Are you tolerant?

[Mark Newhan]

This thought has been rattleing around my head for a couple of years. What does being "tolerant" mean?

The progressives insist that the conservatives be more tolerant to "diversity", legalizing drugs, gay marriage and many other "progressive" ideas that you would not want your children a part of. If you have an opinion that is contrary to these "ideas" you are labeled "intolerant".

I thought that people on this board would appreciate my particular opinion on this. If you understand machining and enginering and apply the standard to every day life you would get this. In this particular field if you go beyond tolerance you have a recipe for catastrophic failure. In engineering if you are "out of tolerance" on a bearing surface the component that relies on the tolerance will ultimately not survive. You live and die by the "rules" of tolerence or laws if you will. To put it plainly... You would not want to be flying on a aircraft that was built by workers that though that the rules of tolerence were out dated and cast them out for a more "open minded" approach to machining.

This same standard can be applied to every day life. If you stray outside the natural tolerance of a society things are bound to break down and I believe that we are whitnessing it first hand. I also believe that the "fringe" elements are weaker then they have been in 30 years, allthough the numbers are greater based on population growth.

[woundedyak]

Interesting!!!!!! Never though of it like that! I like that theroy. One question thou? What's consider natural tolerance?The only reason why the "good drugs" aren't legal is becuase no one would buy the "goverments drugs" then. I don't see what the big deal is about Gay Marriage? Who are we to tell two people who love each other that they can't commite to each other!

[TreyP]

This thought has been rattleing around my head for a couple of years. What does being "tolerant" mean?

The progressives insist that the conservatives be more tolerant to "diversity", legalizing drugs, gay marriage and many other "progressive" ideas that you would not want your children a part of. If you have an opinion that is contrary to these "ideas" you are labeled "intolerant".

I thought that people on this board would appreciate my particular opinion on this. If you understand machining and enginering and apply the standard to every day life you would get this. In this particular field if you go beyond tolerance you have a recipe for catastrophic failure. In engineering if you are "out of tolerance" on a bearing surface the component that relies on the tolerance will ultimately not survive. You live and die by the "rules" of tolerence or laws if you will. To put it plainly... You would not want to be flying on a aircraft that was built by workers that though that the rules of tolerence were out dated and cast them out for a more "open minded" approach to machining.

This same standard can be applied to every day life. If you stray outside the natural tolerance of a society things are bound to break down and I believe that we are whitnessing it first hand. I also believe that the "fringe" elements are weaker then they have been in 30 years, allthough the numbers are greater based on population growth.

Interesting, but your analogy is flawed. Engineering is based on mathmatics and proven concepts. Humanity is based on emotion and complex experiances. The two are incompatible.

Inorder for your idea to work humanity would have to become a machine.

[Mark Newhan]

I am not against civil unions for homesexual couples... I am not saying, nor am I judging anyone for their choices with respect to their sexuality, civil unions would give these couples the same protections as marraige. Also, I am only highlighting the causes that the media feeds us on a regular basis. There are plenty more that could be inserted into the dialog.


As for "natural tolerance" there is no question on what it takes to keep a society thriving. If you do not produce offspring where are the future generations coming from. As a society we need to keep the population fed, healthy and mentally sound. There are any number of things that can break down that very fiber i.e. drug abuse ,alcohol abuse and on. As for prescription drugs... they are just as dangerous as illegal drugs. Over the years drug companies are producing drugs that DO help the masses. They are supposed to be regulated by doctors and other professionals, the fact is they are not. As for illicit drugs, there is no way to regulate them. I dont buy the arguement that if the government could collect taxes on them that they would be legal. Pot has gotten much more potent in recent times. "Chronic" is is reported to be as addicting as heroin. It is dangerous because it is not regulated. I know that the "420" crowd will disagree.

Anyway, I am not preeching, only bringing it up for discussion.

[Mark Newhan]

Interesting, but your analogy is flawed. Engineering is based on mathmatics and proven concepts. Humanity is based on emotion and complex experiances. The two are incompatible.

Inorder for your idea to work humanity would have to become a machine.

I believe that humans can have passion and execute their actions with precision. Look at any fighter pilot or formula 1 driver. I know not everyone is either example, but it demonstrates the human ability. That passion and precision is in virtually every human being ( with exception given to the physically or naturally mentally challanged, allthough I believe that even these examples can do wonderful things), it boils down to training and will. How many people have never been challanged. I know that people can exercise moderation. It breaks down to individual responsability.

I am not sure what you mean by "complex experiances".

[TreyP]

I believe that humans can have passion and execute their actions with precision. Look at any fighter pilot or formula 1 driver. I know not everyone is either example, but it demonstrates the human ability. That passion and precision is in virtually every human being ( with exception given to the physically or naturally mentally challanged, allthough I believe that even these examples can do wonderful things), it boils down to training and will. How many people have never been challanged. I know that people can exercise moderation. It breaks down to individual responsability.

I am not sure what you mean by "complex experiances".

While agree that maybe in the future mankind will control thier actions, it is not possible at this stage in our evolution.

By "complex experiances" I mean the intracies of life. Can a person that grew up in a hostile environment have the same view on life as a person that grew up in a ideal environment?

[pappawheely]

What does being "tolerant" mean? The progressives insist that the conservatives be more tolerant to "diversity". If you have an opinion that is contrary to these "ideas" you are labeled "intolerant".

I would argue that Liberals are more intolerant than conservatives. Political correctness is nothing but intolerance. Racism, class warfare, and elitism are all forms of intolerance and are prevalent in the actions and ideals of liberals. Just because you are opposed to the decline of morality in our society does not mean you are intolerant. Should we be tolerant of murder?, Rape? Where do we draw the line? Tolerance should not override morality and decency.

[dezerts10]

drugs are illegal and gays can not keep the human race gowing so why do we have to tolerate either?

you can do all the drugs you want but when you get in trouble its your fault. half the people that preach tolerance couldnt defend themsleves in any time other then the present. survial of a species depends on the strong.

[Mark Newhan]

While agree that maybe in the future mankind will control thier actions, it is not possible at this stage in our evolution.

By "complex experiances" I mean the intracies of life. Can a person that grew up in a hostile environment have the same view on life as a person that grew up in a ideal environment?

America offers any citizen the very best opportunity to be the highest caliber individual. The basic nescessities are taken for granted. The very nescessities that some people in the world forage for every day. With that part of our life being so easy we owe it to ourselves to not be complaciant and spend the time improving the country. We are all endowed with natural abilities. If we discover what they are early on and hone them we can continue to enhance this great country. However most people seem to be more concerned what they dont have and what everyone else has to the point that the will excuse rational thought to fill what they consider to be a void in their own lives. Not everyone can be an actor or rock star. Not everyone can run the country, allthough we can have a say. It is the element of narcissism that we are tought at an early age that we are the most person on the planet. We need to realize that we are just another link in the chain. It boils down to the weak link theory. Epluribus unum... of many one. That concept fails when you inject narcissism.

Anybody watching Extreme Makeover home edition right now... This handicaped 19 year old kid is an inspiration. Born with no eyes and little use of his extremities. He plays piano and trumpet... have to see it to appreciate him.

God bless Tony Snow. He passed away yesterday. A conservative but always respectful to everyone...

[pappawheely]

Can a person that grew up in a hostile environment have the same view on life as a person that grew up in a ideal environment?


They might have different views but there is no reason they can't be held to the same standards of decency. I know many people who grew up in broken homes with abusive parents. Do they get a free pass to be a menace to society. I say no.

[dezerts10]

While agree that maybe in the future mankind will control thier actions, it is not possible at this stage in our evolution.

By "complex experiances" I mean the intracies of life. Can a person that grew up in a hostile environment have the same view on life as a person that grew up in a ideal environment?

life is what you make it not how you grew up. lifes a ***** for many but a person with a good head on there shoulders will always come out on top. you cant baby everyone and spoon feed them through life.

just cause a person grew up in a non ideal situation does not give that person the right o be a menace to society

[nelson979]

[QUOTE=TreyP;492619]While agree that maybe in the future mankind will control thier actions, it is not possible at this stage in our evolution.

Trey you usually make me think about some of the things you say in your battles with pjc but this statement is rediculous. the reason mankind will not control thier actions is because the society we live in these days tolerates these actions. if there was not tolerance for it they would not do it. will things ever be perfect? no , but letting people get away with the bs we do now days it is just ridiculous.

[Mark Newhan]

They might have different views but there is no reason they can't be held to the same standards of decency. I know many people who grew up in broken homes with abusive parents. Do they get a free pass to be a menace to society. I say no.

My own upbringing was less than stellar. I was forced to learn the hard lessons early, which made me a hard kid but also made me grow up fast. I wont go into the details because this thread is not about me and was very typical in the neighborhoods that I grew up in. I watched young girls having meaningless sex for drugs, alcohol and just to feel some, of what they thought was, love as they did not get it from their parents. They used abortion as birth control and I am pretty sure that they did not get anything more then immediate gradification from their action and possibly spent time with a shrink. Didn't a current musician tell "mothers be good to your daughters"?

[TreyP]

They might have different views but there is no reason they can't be held to the same standards of decency. I know many people who grew up in broken homes with abusive parents. Do they get a free pass to be a menace to society. I say no.

Did I say they should get a free pass? No, I stated that they have a differant view of life. Think about it if you are beaten on a daily basis, raped ,forced into a life of crime would you have a differant view of how life is compared to someone that it loved and treated with respect?

How can someone that is abused on a daily basis understand decency? It is a social skill not a natural one.

America offers any citizen the very best opportunity to be the highest caliber individual.

And some of the strongest individuales in America history have come from the worst enviorments. And some of the worst have come from the best.

[TreyP]

[QUOTE=TreyP;492619]While agree that maybe in the future mankind will control thier actions, it is not possible at this stage in our evolution.

Trey you usually make me think about some of the things you say in your battles with pjc but this statement is rediculous. the reason mankind will not control thier actions is because the society we live in these days tolerates these actions. if there was not tolerance for it they would not do it. will things ever be perfect? no , but letting people get away with the bs we do now days it is just ridiculous.

I don't know were you got the idea that I think people should get away with crimes against others.

My statement was clear in that I think mankind will eventually progress to the point that it will bypass the petty differances and progress to a society that looks to the future of our species.

[TreyP]

I would argue that Liberals are more intolerant than conservatives. Political correctness is nothing but intolerance. Racism, class warfare, and elitism are all forms of intolerance and are prevalent in the actions and ideals of liberals. Just because you are opposed to the decline of morality in our society does not mean you are intolerant. Should we be tolerant of murder?, Rape? Where do we draw the line? Tolerance should not override morality and decency.

I find this an interesting viewpoint.

Personally I find both sides intolerate of either sides view. And both sides dig their feet into the ground to stop the other from advancing thier ideas. Instead of this constant one sided role playing maybe it would better serve mankind to look for a compromise.

Yeah, it is pipe dream as both sides blindly fight for thier power to rule the people.

BTW? Who's morality and decency?

This is brought up many a times. And the answer never seems to be a conscience.

