, you need to know about the change in the law, apparently at least 2 weeks in advance. Second, you need to get the documentation required for a state ID, which may require a trip to the courthouse and more fees. Third you need to find the time to go stand in line during business hours on weekdays, which isn't even easy for someone like me with a flexible work schedule, a car, and no kids. Fourth, you need to fill out all the forms, answer all the questions, and know that the only way to make it free is to check a special box on the application form, because they won't tell that to you.

Oh, and the next bit of news I've heard this evening is that now Wisconsin (which is where this is from, BTW), is now closing down the DMV's in 10 districts, reportedly mostly the ones in heavily Democratic districts. To compensate for the reduction in service, they're lengthening the hours of DMV's in some other, more Republican, districts to make sure Republicans don't have any problems voting deal with the overflow...

For the most part though, my question is what problem is this supposed to solve? In Ohio there have been next to zero cases of even attempted voter fraud, and none successful.

Surely you concede that doing this will result in some people, who are eligible to vote, trying to vote legally, will be prevented from voting. Why is that necessary?

Even if I assume this is being done out of real concern about fraud, this is like arresting everyone in a neighborhood because someone thinks maybe someone in there could have committed a crime, even though they don't have evidence to prove that a crime was even committed in the first place...