[R_TAYLOR]

BTW? Who's morality and decency? The ten commandments wouldnt be a bad place to start. I dont think the San Deigo Zoo has any moral eqivelents posted anywhere.

[jgbjgb]

I am not against civil unions for homesexual couples... I am not saying, nor am I judging anyone for their choices with respect to their sexuality, civil unions would give these couples the same protections as marraige. Also, I am only highlighting the causes that the media feeds us on a regular basis. There are plenty more that could be inserted into the dialog.

I see three distinct groups in this debate:

1. The group that feels gays should have nothing, what they consider special protectons/rights, no marrige, no civil union.
2. The group that feels gays should have the same protections/rights as marriage but not marriage, a civil union.
3. The group that feels gays should be allowed to get married.

The media gave us the phrase "civil union" (a marriage but not a marriage), just like "person of interest" (a suspect but not a suspect). It is all semantics.

I find it interesting that someone will say, gays should be allowed to have civil unions but will not use the word marriage. I also find it interesting that someone will use the word protections and not use the word rights. Especially in the context of a thread about tolerance/intolerance.

Same subject but different topic, another thing I do not understand is this obsession with gays couples not being allowed to adopt children. The main argument against being that people do not want gay couples "converting", "brain washing", their adoptive children to "become" homosexuals. Well, their is an obvious fallacy to this argument. If gay people can't have children of their own, and gay people can't adopt children, where have all these gay people come from? Oh wait, they are being born to and raised by HETEROSEXUAL couples.

[Alex Paterson]

Mark, I see where you are coming from and respect what you have to say like I do most people, it would be intolerant if I didn't, but to compare the world of machining and engineering to how humans interact doesn't jive. If you make a bearing race incorrectly the part would be out of tolerance for the specific design but that doesn't make what you built intolerant or the bearing.

Our society as a whole is not tolerant to illegal drug abuse but we tolerate the use of prescription drugs more then most societies. Some tolerate gay marriage and other don't but what if you child was gay, it may change your tolerance for what they want in life and gay marriage may have more meaning to you then it does now. Most homosexual couples are just average people who just want an average life but their sexual preference changes how our society dictates there freedoms. I mean in the most basic way its like off road racers fighting land use issue from the BLM and the Sierra Club. All we are trying to do is what we enjoy but because of a handful of people we are being limited, wouldn't it be nice if they just tolerated our desire to use land the way we want to and they did what they enjoy. I know its a bit of a stretch but it is all based off of tolerance for each other.

My point in so many of these threads is there is good to be found in all ways of thinking from Republican to Democrat to Liberal to Conservative we just need to be able to use our best judgement and do what we can to succeed in a large dichotomy of humans.

-Alex

[randy s]

I am not against civil unions for homesexual couples... I am not saying, nor am I judging anyone for their choices with respect to their sexuality, civil unions would give these couples the same protections as marraige. Also, I am only highlighting the causes that the media feeds us on a regular basis. There are plenty more that could be inserted into the dialog.


As for "natural tolerance" there is no question on what it takes to keep a society thriving. If you do not produce offspring where are the future generations coming from. As a society we need to keep the population fed, healthy and mentally sound. There are any number of things that can break down that very fiber i.e. drug abuse ,alcohol abuse and on. As for prescription drugs... they are just as dangerous as illegal drugs. Over the years drug companies are producing drugs that DO help the masses. They are supposed to be regulated by doctors and other professionals, the fact is they are not. As for illicit drugs, there is no way to regulate them. I dont buy the arguement that if the government could collect taxes on them that they would be legal. Pot has gotten much more potent in recent times. "Chronic" is is reported to be as addicting as heroin. It is dangerous because it is not regulated. I know that the "420" crowd will disagree.

Anyway, I am not preeching, only bringing it up for discussion.

chronic is as addicting as smack? reported by whom. that's the biggest bunch of hogwash i've ever heard. heroin is an opiate. no one has EVER died from weed. no one robs liquor stores to re-supply their need for weed. sure, you might be bummed a bit when you run out, but no one goes into convulsions, starts puking, sweats profusely, won't eat [imagine that], or ANYTHING else associated with the horrors of being addicted to smack. it's IMPOSSIBLE to kill yourself with weed unless you choke out on the baggy when you're trying to eat the stuff so the cops don't find it. think about this. the primary reason breeders are trying to develope stronger weed is to HELP medicate cancer victims and others with their pain without addicting themselves with opiates. duh! yeah. what will 'they' say next? i don't use it much these days, but i promise you, the finest herb developed through genetics, hybrid vigor, or just plain land race strains still won't make a person a junkie. sorry. when you're out, you're out. life goes on. not so much with opiates. or even alchohol [ probably as dangerous in the long run as heroin]. it's just more b.s. what will 'they' come up with next? independent studys have shown that government studys are total bulls--t regarding his subject. imagine that. what the f--k else is new. regarding tolerance, i think it has alot to do with how you're raised. i, personally don't much care what the hell a person does with themselves as long as nobody else gets hurt and they stay the hell away from me. especially the religious right. if those people come around, then i'll toke up, lock and load and then it's on. in a not so "tolerant" fashion.

[Infidel Racing Team]

BTW? Who's morality and decency? The ten commandments wouldnt be a bad place to start. I dont think the San Deigo Zoo has any moral eqivelents posted anywhere.

I dont think the 10 commandments are a good start. I cant say it better than George Carlin did:

YouTube - George Carlin - Ten Commandments

I rather see a list based on humanism, a list that does not bring up our differences as humans, (like Religion). Check this list better:

“New Ten Commandments”:

(1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

(2) In all things, strive to cause no harm.

(3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

(4) Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

(5) Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

(6) Always seek to be learning something new.

(7) Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

( 8) Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

(9) Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

(10) Question everything.

[pappawheely]

chronic is as addicting as smack? reported by whom. that's the biggest bunch of hogwash i've ever heard. heroin is an opiate. no one has EVER died from weed. no one robs liquor stores to re-supply their need for weed.

The biggest down side to legal weed would be no parking available at 7-11 and people waiting for the stop sign to turn green.

[scott-dsms]

I dont think the 10 commandments are a good start. I cant say it better than George Carlin did:

YouTube - George Carlin - Ten Commandments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU)

I rather see a list based on humanism, a list that does not bring up our differences as humans, (like Religion). Check this list better:

“New Ten Commandments”:

(1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

(2) In all things, strive to cause no harm.

(3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

(4) Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

(5) Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

(6) Always seek to be learning something new.

(7) Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

( 8) Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

(9) Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

(10) Question everything.

Hasn't it been 6 weeks yet? I'm detecting a bit of manlove for Georgee, Infidel :)

RE: #1 - Sounds like the Bible to me #3 - Love, honesty, faithfulness - again these things all come from the Bible #4 - Justice, forgiveness - again from the Bible. I think you agree with biblical principles more than you let on buddy.

[Sheaco]

Are you tolerant?.......No, but I'm trying to be I'm only human.

If I was perfect I wouldn't need toilet paper.

[Alex Paterson]

The biggest down side to legal weed would be no parking available at 7-11 and people waiting for the stop sign to turn green.

Oh man! I Totally missed the green arrow...again!

Alex

[bajafox]

The biggest down side to legal weed would be no parking available at 7-11 and people waiting for the stop sign to turn green.

The no more 30 minute pizza from Dominos

[Infidel Racing Team]

Hasn't it been 6 weeks yet? I'm detecting a bit of manlove for Georgee, Infidel :)

RE: #1 - Sounds like the Bible to me #3 - Love, honesty, faithfulness - again these things all come from the Bible #4 - Justice, forgiveness - again from the Bible. I think you agree with biblical principles more than you let on buddy.

You are correct!, #1 is called the "Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity)" ("treat others as you would like to be treated.").

Neither Judaism, nor Christianity invented this rule.....It goes back as far as Egyptian Religion and some intellectuals think it is intrinsic in our genes as a necessary trait of a highly social successful specie. In that sense, Religion borrowed some of its morality from us, and not the other way around.

For Justice forgiveness , loyalty and faithfulness .....George summarized better than Moses: Thou shall always be honest and faithful.....

The reason the list should not have religious views is because it is suppose to be universal, thus more tolerant to any fellow human being. I am pretty sure Buddhists or Taoists would disagree with the 10 commandments, that is why it has to be secular IMHO.

The original Thread starter did an interesting comparison between engineering tolerances and human morality, many answered very intelligently, maybe the only thing I would add is that even if we granted there was a valid analogy between social and engineering tolerances, these parameters are always given by the designer based on experimentation, then the forced questions are:

What would it be consider a successful design?
Who sets these parameters?
Are they based on a successful experimentation processes?
What is the feedback mechanism?

We can see now that even if the analogy had some weight, then the answers to these questions would bring more havoc than the original problem itself.


As far as the 6 weeks of my GC avatar......Is it been that long?:rolleyes: I will miss the guy, but what the heck...I will find a new avatar today in your honor!:D

[dan200]

Are you tolerant?.......No, but I'm trying to be I'm only human.

If I was perfect I wouldn't need toilet paper.

Switch to flushable baby wipes. It will greatly improve one part of you life. This is the best advice anyone can offer you.:)

[scott-dsms]

As far as the 6 weeks of my GC avatar......Is it been that long?:rolleyes: I will miss the guy, but what the heck...I will find a new avatar today in your honor!:D

I'm just bust'in your chops about mr. carlin - You gotta admit, that is probably the worst photo of him ever taken and creepy too now that he is gone. He's staring back from the grave.

[Infidel Racing Team]

I'm just bust'in your chops about mr. carlin - You gotta admit, that is probably the worst photo of him ever taken and creepy too now that he is gone. He's staring back from the grave.

Too Late Scotty! I got a new one :) peace

[Sheaco]

Switch to flushable baby wipes. It will greatly improve one part of you life. This is the best advice anyone can offer you.:)

LOL, Baby wipes now you sound like Howard Stern.

[dan200]

LOL, Baby wipes now you sound like Howard Stern.
I am tellin ya!!! These things are gonna save the world.

[Vtr_Racing]

Tolerance and Intolerance could go both ways. For the sake of this discussion, that would be liberal and conservative view points.

[Vtr_Racing]

[QUOTE=Infidel Racing Team;493468]You are correct!, #1 is called the "Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity)" ("treat others as you would like to be treated.").

More "facts" from Wikipedia? You shouldnt need to quote Wikipedia for that. This is common sense, you either have it, or you dont. Admittedly, I dont always have it.

[Mark Newhan]

chronic is as addicting as smack? reported by whom. that's the biggest bunch of hogwash i've ever heard. heroin is an opiate. no one has EVER died from weed. no one robs liquor stores to re-supply their need for weed. sure, you might be bummed a bit when you run out, but no one goes into convulsions, starts puking, sweats profusely, won't eat [imagine that], or ANYTHING else associated with the horrors of being addicted to smack. it's IMPOSSIBLE to kill yourself with weed unless you choke out on the baggy when you're trying to eat the stuff so the cops don't find it. think about this. the primary reason breeders are trying to develope stronger weed is to HELP medicate cancer victims and others with their pain without addicting themselves with opiates. duh! yeah. what will 'they' say next? i don't use it much these days, but i promise you, the finest herb developed through genetics, hybrid vigor, or just plain land race strains still won't make a person a junkie. sorry. when you're out, you're out. life goes on. not so much with opiates. or even alchohol [ probably as dangerous in the long run as heroin]. it's just more b.s. what will 'they' come up with next? independent studys have shown that government studys are total bulls--t regarding his subject. imagine that. what the f--k else is new. regarding tolerance, i think it has alot to do with how you're raised. i, personally don't much care what the hell a person does with themselves as long as nobody else gets hurt and they stay the hell away from me. especially the religious right. if those people come around, then i'll toke up, lock and load and then it's on. in a not so "tolerant" fashion.


Randy,

Dr Drew Pinsky, who you may know is a addiction specialist, has commented about the effects of pot. Any substance can be addicting. How many people get a craving for a Starbuck at aroung 2:30. You might be surprised to know that I may have known some pot smokers in my time. Prolonged use will pot will have the same effects as cigarettes. Before you talk about all of the chemicals in cigarettes I will concede that more people die of lung cancer from cigarettes then pot. If someone smoked pot as much as they do cigarettes they would have lung problems.

Any vice that is not moderated will have lasting effects of some sort. The purpose of this thread was to illustrate that simple malities put a strain on what ever entity it is effecting. Either a bearing surface or a welfare recipient places some type of burden on something or someone.

As for the gay marraige reference... Do any of you think that this issue is placing a buden on the country? It does not matter what your personal "feelings" are, the country is not ready for it. State after state continues to vote it down therefore it is the will of the people. When the gay lobby does not get what it wants the cry foul and say they the country is "intolerant". I think that there are much more important ways that the country could more forward rather then being bogged down in this one issue. Lets revisit the issue when as Trey P when we have advanced as a species, LOL Trey. Perhaps if we have not spent the last 10 years on this we could have been working on the energy situation. Government is broken... lets not let them have more control by demanding "Universal Health Care". There is enough welfare these days with all of the white collar welfare and government bailouts.

If we united as a country around things that can be fixed we might just evolve more rapidly,another funny Trey. We are being drawn and quartered by the lobbyist and special interest.

[Infidel Racing Team]

[QUOTE=Infidel Racing Team;493468]You are correct!, #1 is called the "Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity)" ("treat others as you would like to be treated.").

More "facts" from Wikipedia? You shouldnt need to quote Wikipedia for that. This is common sense, you either have it, or you dont. Admittedly, I dont always have it.

I just did in case someone was not familiar with the terminology....As you know, there are many misinterpretations of this rule, one being
Golden rule: Those who have the Gold make the rules......:D

I agree its common sense, I have read several works where they establish that Common sense (specially universal values such as the golden rule) are actually genetic.

Humans are very successful social creatures, philosophers are now changing their views on how morality has evolved over time, it seems now that they have found how morality has evolved with our specie.

Unless someone is a sociopath or a psychopath chances are right from wrong is quite intrinsic in all of us. Interesting :rolleyes:

Here some interesting read: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6383

[DEZERTSUB]

I have yet to chime in on this.

I am tolerant until someone who claims to be much more tolerant than me (aka "open-minded") protests my view without listening to why I have that stance I do. that crap gets under my skin. these so called "open-minded" folk are the biggest f'ing hypocrites I have ever encountered in my life.

Here is my stance on several issues that have been touched on:
Gay marriage: NO. We as a society should not be forced to recognize homosexual unions as marriage. But if you wanna be gay behind closed doors, more power to you. Have a gay ol' time!!!
Drugs: Legalize marijuana. Decriminalize it. Make it the same as alcohol or prescription painkillers. Punish those who manufacture and push methamphetamines and synthetic drugs.
Capital punishment: If you take another human beings life in a malicious manner, you should die as well. Oh yeah, and your family should be forced to watch. Scratch that, ALL society should watch.
Second Amendment: A firearm is no more dangerous than a baseball bat or a brick. Next time there is a car accident or masonry incident that results in a death, we better outlaw cars and bricks too.
Illegal immigration: Why in hell should we allow a 'path to citizenship' for those who have successfully broken our laws and lived in the shadows for so many years??? Oh, but they did not live in the shadows. They popped out kids who are now AMERICAN CITIZENS and are reaping the benefits. By the way, these illegals who are enjoying the American way of life have not contributed to the system that they are raping. (Don't start in on me with this, those who work under the guise of false social security numbers are NOT paying into it)
Abortion: WHAT I AM is disgusted with the Courts who, on one hand, call the murder of a pregnant woman a 'double homicide," but then refer to the abortion of her baby as 'pro-choice.'


Makes you feel good about being TOLERANT now don't it???
I will not sit back and be TOLERANT of watching my nation, that I love, go to S**T because of "open interpretation" of our Constitution. It's NOT a living document, it's a set standard for how this country should be run. nothing OPEN about it until we realize that society has evolved.

I agree that black citizens should be afforded the same rights as white folks. However, the NAACP is a RACIST organization. I can't join because of the color of my skin. UHHHH, RACISM???
you mean to tell me I can't do something because of the color of my skin?????

By the way, I am happy to discuss these things I have brought up in a civil manner with anyone. Once you call me a racist, ignorant or intolerant, your argument is null and void.


I encourage spirited debate with my friends on RDC!!!!

[Sheaco]

I don't think "Tolerant" means that you have to except the same values as the next person, Tolerant means excepting that person has a right to his or her own set of values. no matter what you think. my two cents

[TreyP]

I agree that black citizens should be afforded the same rights as white folks. However, the NAACP is a RACIST organization. I can't join because of the color of my skin. UHHHH, RACISM???
you mean to tell me I can't do something because of the color of my skin?????

By the way, I am happy to discuss these things I have brought up in a civil manner with anyone. Once you call me a racist, ignorant or intolerant, your argument is null and void.


I encourage spirited debate with my friends on RDC!!!!


Ahh, you can join the NAACP as there is no requirement that you have to be of any particular color or race. So I expect to see your NAACP card soon.:D

[Sheaco]

I have yet to chime in on this

Here is my stance on several issues that have been touched on:
Gay marriage: NO. We as a society should not be forced to recognize homosexual unions as marriage. But if you wanna be gay behind closed doors, more power to you. Have a gay ol' time!!!


I agree that black citizens should be afforded the same rights as white folks. However, the NAACP is a RACIST organization. I can't join because of the color of my skin. UHHHH, RACISM???
you mean to tell me I can't do something because of the color of my skin?????

Is it ok to exclude one group, but demand entry into another?
Isn't that the same thing just different cirrcumstances?
Will the Padres win the Series?

[DEZERTSUB]

Ahh, you can join the NAACP as there is no requirement that you have to be of any particular color or race. So I expect to see your NAACP card soon.:D

OK Trey, once you join the National Association for Advancement of Colored People, I will too. Come on man, if you're gonna throw out an objection, it had better be more substantial than that one.

Next.

[scott-dsms]

OK Trey, once you join the National Association for Advancement of Colored People, I will too. Come on man, if you're gonna throw out an objection, it had better be more substantial than that one.
Next.

Try applying for a NAACP college scholarship or something like that Donny. Send them JimmyFSU's avatar if they ask for picture :D

[DEZERTSUB]

Ahh, you can join the NAACP as there is no requirement that you have to be of any particular color or race. So I expect to see your NAACP card soon.:D

By the way, where is the United WHITE Person College Fund? Vanilla magazine??? Seriously man, I'm not trying to be a prick but honestly...you mean to tell me there is no double standard when it comes to race in this country today??

I am disadvantaged as a white, Christian, heterosexual male.

Disagree?

Point me out one special interest group for someone like me.

[Sheaco]

By the way, where is the United WHITE Person College Fund? Vanilla magazine??? Seriously man, I'm not trying to be a prick but honestly...you mean to tell me there is no double standard when it comes to race in this country today??

I am disadvantaged as a white, Christian, heterosexual male.

Disagree?

Point me out one special interest group for someone like me.

N.R.A. There's one for you lol.

[DEZERTSUB]

N.R.A. There's one for you lol.

Yeah Buddy.

All responsible people of all races and ethnic backgrouds who believe in what this country stands for will not dispute Second Amendment rights.

Exceptions apply to those who don't obey laws anyway.

(your sarcasm was taken, just wanted to illustrate a point)

[TreyP]

OK Trey, once you join the National Association for Advancement of Colored People, I will too. Come on man, if you're gonna throw out an objection, it had better be more substantial than that one.

Next.

Objection? I was just pointing out that your premise was incorrect. Lighten up;)

[DEZERTSUB]

Objection? I was just pointing out that your premise was incorrect. Lighten up;)

Funny how you didn't touch on how I said the "open-minded" are the biggest hypocrites.

But what you said IS an objection. Strange thing is how two different people who are buddies can see something so differently.

But that's one aspect of what makes this country so great.:)

[TreyP]

Funny how you didn't touch on how I said the "open-minded" are the biggest hypocrites.

But what you said IS an objection. Strange thing is how two different people who are buddies can see something so differently.

But that's one aspect of what makes this country so great.:)

Oh don't worry pal, I'm not through yet....:D

[mgobaja]

I have king wondered why there is a black specific channel BET, but if we wanted a white only channel ( WET ) it would never happen. Jesse Jack and AL Sharpton are there own worst enemies, they make a huge deal out of things that are not that.

[DEZERTSUB]

I have king wondered why there is a black specific channel BET, but if we wanted a white only channel ( WET ) it would never happen. Jesse Jack and AL Sharpton are there own worst enemies, they make a huge deal out of things that are not that.

Of course. Victimization has no place in this country anymore, and if you demand EQUAL RIGHTS, then groups specific to any one race or creed are inherintly biased.

What say you Trey??? Still looking for something to nit-pick??:confused:

[Ryno]

[QUOTE=Infidel Racing Team;493316]I dont think the 10 commandments are a good start. I cant say it better than George Carlin did:

YouTube - George Carlin - Ten Commandments

Good one, one of my favorites from George as well.

Tolerance is A big gray area. Our parents raise us for the most part the best way they knew how. This of course came from their own life experience until we came into being. This "daddy and mommy didn't love me" crap is lame. EVERYBODY makes choices. You make a choice to accept a job, to get up everyday, go to work, and work for a certain wage. People make a choice to act a certain way, and accept actions from others as "tolerated".

Trey-you made the comment on the first page that society would have to be a machine to fit Mark's model. America after WWII was that machine. At some point, you're going to lose some of the hardness we had, and get some emotion mixed in. The machine started to run slower and break down. People live their private lives however they wish, when you mix a private life into the public, you have problems, because everyone isn't always going to see it your way.

I'm tolertant for the most part, I treat people how I would wish to be treated. At the same time, it's taken me 32 years to learn when to hold my tongue, and when to talk. Like my grandfather told me when I was younger, "kids are to be seen, not heard".

[Sheaco]

Yeah Buddy.

All responsible people of all races and ethnic backgrouds who believe in what this country stands for will not dispute Second Amendment rights.

Exceptions apply to those who don't obey laws anyway.

(your sarcasm was taken, just wanted to illustrate a point)

Yes I was being sarcastic. I also think that Both sides of the Isle have their fair share of Special Interest that have some sort of retarded Ideaologies that are required to join.

Last time I looked there is a Majority of White, Chrisitian,Heterosexual males running this Country. That group is not being swepped aside if anything they are making More money at higher ranking positions.

[Infidel Racing Team]

Drugs: Legalize marijuana. Decriminalize it. Make it the same as alcohol or prescription painkillers. Punish those who manufacture and push methamphetamines and synthetic drugs.!!!!


I am astonished. I never thought you thought that way Donny. I agree with you.



Illegal immigration: Why in hell should we allow a 'path to citizenship' for those who have successfully broken our laws and lived in the shadows for so many years??? Oh, but they did not live in the shadows. They popped out kids who are now AMERICAN CITIZENS and are reaping the benefits. By the way, these illegals who are enjoying the American way of life have not contributed to the system that they are raping. (Don't start in on me with this, those who work under the guise of false social security numbers are NOT paying into it)


I have a small issue with your statement, I agree there is many abuses in the system, but realistically you need more these workers than you think. Many sectors in your economy would be wipped out if it wasnt for the cheap labor.

I honestly dont see the American way of life in wiping old persons behinds, cleaning public bathrooms, picking the fruits or doing the most dangerous and dirty jobs no one else wants.....I dont want to portray them as heroes, (they are NOT) they are getting a fair chance at life at a fair price if you ask me.

I urge you to get acquinted with all the ilegal immigrants near you. Most are paying and contributing a more than a fair price for citizenship. The ones that dont, they should be deported, I will give you that:)


In anyrate, glad to hear your realistic stance on some issues.

[Sheaco]

I have king wondered why there is a black specific channel BET, but if we wanted a white only channel ( WET ) it would never happen. Jesse Jack and AL Sharpton are there own worst enemies, they make a huge deal out of things that are not that.

CMT,Speed Vision, Outdoor Life Network,Bloomburg TV,The Swimming Channel, Do I need to go on?

[mgobaja]

CMT,Speed Vision, Outdoor Life Network,Bloomburg TV,The Swimming Channel, Do I need to go on?

ok, you got me there.

[Sheaco]

Oh ya and another thing, I hope Al Sharpton Jumps off a building and lands on Jesse Jackson,Dick Chenney and Osama :D:eek:Boo-Yaa

[dezerts10]

those channels are not specifically directed towards white america.

[mgobaja]

you have the swimming channel, damn, we have 3 horse racing channels, wanna trade ?

[Sheaco]

Anybody got some Twinkies? mmmmmm

[Mark Newhan]

Infidel,

I do not wish to start a debate on illegal immigration and who is benefiting the most... The U.S. just gave billions of dollars to Mexico to shore up your southern boarder. Is South America pressuring Mexico to "mentor" them in the same fashion that Mexico asks the U.S.. I do understand that we can do a better job on the issue, that being the U.S. and Mexico. I just think that we are percieved as the villin in this scenario, kind of a Robin Hood.

Viva Baja!

[DEZERTSUB]

I have a small issue with your statement, I agree there is many abuses in the system, but realistically you need more these workers than you think. Many sectors in your economy would be wipped out if it wasnt for the cheap labor.

I honestly dont see the American way of life in wiping old persons behinds, cleaning public bathrooms, picking the fruits or doing the most dangerous and dirty jobs no one else wants.....I dont want to portray them as heroes, (they are NOT) they are getting a fair chance at life at a fair price if you ask me.
I urge you to get acquinted with all the ilegal immigrants near you. Most are paying and contributing a more than a fair price for citizenship. The ones that dont, they should be deported, I will give you that:)
In anyrate, glad to hear your realistic stance on some issues.

Negative dude. Mi vecino (neighbor) is an illegal and I love the dude to death, but hearing his story of how he has RAPED my country's generosity is astounding.

He and his wife are here illegally. She has now popped out two children in local hospitals (in the emergency room, no cost to her) and those children are now going to school at my tax dollar. he works with a fake Social Security number, a GOOD JOB that maybe I could have if it wasn't for people like him who cheat MY system. Not a frujit picker job.

Gustavo, could I work in Mexico???

No, we DON'T need these ILLEGALS (they are not "undocumented workers", they are ILLEGALS) LOWERING JOB WAGES that are normal jobs that I would be willing to work. Obviously I will not work those jobs now, the illegal immigrant population has driven down the wages of those jobs. Nothing wrong with cleaning hotel rooms, making food, landscaping. But the unskilled, willing to work for less than the whetto group has changed that.

As far as any employer whose business will go under because he has employed illegals, SO BE IT!!! Let's laugh at him in public, CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER!!!!

I say we punish those who take advantage and encourage illegals, as that in itself would be the biggest detterant to illegal immigrants. If you can no longer work here, you won't wanna be here. Period.

And NO, they have not paid their fair share into the system. You know what it costs everytime we jail a Paisa? Take them to court? Have an extra court employee that speaks Espanol???? Educate their kids in OUR schools??? Our hospitals have been hit HARD by people named JUAN HERNANDEZ because of our policies of never turning away anyone in dire need. Don't tell me they pay their fair share when your local emergency room gets closed because of "population growth"
(AKA illegals who never pay their share) and your kids no longer have a place to go when they fall down and get messed up.

A path to citizenship is rewarding negative behavior, period.

"OK, you've broken the rules and gotten away with it for so long, here are rewards"

Are you serious man????:confused:

[Ryno]

Okay, this is a thread on tolerance, not immigration. Talk to PJC for that one, I think he gave Klaus some $$$ to start a "purple" forum so he could be ringleader and feel important.

Part of tolerance is accepting certain things. Do you really think the US is going to round up 3.1 million people in LA??? (Thanks Mgobaja) What they should do, and rightfully do, is get all of them out of Jail, and deport them in mass. If you can't solve a problem one way, you have to do it another. There's white trash,who don't give a crap, black people who can't find a welfare check because it's under their workboots, and the illegals that work their asses off. Where do you draw the line?

[Vtr_Racing]

CMT,Speed Vision, Outdoor Life Network,Bloomburg TV,The Swimming Channel, Do I need to go on?

:confused: OOOOKKKKAAAAYYY!!! now theres a stretch.

I saw on a news channel the other day, that some morons at a counsel meeting were upset over the inference of the "black hole" or black sheep" as a racist comment! I didnt see it that way and the other gripe that they had was that Devils food cake was "derogotory towards black people and that Angel food cake was "white". This has to be THE most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

[pappawheely]

Part of tolerance is accepting certain things. Do you really think the US is going to round up 3.1 million people in LA??? (Thanks Mgobaja) What they should do, and rightfully do, is get all of them out of Jail, and deport them in mass. If you can't solve a problem one way, you have to do it another. There's white trash,who don't give a crap, black people who can't find a welfare check because it's under their workboots, and the illegals that work their asses off. Where do you draw the line?

If they deported all those criminals without sealing the border they would be back on our streets in a matter of hours. But that would be racist right?

[Ryno]

If they deported all those criminals without sealing the border they would be back on our streets in a matter of hours. But that would be racist right?

They already have 2 strikes....You're right, securing our border is a priority. But at a savings ok 50k a pop for inmate care, that's alot of $$$$.

[dan200]

In AZ we have "sheriff Joe. " He has been doing tons of illegal alien round ups and he is taking lots of crap for it.

[Infidel Racing Team]

Infidel,

I do not wish to start a debate on illegal immigration and who is benefiting the most... The U.S. just gave billions of dollars to Mexico to shore up your southern boarder. Is South America pressuring Mexico to "mentor" them in the same fashion that Mexico asks the U.S.. I do understand that we can do a better job on the issue, that being the U.S. and Mexico. I just think that we are percieved as the villin in this scenario, kind of a Robin Hood.

Viva Baja!

Hmmm, I didnt know about that donation...It sure was not news here, got a link?

In anyrate, I think human immigration is very hard to stop, It has never worked historically in the history of our species. I dont see the US as a villian here, actually the same phenomena happens here in Mexico. I dont see it anytime stoping as long as the regions have such a huge economic difference

[Infidel Racing Team]

Gustavo, could I work in Mexico???

:

I have in my payroll 1 American and 1 Uruguayan. Mexico is really tough vs business owners if the worker is here illegally.

I see many valid points, but I want to stop hijacking the thread. We can have this talk over a few beers this next week that you are here in Mexico:)

Now, If you want to work...You are most welcome, I hope you know some fabrication work because I need a skilled gringo to help me out in a new class 10 project....and no I dont need landscaping work, I have tons of Mexas who can do it almost for free :)

[X9 Racer]

If you go beyond tolerance you have a recipe for catastrophic failure.

You live and die by the "rules" of tolerence




I go with TreyP on this: "Humanity is based on emotion and complex experiances. The two are incompatible."

Tolerance is given as a range (+)(-) that you're allowed to stray from the norm. Your concept is extremist (+- zero) which in itself is intolerant.

I hope you're tolerant of my opinion.

[jgbjgb]

I have yet to chime in on this.

I am tolerant until someone who claims to be much more tolerant than me (aka "open-minded") protests my view without listening to why I have that stance I do. that crap gets under my skin. these so called "open-minded" folk are the biggest f'ing hypocrites I have ever encountered in my life.

Here is my stance on several issues that have been touched on:

Gay marriage: NO. We as a society should not be forced to recognize homosexual unions as marriage. But if you wanna be gay behind closed doors, more power to you. Have a gay ol' time!!!

Drugs: Legalize marijuana. Decriminalize it. Make it the same as alcohol or prescription painkillers. Punish those who manufacture and push methamphetamines and synthetic drugs.

Second Amendment: A firearm is no more dangerous than a baseball bat or a brick. Next time there is a car accident or masonry incident that results in a death, we better outlaw cars and bricks too.

Illegal immigration: Why in hell should we allow a 'path to citizenship' for those who have successfully broken our laws and lived in the shadows for so many years??? Oh, but they did not live in the shadows. They popped out kids who are now AMERICAN CITIZENS and are reaping the benefits.

Abortion: WHAT I AM is disgusted with the Courts who, on one hand, call the murder of a pregnant woman a 'double homicide," but then refer to the abortion of her baby as 'pro-choice.'

By the way, I am happy to discuss these things I have brought up in a civil manner with anyone. Once you call me a racist, ignorant or intolerant, your argument is null and void.

I encourage spirited debate with my friends on RDC!!!!

NO to gay marriage. WHY? You gave no reason.
No bible quoting please, such as the tired and overused "A man shall not lay with a man as a woman". Which does not say anything about a woman laying with a woman.....

Legalize marijuana. Just what society needs, drunk drivers and high drivers. If and when we start using technology to keep drunk/high drivers off the road I may agree with you. BUT, then you open up another can of worms regarding second hand smoke. I would be able to walk through a park, get my dose of tar and nicotine AND get a contact high.....and then not be able to drive home because my car registers THC.

I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment, but to say that a firearm is no more dangerous than a brick is ludicrous at best. A brick can not take out a target a half mile away. A brick can not wipe out a room full of people in just seconds.

Illegal Immigration. I agree with you, no "path to citizenship". Though I will reference your "They popped out kids who are now AMERICAN CITIZENS and are reaping the benefits".
This is because of our Constitution you find so dear, Amendment 14, section 1.

The abortion issue. If a man shoots a pregnant woman and kills the fetus, he CAN be charged with a homicide. If a woman chooses to abort her fetus she has that choice and right by law. The woman who got shot did not CHOOSE to get shot and did not CHOOSE to have her fetus terminated. Now, here would be an interesting criminal case, what if the woman who got shot was on the way to an abortion clinic.....
This is all I will say about the abortion issue, it is too volitile of an issue, and in some way why should men be arguing about what a woman should be allowed to do or not
do. Again, please no bible quoting to support an anti abortion stance, to paraphrase you "Once you start quoting bible versus your argument is null and void".

[Ryno]

They will never legalize marijuana...they can't effectively tax something that everyone can grow on their own. If there was tax $$$ in it, they would legalize it.

[scott-dsms]

In AZ we have "sheriff Joe. " He has been doing tons of illegal alien round ups and he is taking lots of crap for it.

Sheriff Joe Araipo Rocks - You guys are lucky to have him serving.

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic... "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"

[dan200]

Sheriff Joe Araipo Rocks - You guys are lucky to have him serving.

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic... "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"



The dude is gnarly and has been a client of my fathers. I even have an Honorary Deputization. No legal power but I did get a badge and badge holder etc. Pretty cool to have.

He has been using lots of cool tricks to round up illegal aliens. Some people including the Phx Mayor have been very out spoken with their comments against him his methods, and his style.

I like the guy. He takes no crap from anyone! People may not like his methods but he gets stuff done. After all, Somebody has to be the A-hole.

[Mark Newhan]

I go with TreyP on this: "Humanity is based on emotion and complex experiances. The two are incompatible."

Tolerance is given as a range (+)(-) that you're allowed to stray from the norm. Your concept is extremist (+- zero) which in itself is intolerant.

I hope you're tolerant of my opinion.

I am good with differing opinions! Like I said in a previous post... I know that humans are capable of passionately and precisely executing their lives. Society spends to much time caught up in the tabloids (at least here in the U.S.). The kids are raised on that idea and when its time to get on with their lives they can seem to get past it, which in my humble opinion holds them back from doing great things. They lack the focus and demand to recieve to many creature comforts and pampering without the ability to earn them.

My premise is + or -, not extremist. You view may just be more off center then mine which could make it appear skewed to one side.

[Infidel Racing Team]

My premise is + or -, not extremist. You view may just be more off center then mine which could make it appear skewed to one side.

I guess if you look at it from a legal stand ....The tolerance margins are the law. As long as an individual doesn't do anything illegal, they could live their life how ever they fancy.

Culturally is another story.....

[Mark Newhan]

I guess if you look at it from a legal stand ....The tolerance margins are the law. As long as an individual doesn't do anything illegal, they could live their life how ever they fancy.

Culturally is another story.....

Law is a componant of what I am talking about. Pot is illegal, yet some want it to be legal. A gay union is not illegal, yet some want it to be recognised as hetero marraige. Thusly it is an attack on religion as the concept of marraige is from scripture. Speeding is illegal yet people are pissed at the police when they get a ticket like they should be not held to the standard, which is a form of narcissism. Where is is put on society to be tolerant of the person who drinks and drives causing a vehiclular homicide, thus destorying other lives because he made a "bad decision"... its just a bad decision and he is sorry... Sorry never did bring back a human life.

You are correct in saying that it is a cultural phenomenon. Each culture has a different way in which they handle things... The U.S. is hamstrung by bleeding hearts and political correctness. The country has grown up to the point that we cant even make decisions about our very survival. I blame adolescent leaders that do not remember the pain and suffering of their descendants and the blood that was spilled to forge this nation. The world as a whole is no where near the utopia that would lend itself to avoid conflicts and have everyone sharing the natural resources and do it with the utmost envorimentally sound methods.

[Infidel Racing Team]

I blame adolescent leaders that do not remember the pain and suffering of their descendants and the blood that was spilled to forge this nation.

Mark,

One quote often attributed to Plato describing the narcissistic behavior of the younger generation says:

“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”

I guess it is clearly a Generation YOU vs THEM situation. It clearly cant be right, If every generation that perceived a downward spiral in their youth was correct, then we would all be going backwards in evolutionary terms.

In anyrate, If youth is mischievous now, I guess they can be allowed to be so, after all they will inherit the national debt :rolleyes: (I am being a bit sarcastic here because our generation is also leaving a mess behind us)

To leave the discussion on a high note:
"Youth lives on hope, old age on memories."
French Proverb

[dan200]

Sheriff Joe Araipo Rocks - You guys are lucky to have him serving.

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic... "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"


Arpaio: Go back where you came from

1554 comments by Senta Scarborough and William Hermann - Jul. 14, 2008 04:16 PM
The Arizona Republic

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio brought about 100 posse volunteers and deputies to Mesa on Monday, nearly three weeks after a two-day crime sweep that netted scores of arrests.

Arpaio said deputies made 15 arrests, including 10 suspected undocumented immigrants.

Unlike a sweep last month, Arpaio's office did not give Mesa Police notice before coming into the city.

Mesa Assistant Chief John Meza said the Sheriff's Office notified the department when they started the citywide enforcement about 2 p.m. Meza said police offered to provide assistance if needed.

Meeting with the media in a county island between Mesa and Tempe hours after the sweep began, an angry Arpaio said he had a message for those in the state illegally: “Get away from here and go back where you came from. If you are illegal, leave.”

He then thanked Gov. Janet Napolitano, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox and Guadalupe Mayor Rebecca Jimenez for criticizing his immigration efforts, insisting their vocal criticism of his efforts has forced more undocumented immigrants to leave the state.

With a touch of sarcasm, he also thanked protesters who showed up at recent sweeps in Phoenix, Guadalupe and Mesa for heaping on the attention.

“Thank you, demonstrators, for calling me Hitler and Nazi. Thank you,” Arpaio said.

As Arpaio spoke, a man and woman were led in handcuffs to a mobile command center for processing.

Near the end of the press conference, a handful of demonstrators arrived. “I'm here to protest his sweeps. I think he is racially profiling people and I'm deeply concerned,” said Nicole Siqueiros, 27, a Phoenix attorney and member of the group Los Abogados. “I want to remind him these are people. Every sweep, I plan to be there.”

Mesa Police Association President Fabian Cota called Monday’s sweep “an absolute surprise.”

“It certainly isn’t in the spirit of cooperation between law enforcement agencies who are participating on the same team,” he said. “It is like we always said, this has nothing to do with immigration but everything to do with officer safety.”

On June 26-27, MCSO deputies conducted a crime sweep and arrested 72 people, 28 of them undocumented immigrants. The sweeps prompted protests outside the sheriff's substation in Mesa, and Mesa police had more than 130 extra officers on the streets.

After the sweeps, Arpaio, whose efforts were monitored by the U.S. Justice Department and Arizona Attorney General's Office, pledged to bring his crime patrols to Mesa again without warning.

Mesa Police Chief George Gascón said an unannounced sweep could hurt officers' ability to deal with demonstrators and keep the peace.

In April, the sheriff announced he would bring his crime patrols to Mesa after several East Valley legislators asked him to do so. Gascón asked Arpaio to provide at least two days' notice so the department could re-direct its resources to keep the peace.

The sheriff's previous sweeps in Guadalupe and Phoenix drew large pro-immigration or anti-Arpaio crowds. Arpaio moved the command post for in Guadalupe to Mesa after demonstrators made him uncomfortable.

Arpaio made two unannounced sweeps in Mesa in November.

[scott-dsms]

Hey there Sheriff...we would appreciate advanced notice of these sweeps so we can warn everyone beforehand and make them totally ineffective. WAJ - Keep up the good work Sheriff! Nothing beats the element of "Surprise!, you're outta here"

[DaveGores]

NO to gay marriage. WHY? You gave no reason.

The majority of the citizenry wish to retain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. This is not racism. The court had no right to overturn the will of the people to redefine marriage for the first time in human history.


Legalize marijuana. Just what society needs, drunk drivers and high drivers. If and when we start using technology to keep drunk/high drivers off the road I may agree with you. BUT, then you open up another can of worms regarding second hand smoke. I would be able to walk through a park, get my dose of tar and nicotine AND get a contact high.....and then not be able to drive home because my car registers THC.

I'm on the fence about legalizing drugs but decriminalizing marijuana makes perfect sense to me. People die every year from alcohol related collisions yet alcohol is still readily available. I think marijuana should be regulated in a similar fashion.

I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment, but to say that a firearm is no more dangerous than a brick is ludicrous at best. A brick can not take out a target a half mile away. A brick can not wipe out a room full of people in just seconds.

A gun is nothing more than a tool. It can be used for great good, great evil or it can sit in an attic for 100 years and never be used. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed to us as citizens of the United States by the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I'd venture to say all of the other nine rights in the bill of rights are guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

The abortion issue. If a man shoots a pregnant woman and kills the fetus, he CAN be charged with a homicide. If a woman chooses to abort her fetus she has that choice and right by law. The woman who got shot did not CHOOSE to get shot and did not CHOOSE to have her fetus terminated.
This is all I will say about the abortion issue, it is too volitile of an issue, and in some way why should men be arguing about what a woman should be allowed to do or not do.

Let me understand this. If a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy and kill a fetus, it's ok, but if she is murdered by another person and the fetus dies as well, it's double murder. There seems to be a misstep in logic there. It is either murder to kill a fetus or it isn't. Once again, I feel there is NO RIGHT TO AN ABORTION. The words "abortion", "fetus" and "pregnancy" are no where to be found in the bill of rights or the 17 other Amendments. The Supreme Court legislated morality instead of interpreting law and the result was a Constitutional right to abortion. Men have every right to weigh in on this issue. This about the constitutionality of a right to an abortion, not about whether a mother would like to have children or not.

For the record, I believe states should decide the legality of abortion not the supreme court. My opinion of whether abortion is right or wrong is irrelevant to this discussion.

Again, please no bible quoting to support an anti abortion stance, to paraphrase you "Once you start quoting bible versus your argument is null and void".

I disagree with that statement whole-heartedly. That's not very tolerant of you. :D

[Mark Newhan]

Mark,

One quote often attributed to Plato describing the narcissistic behavior of the younger generation says:

“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”

I guess it is clearly a Generation YOU vs THEM situation. It clearly cant be right, If every generation that perceived a downward spiral in their youth was correct, then we would all be going backwards in evolutionary terms.

In anyrate, If youth is mischievous now, I guess they can be allowed to be so, after all they will inherit the national debt :rolleyes: (I am being a bit sarcastic here because our generation is also leaving a mess behind us)

To leave the discussion on a high note:
"Youth lives on hope, old age on memories."
French Proverb

One could argue that because of things like national debt, insurance fraud leading to increased insurance premiums, litigation concerning medical treatment leading to malpractice insurance premiums, corporate bailouts etc... all are examples of the result of adolescent leaders, which was what you quoted. A conservative approach to monetary policy would be only spend within your means. The adolescents adults of the 1960's invented credit cards as a way to have the instant gratification... that philosophy has lead to the current financial climate. We need to have a true conservative with the moral fiber to live on the economic pricipals of the past. George Bush sold out to congress to get his agressive agenda through, in my opinion. They in turn only point to him when the dollar is weakened and take no responsibility for their involement. The President only offers up his policies, congress has to approve the spending, which is why I hold them responsible and why their bodies approval in in the single digits.

Bill Clinton was the quintessential adolescent leader, which could explain his popularity in some fashion based on you quotes.

When adolescents refuse to grow up inspite of their age they do bring down a society little by little. The U.S. has has an unbelievable amount of growth since WWII. The country has not had to suffer, generally. When things are too good for too long the population tends to forget that it is inherently diffucult to survive. The success is in some way a crutch for those that have never seen tough times. What would we do in the U.S. if there was suddenly no electricity, clean water, food shortage and any other life sustaining elements. What would "soft" people do if they had to forage for food? They would probably be screamming at the government rather than hunting (cause they have no guns, lol). Imagine if the government is in a state flaux and was unable to offer food. Picture New Orleans played out in every city, community and state. This is exactly what Al Queda and other groups want! If we dont think that it could happen we may be a bit naive. Hope it doesn't. The entire world counts on the Western economy for survival in some way or another.

[Infidel Racing Team]

One could argue that because of things like national debt, insurance fraud leading to increased insurance premiums, litigation concerning medical treatment leading to malpractice insurance premiums, corporate bailouts etc... all are examples of the result of adolescent leaders, which was what you quoted. A conservative approach to monetary policy would be only spend within your means. The adolescents adults of the 1960's invented credit cards as a way to have the instant gratification... that philosophy has lead to the current financial climate. We need to have a true conservative with the moral fiber to live on the economic pricipals of the past. George Bush sold out to congress to get his agressive agenda through, in my opinion. They in turn only point to him when the dollar is weakened and take no responsibility for their involement. The President only offers up his policies, congress has to approve the spending, which is why I hold them responsible and why their bodies approval in in the single digits.

Bill Clinton was the quintessential adolescent leader, which could explain his popularity in some fashion based on you quotes.

When adolescents refuse to grow up inspite of their age they do bring down a society little by little. The U.S. has has an unbelievable amount of growth since WWII. The country has not had to suffer, generally. When things are too good for too long the population tends to forget that it is inherently diffucult to survive. The success is in some way a crutch for those that have never seen tough times. What would we do in the U.S. if there was suddenly no electricity, clean water, food shortage and any other life sustaining elements. What would "soft" people do if they had to forage for food? They would probably be screamming at the government rather than hunting (cause they have no guns, lol). Imagine if the government is in a state flaux and was unable to offer food. Picture New Orleans played out in every city, community and state. This is exactly what Al Queda and other groups want! If we dont think that it could happen we may be a bit naive. Hope it doesn't. The entire world counts on the Western economy for survival in some way or another.

Mark,

I think you are confusing Youth with either immaturity or inexperience.
Youth is a quality that you will lose only with time. Immaturity and / or inexperience are often related with Youth but it depends on the individual.

“You can be young once, but you can always be immature” Dave Barry

I don’t share your view that youth is the main driver on the crisis you mention, if anything, it is people of significant age who poses the power in our western civilizations.

[Infidel Racing Team]

The majority of the citizenry wish to retain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. This is not racism. The court had no right to overturn the will of the people to redefine marriage for the first time in human history.



I also don’t understand why the Gay community is so keen to call it marriage; to me is a moot point. Both sides try to push something so hard just based on semantics:)

As far as the court overturning a definition, well.....It is ground breaking and I commend them for doing so. Not long a go Black people were consider property, so I am all for ground breaking actions on the ground we are all equal in every sense in the eyes of the law.;)



I'm on the fence about legalizing drugs but decriminalizing marijuana makes perfect sense to me. People die every year from alcohol related collisions yet alcohol is still readily available. I think marijuana should be regulated in a similar fashion.


I don’t do drugs, but I am also all for legalizing pot. Refreshing to hear you say that as well:)


A gun is nothing more than a tool. It can be used for great good, great evil or it can sit in an attic for 100 years and never be used. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed to us as citizens of the United States by the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I'd venture to say all of the other nine rights in the bill of rights are guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

Since we don’t live in a perfect world I think Guns and the right to bear arms is necessary. I just don’t see why someone needs a AK47 or a M16 to defend their house. I think there should be reasonable limits on what a civilian could use/ carry.


Let me understand this. If a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy and kill a fetus, it's ok, but if she is murdered by another person and the fetus dies as well, it's double murder. There seems to be a misstep in logic there. It is either murder to kill a fetus or it isn't. Once again, I feel there is NO RIGHT TO AN ABORTION. The words "abortion", "fetus" and "pregnancy" are no where to be found in the bill of rights or the 17 other Amendments. The Supreme Court legislated morality instead of interpreting law and the result was a Constitutional right to abortion. Men have every right to weigh in on this issue. This about the constitutionality of a right to an abortion, not about whether a mother would like to have children or not.

For the record, I believe states should decide the legality of abortion not the supreme court. My opinion of whether abortion is right or wrong is irrelevant to this discussion.


Very controversial issue....I think you could be both pro choice and pro life.....Yes, There is a middle point in which I find it very comfortable. Let me elaborate:

One extreme of being PRO CHOICE would be if you terminated the pregnancy with 8 months 3 weeks, right? The product is indistinguishable a child now.

The extreme of being pro life is that at the moment of conception it is considered life, right?

Well both cases (IMHO) are wrong; one would be killing a child and the other a POTENTIAL life. The question then is when are we HUMAN? Humans distinguish themselves from other animals for their capabilities of rationalization (thinking), so IMHO a fetus is human in the 4th month of pregnancy, when they are capable of reaction, feelings and basic brain functions. To be safe, let’s leave it at the 1st trimester of the pregnancy....

On the other hand the conservative view would argue that the potential life is human life at the moment of conception, but the truth is that a large % of fertilized eggs die naturally before the mother even notices it ....What do we do? Do we mourn? Has a human being died? No, just a potential human being has.....In that light, sperm should be cherished as Humans, since they are also potential human beings....Eggs as well. Now the thought of someone masturbating as gross as it may be, it becomes actually mass murder!!
You catch my drift? Potential life still is no human life until certain stage....That is my very particular stance on the issue. It involved ethics, yet it is rationalized.

Oh, and for the record.....I still think is an issue between the woman and her doctor (during the 1st trimester), after that everybody can pitch in, since it is a human we are talking about:).

[randy s]

Randy,

Dr Drew Pinsky, who you may know is a addiction specialist, has commented about the effects of pot. Any substance can be addicting. How many people get a craving for a Starbuck at aroung 2:30. You might be surprised to know that I may have known some pot smokers in my time. Prolonged use will pot will have the same effects as cigarettes. Before you talk about all of the chemicals in cigarettes I will concede that more people die of lung cancer from cigarettes then pot. If someone smoked pot as much as they do cigarettes they would have lung problems.

Any vice that is not moderated will have lasting effects of some sort. The purpose of this thread was to illustrate that simple malities put a strain on what ever entity it is effecting. Either a bearing surface or a welfare recipient places some type of burden on something or someone.

As for the gay marraige reference... Do any of you think that this issue is placing a buden on the country? It does not matter what your personal "feelings" are, the country is not ready for it. State after state continues to vote it down therefore it is the will of the people. When the gay lobby does not get what it wants the cry foul and say they the country is "intolerant". I think that there are much more important ways that the country could more forward rather then being bogged down in this one issue. Lets revisit the issue when as Trey P when we have advanced as a species, LOL Trey. Perhaps if we have not spent the last 10 years on this we could have been working on the energy situation. Government is broken... lets not let them have more control by demanding "Universal Health Care". There is enough welfare these days with all of the white collar welfare and government bailouts.

If we united as a country around things that can be fixed we might just evolve more rapidly,another funny Trey. We are being drawn and quartered by the lobbyist and special interest.

you can't introduce a physically addicting component to weed through breeding. there are no existing cannibinoids that have those characteristics in any land race strains cataloged so far out of the 600 or so cataloged by shultes or anyone else. sorry.

[randy s]

however, through hybrid vigor, breeders are being sucessful in coming up with stronger strains of designer type weed. the offspring of any two seperate strains used as breeding stock will be stronger than either parent. thus, hybrid vigor.

[Mark Newhan]

Mark,

I think you are confusing Youth with either immaturity or inexperience.
Youth is a quality that you will lose only with time. Immaturity and / or inexperience are often related with Youth but it depends on the individual.

“You can be young once, but you can always be immature” Dave Barry

I don’t share your view that youth is the main driver on the crisis you mention, if anything, it is people of significant age who poses the power in our western civilizations.

Gustavo,

We are talking about the same thing. I am merely saying that there are adolescent adults. Supported by the quote from Barry (substitute adolescent with immature) I am saying that some people do not out grow the angst that they feel as youth. If the youth vote shows up to vote in this election we may hire an inexperienced President... thus we may see my hypothosis played out... from an inexperienced leader.

Respectfully

[Mark Newhan]

however, through hybrid vigor, breeders are being sucessful in coming up with stronger strains of designer type weed. the offspring of any two seperate strains used as breeding stock will be stronger than either parent. thus, hybrid vigor.

Randy,

You know too much about the cultivation of weed,lol. I dont think that you can't merely excuse the fact that there are people addicted to pot. And I thought that THC was an addictive component.

[jgbjgb]

Let me understand this. If a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy and kill a fetus, it's ok, but if she is murdered by another person and the fetus dies as well, it's double murder. There seems to be a misstep in logic there. It is either murder to kill a fetus or it isn't. Once again, I feel there is NO RIGHT TO AN ABORTION. The words "abortion", "fetus" and "pregnancy" are no where to be found in the bill of rights or the 17 other Amendments. The Supreme Court legislated morality instead of interpreting law and the result was a Constitutional right to abortion. Men have every right to weigh in on this issue. This about the constitutionality of a right to an abortion, not about whether a mother would like to have children or not.

Question:

Do you feel in YOUR opinion a woman has a RIGHT for equal pay for equal work?

Before you answer, no where in the 27 Amendments of the Constitution does it say "woman", "equal rights", "equal pay". Now Amendment 19 does say: 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 sex.
Also, remember the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) was never ratified, so it is NOT part of the Constitution as of yet.

ERA:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

So, if you DO believe women have this RIGHT (equal pay for equal work), why? And where is this RIGHT coming from if is not guarateed by the 27 Amendments that you seem to base your arguments on.

If you do NOT believe women have a RIGHT for equal pay for equal work, please explain this also.


The Supreme court did not legislate morality, they DID interpret law. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings.

Outlawing abortion would be/is a decision based on MORALITY not LAW.

[Mark Newhan]

Question:

Do you feel in YOUR opinion a woman has a RIGHT for equal pay for equal work?

Before you answer, no where in the 27 Amendments of the Constitution does it say "woman", "equal rights", "equal pay". Now Amendment 19 does say: 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 sex.
Also, remember the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) was never ratified, so it is NOT part of the Constitution as of yet.

ERA:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

So, if you DO believe women have this RIGHT (equal pay for equal work), why? And where is this RIGHT coming from if is not guarateed by the 27 Amendments that you seem to base your arguments on.

If you do NOT believe women have a RIGHT for equal pay for equal work, please explain this also.


The Supreme court did not legislate morality, they DID interpret law. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings.

Outlawing abortion would be/is a decision based on MORALITY not LAW.

Impressive! A constitutionalist! Allthough I understand the premiss of str8edge's post.

[DaveGores]

I also don’t understand why the Gay community is so keen to call it marriage; to me is a moot point. Both sides try to push something so hard just based on semantics:)

To many Americans it isn't a moot point. The court has no right to redefine an institution like marriage.

As far as the court overturning a definition, well.....It is ground breaking and I commend them for doing so. Not long a go Black people were consider property, so I am all for ground breaking actions on the ground we are all equal in every sense in the eyes of the law.;)

Comparing this to slavery is truly dishonest and slanderous. The two are not comparable. I must admit, the left has done quite the job of painting those in favor of traditional marriage as racists and homophobes.


Since we don’t live in a perfect world I think Guns and the right to bear arms is necessary. I just don’t see why someone needs a AK47 or a M16 to defend their house. I think there should be reasonable limits on what a civilian could use/ carry.

The founding fathers would disagree. They felt the average citizen should have access to the basic small arms issued to infantrymen. 230 years ago, that was a basic flintlock musket. Today it's an m16.

On the other hand the conservative view would argue that the potential life is human life at the moment of conception, but the truth is that a large % of fertilized eggs die naturally before the mother even notices it ....What do we do? Do we mourn? Has a human being died? No, just a potential human being has.....In that light, sperm should be cherished as Humans, since they are also potential human beings....Eggs as well. Now the thought of someone masturbating as gross as it may be, it becomes actually mass murder!!
You catch my drift? Potential life still is no human life until certain stage....That is my very particular stance on the issue. It involved ethics, yet it is rationalized.

There is a very large difference between one random sperm or egg and actual fertilized egg.

Oh, and for the record.....I still think is an issue between the woman and her doctor (during the 1st trimester), after that everybody can pitch in, since it is a human we are talking about:).

I think you're missing the point of what I said. I made no comment as to whether I was pro-choice or pro-life. I was making the point that there is no right to abortion in the constitution and that it should be a state-by-state issue. Many conservatives feel the same way. Conservatives' gripe against Roe vs. Wade isn't all about morality.

[DaveGores]

Question:

Do you feel in YOUR opinion a woman has a RIGHT for equal pay for equal work?

I think if Congress passed a law declaring all private businesses shall pay women half the pay of a man it would be unconstitutional but I don't feel woman have a guaranteed right to "equal pay for equal work".


The Supreme court did not legislate morality, they DID interpret law. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings.

Outlawing abortion would be/is a decision based on MORALITY not LAW.

Making a law isn't law? I'm not sure I understand that. It is the court's job to interpret law. I disagree with the decision and feel the court's interpretation of the Constitution was much to broad.

[jgbjgb]

I think if Congress passed a law declaring all private businesses shall pay women half the pay of a man it would be unconstitutional but I don't feel woman have a guaranteed right to "equal pay for equal work".

But how can it be UNconstitutional if it is not IN the Constitution to begin with?

I believe evey woman will disagree with you on the second half of the sentence.

[la2baja]

This thought has been rattleing around my head for a couple of years. What does being "tolerant" mean?

The progressives insist that the conservatives be more tolerant to "diversity", legalizing drugs, gay marriage and many other "progressive" ideas that you would not want your children a part of. If you have an opinion that is contrary to these "ideas" you are labeled "intolerant".

I thought that people on this board would appreciate my particular opinion on this. If you understand machining and enginering and apply the standard to every day life you would get this. In this particular field if you go beyond tolerance you have a recipe for catastrophic failure. In engineering if you are "out of tolerance" on a bearing surface the component that relies on the tolerance will ultimately not survive. You live and die by the "rules" of tolerence or laws if you will. To put it plainly... You would not want to be flying on a aircraft that was built by workers that though that the rules of tolerence were out dated and cast them out for a more "open minded" approach to machining.

This same standard can be applied to every day life. If you stray outside the natural tolerance of a society things are bound to break down and I believe that we are whitnessing it first hand. I also believe that the "fringe" elements are weaker then they have been in 30 years, allthough the numbers are greater based on population growth.

My statement on Tolerance is not politically based or a personal attack but about the word and it's abuse in today's verbiage.

Outside of the engineering use of the word, I refuse to use it.

In the everyday way the word tolerance is abused I find it the lazy way to fill in for other more useful words. More importantly it is a word filling in for a lack of actions.
I will not "tolerate" anything. Ever. I will instead try to decipher the finer points of a subject, or someones opinion, or belief. I will learn what I can about their position on the subject. I will recount why I see things differently and then I will make a decision to agree or disagree and I will stand firmly on that ground until new information is presented. I will then restart the process and obtain a stance on said subject again. At the end of the day. I will agree or I will disagree based on educating myself and then I act.
From what I have learned in these short 37 years is that Toleration is the lazy and complacent mans way to avoid the work it takes to learn and understand. When you tolerate someones opinion, political ideas, social dysfunction, or actions, you are simply throwing in the towel and no one comes away better for it.

My 2 pesos.

[Infidel Racing Team]

Comparing this to slavery is truly dishonest and slanderous. The two are not comparable. I must admit, the left has done quite the job of painting those in favor of traditional marriage as racists and homophobes.
.

Under today's context there is a truly huge gap, but on the days it was introduce the mere thought of Blacks being equals to Whites was unconceivable to many.


The founding fathers would disagree. They felt the average citizen should have access to the basic small arms issued to infantrymen. 230 years ago, that was a basic flintlock musket. Today it's an m16.



I think technology has changed much, a musket back then was lethal only at a certain range and it was a machine that needed to much time to fire consecutive shots. An M16 can kill a large group of people in mere seconds, in the hands of a lunatic it could elevate an accident to a national tragidy....IMHO;)



There is a very large difference between one random sperm or egg and actual fertilized egg.

.


Not really, they all are just potential life.......I cant say it better than this excerpt from Carl Sagan's book:

Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.

In some animals, an egg develops into a healthy adult without benefit of a sperm cell. But not, so far as we know, among humans. A sperm and an unfertilized egg jointly comprise the full genetic blueprint for a human being. Under certain circumstances, after fertilization, they can develop into a baby. But most fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried. Development into a baby is by no means guaranteed. Neither a sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or a potential adult. So if a sperm and egg are as human as the fertilized egg produced by their union, and if it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg--despite the fact that it's only potentially a baby--why isn't it murder to destroy a sperm or an egg?

Hundreds of millions of sperm cells (top speed with tails lashing: five inches per hour) are produced in an average human ejaculation. A healthy young man can produce in a week or two enough spermatozoa to double the human population of the Earth. So is masturbation mass murder? How about nocturnal emissions or just plain sex? When the unfertilized egg is expelled each month, has someone died? Should we mourn all those spontaneous miscarriages? Many lower animals can be grown in a laboratory from a single body cell. Human cells can be cloned… In light of such cloning technology, would we be committing mass murder by destroying any potentially clonable cells? By shedding a drop of blood?

All human sperm and eggs are genetic halves of "potential" human beings. Should heroic efforts be made to save and preserve all of them, everywhere, because of this "potential"? Is failure to do so immoral or criminal? Of course, there's a difference between taking a life and failing to save it. And there's a big difference between the probability of survival of a sperm cell and that of a fertilized egg. But the absurdity of a corps of high-minded semen-preservers moves us to wonder whether a fertilized egg's mere "potential" to become a baby really does make destroying it murder.

Opponents of abortion worry that, once abortion is permissible immediately after conception, no argument will restrict it at any later time in the pregnancy. Then, they fear, one day it will be permissible to murder a fetus that is unambiguously a human being. Both pro-choicers and pro-lifers (at least some of them) are pushed toward absolutist positions by parallel fears of the slippery slope.

Another slippery slope is reached by those pro-lifers who are willing to make an exception in the agonizing case of a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. But why should the right to live depend on the circumstances of conception? If the same child were to result, can the state ordain life for the offspring of a lawful union but death for one conceived by force or coercion? How can this be just? And if exceptions are extended to such a fetus, why should they be withheld from any other fetus? This is part of the reason some pro-lifers adopt what many others consider the outrageous posture of opposing abortions under any and all circumstances--only excepting, perhaps, when the life of the mother is in danger.

Here is the whole article which I take my views on this delicate matter. I think Sagan did actually nail this one in the head.

“Abortion: Is it Possible to be both “Pro-life” and “Pro-Choice”?” (http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml)

[Infidel Racing Team]

From what I have learned in these short 37 years is that Toleration is the lazy and complacent mans way to avoid the work it takes to learn and understand. When you tolerate someones opinion, political ideas, social dysfunction, or actions, you are simply throwing in the towel and no one comes away better for it.




I think you are selling the concept short.....Tolerance is mainly understand and accept the differences in another person based on age, religion, sex, nationality, social class, education, etc.

[DaveGores]

But how can it be UNconstitutional if it is not IN the Constitution to begin with?

I suppose your right. I believe it would be constitutional. Such a law would just infringe on the liberty of the people.

I believe evey woman will disagree with you on the second half of the sentence.[/QUOTE]

They might. However it's true. I believe they do deserve equal pay for equal work and I feel today they get just that but that doesn't mean they have a "right" to "equal pay for equal work".

[DaveGores]

Under today's context there is a truly huge gap, but on the days it was introduce the mere thought of Blacks being equals to Whites was unconceivable to many.

And at one point people thought the idea of the earth being round was ludicrous. What's your point?

I think technology has changed much, a musket back then was lethal only at a certain range and it was a machine that needed to much time to fire consecutive shots. An M16 can kill a large group of people in mere seconds, in the hands of a lunatic it could elevate an accident to a national tragidy....IMHO;)

What does your input on what you think people should or shouldn't be able to have have to do with the meaning of the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment says what it says and the reasoning behind it is very clear. If the government chooses to say which small arms are reasonable and which aren't, the 2nd amendment needs to be altered.

Not really, they all are just potential life.......I cant say it better than this excerpt from Carl Sagan's book:

With this reasoning, I should be able to kill you and throw your body into a pig pen. After all, all you really are is potential pig food.

[ScoobyMike]

As to the original thought on this thread, it is interesting to go back 50 years, 100 years and (I am sure) even before then. Every generation eventually gets to the point where they are sure the new generation is degrading society. I went to a seminar many years ago in college where they looked at the core personal values of various generations. For example, those who lived through the Great Depression have very different core values from those who developed as young adults during the Vietnam War era. The older generation ALWAYS looks at the younger generation, shaking their heads convinced that they are the damnation of society because the young crowd so blatantly flaunts the values that so clearly define the older generation.

In short, LA2Baja, you are getting old!

[la2baja]

I think you are selling the concept short.....Tolerance is mainly understand and accept the differences in another person based on age, religion, sex, nationality, social class, education, etc.

Understanding takes thought and a persons time and will, to try and understand. To tolerate is to be passive, it is a word. To understand is to actively pursue information in order to come to a decision, understanding is more than just a word it is an action.

In today's world of blanket statements and catch phrases, "Tolerate" has been redefined as a passive act that sustains ignorance.
You are making a perfect example of my point. You are questioning me, you are seeking information about my point of view. You are actively trying to understand. That is what everyone should do.

You did not read my post, disagree with it and passively move on. That would have been tolerating me and my little rant.

You sir are someone who seeks understanding and I applaud that.

[jgbjgb]

I think if Congress passed a law declaring all private businesses shall pay women half the pay of a man it would be unconstitutional but I don't feel woman have a guaranteed right to "equal pay for equal work".

I believe evey woman will disagree with you on the second half of the sentence.

They might. However it's true. I believe they do deserve equal pay for equal work and I feel today they get just that but that doesn't mean they have a "right" to "equal pay for equal work".


Follow up question:

IF the ERA was ratified and became the 28th Amendment (Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.) would you THEN say a woman has a RIGHT to equal pay for equal work?

[jgbjgb]

Instead of doing a bunch of quotes and possibly making a jumbled mess, I am going to try to hit some points and counterpoints that have just been discussed.

2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringe
infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW

In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

Some people interpret the second amendment that only a member of a militia (National Guard/ Reserves) have the RIGHT to bear arms, some people interpret that all the People have a RIGHT to bear arms.

Militia:

The history of militia in the United States dates from the colonial era. Based on the British system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Because there were usually few British regulars garrisoned in North America, colonial militia served a vital role in local conflicts, particularly in the French and Indian Wars. Before shooting began in the American War of Independence, American revolutionaries took control of the militia system, reinvigorating training and excluding men with Loyalist inclinations. Regulation of the militia was codified by the Second Continental Congress with the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionaries also created a full-time regular army—the Continental Army—but because of manpower shortages the militia provided short-term support to the regulars in the field throughout the war.

In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time, probably at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.

MY opinion/interpretation:

A militia IS the People/ the People ARE the militia, based on context and meaning of the word militia.
You can not own every weapon manufactured based on Supreme court ruling.
Not everyone can own a weapon, again based on supreme court ruling and common sense (public safety).



14th Amendment Section 1:

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.

One way that the above can be interpreted:

All persons born..... A fetus has not been born so therefore has no Constitutional rights.

.....nor shall any State deprive any person of life..... The sticky part, when does a fetus "become" a person?

A sperm cell fertilizes an egg, the egg divides into two cells, then, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, etc. Is a 256 cell mass a person? Science and the Supreme court says no. So to not infringe on the due process and liberties of a woman, abortion is legal upto a point. At that point science and the Supreme Court says that fetus is a person based on certain parameters and falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment. Now, in some instances, such as the health of the woman, her rights trump the fetus/persons rights, and the fetus/person can be aborted.

[jgbjgb]

The majority of the citizenry wish to retain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. This is not racism. The court had no right to overturn the will of the people to redefine marriage for the first time in human history.

What does racism have to do with gay marriage?

In a democratic society the majority rules, to a point, and then the Judiciary must step in if they feel the existing laws are in fact unconstitutional to the minority, per the 14th Amendment, as interpreted by them.

Remeber, the "will of the people" kept blacks at the back of the bus, barred blacks from entering restaurants and clubs, kept blacks segregated in schools, kept blacks from being hired for good jobs that they were qualified for, etc.

[Sheaco]

JGBJGB, Good posts.

[Ziggy]

JGB JGB wrote
[/U]
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.

One way that the above can be interpreted:

All persons born..... A fetus has not been born so therefore has no Constitutional rights.

.....nor shall any State deprive any person of life..... The sticky part, when does a fetus "become" a person?

A sperm cell fertilizes an egg, the egg divides into two cells, then, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, etc. Is a 256 cell mass a person? Science and the Supreme court says no. So to not infringe on the due process and liberties of a woman, abortion is legal upto a point. At that point science and the Supreme Court says that fetus is a person based on certain parameters and falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment. Now, in some instances, such as the health of the woman, her rights trump the fetus/persons rights, and the fetus/person can be aborted.



How could anyone possibly interpret your statement that way.You have used "A fetus has not been born"completely out of context.The context of the sentence"All persons born or Naturalized" is about where you were born or where you have been naturalized to and has absolutley nothing to do with a "Fetus" or whether a Fetus has rights or not.
You have it seems, either made a mistake or twisted and maligned the facts,hopefully the former.

[jgbjgb]

Clarification

I did not say that was MY interpretation, I said that was one way it CAN be interpreted, again, not MY interpretation.

This actually proves a point I am trying to make, how different people can read the same statement and interpret that statement to mean different things, based on numerous factors such as upbringing, religious faith, education, political leanings/ ideologies, preconcieved notions and prejudices, enviroment, etc. See my post about the 2nd Amendment, one simple sentence that is still being argued to this day as to what the founding fathers really meant, militia versus the people. This is also proved by how the Supreme Court rules, generally the court rules along party lines. That is why Democrats wants more democratic Justices and Republicans want more republican Justices. That way the interpretations follow their party's ideologies.

[DEZERTSUB]

Ladies and Gentleman, we now know jgbjgb's real identity:

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn231/REMEMBR911ALWAYS/aging.jpg

[jgbjgb]

Actually, my hair is much longer :D

[jgbjgb]

The above post with the catoon also proves my point, how two different people can read the same thing and draw two different conclusions:

JGBJGB, Good posts.

versus

the cartoon


I rest my case.

[Ziggy]

Clarification

I did not say that was MY interpretation, I said that was one way it CAN be interpreted, again, not MY interpretation.

This actually proves a point I am trying to make, how different people can read the same statement and interpret that statement to mean different things, based on numerous factors such as upbringing, religious faith, education, political leanings/ ideologies, preconcieved notions and prejudices, enviroment, etc. See my post about the 2nd Amendment, one simple sentence that is still being argued to this day as to what the founding fathers really meant, militia versus the people. This is also proved by how the Supreme Court rules, generally the court rules along party lines. That is why Democrats wants more democratic Justices and Republicans want more republican Justices. That way the interpretations follow their party's ideologies.

Your sub paragraph heading says"My Opinion/Interpretation.From your most recent post I can only assume that your opinion/interpretation stopped before the 14th Amendment paragraph.
If so I stand corrected ,if not ???:cool:

[DEZERTSUB]

Actually, my hair is much longer :D

At least you got a sense of humor. :)

Oh and look, congrats to me on my 1000th post!!!!:D

[jgbjgb]

Your sub paragraph heading says"My Opinion/Interpretation.From your most recent post I can only assume that your opinion/interpretation stopped before the 14th Amendment paragraph.
If so I stand corrected ,if not ???:cool:

2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringe
infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW

In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

Some people interpret the second amendment that only a member of a militia (National Guard/ Reserves) have the RIGHT to bear arms, some people interpret that all the People have a RIGHT to bear arms.

Militia:

The history of militia in the United States dates from the colonial era. Based on the British system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Because there were usually few British regulars garrisoned in North America, colonial militia served a vital role in local conflicts, particularly in the French and Indian Wars. Before shooting began in the American War of Independence, American revolutionaries took control of the militia system, reinvigorating training and excluding men with Loyalist inclinations. Regulation of the militia was codified by the Second Continental Congress with the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionaries also created a full-time regular army—the Continental Army—but because of manpower shortages the militia provided short-term support to the regulars in the field throughout the war.

In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time, probably at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.

MY opinion/interpretation: Of the 2nd Amendment

A militia IS the People/ the People ARE the militia, based on context and meaning of the word militia.
You can not own every weapon manufactured based on Supreme court ruling.
Not everyone can own a weapon, again based on supreme court ruling and common sense (public safety).

[DaveGores]

What does racism have to do with gay marriage?

I should have been a bit more clear. The left has successfully equated the beliefs of those who wish to uphold traditional marriage with those who were in favor of segregation (racists).

In a democratic society the majority rules, to a point, and then the Judiciary must step in if they feel the existing laws are in fact unconstitutional to the minority, per the 14th Amendment, as interpreted by them.

I agree. However, I feel gay marriage is not one of those instances where the court should step in.

Remeber, the "will of the people" kept blacks at the back of the bus, barred blacks from entering restaurants and clubs, kept blacks segregated in schools, kept blacks from being hired for good jobs that they were qualified for, etc.

This is exactly the type of slanderous comparison I'm talking about. It is intellectually dishonest.

[DaveGores]

MY opinion/interpretation: Of the 2nd Amendment

A militia IS the People/ the People ARE the militia, based on context and meaning of the word militia.
You can not own every weapon manufactured based on Supreme court ruling.
Not everyone can own a weapon, again based on supreme court ruling and common sense (public safety).

I agree to an extent. The founding fathers wanted every citizen to have access to any type of small arms issued to the average infantryman. Therefore they should have access to most small arms manufactured today including weapons such as the m-16 or m4. However, this doesn't mean that you're average citizen has a right to own say...an anti-aircraft battery.

[jgbjgb]

I agree to an extent. The founding fathers wanted every citizen to have access to any type of small arms issued to the average infantryman. Therefore they should have access to most small arms manufactured today including weapons such as the m-16 or m4. However, this doesn't mean that you're average citizen has a right to own say...an anti-aircraft battery.

2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't see that sentence or inference. Again, making my point that two or more people can read the same thing and interpret two or more different ways. Also, how do you know what the founding fathers wanted or intended? I see no proof to back up your claim of knowing their wants/intentions.
But for sake of discussion, even you yourself are putting limits on what arms can be possesed or not posessed. You used the words most and small arms. distinguishing between "small arms" and "big arms" and "most" but not "all" the small arms available. You seem to be interpreting (with no back up) and setting limits.....Oh wait, is that not what the Supreme Court does? They interpret the US Constitution and Amendments and make or set limits? Yours just does not jive with theirs.

Just out of curiosity, where is your limit between small and big arms in relation to military weapons?

M16 5.56 mm AND all derivatives including 40 mm grenade launcher (M203)

M60 7.62 machine gun

M2 50 cal heavy barrel machine gun

M72 LAW 66 mm light anti tank weapon, shoulder fired

M47 Dragon medium anti tank weapon, shoulder fired from bipod

60 mm mortar

81 mm mortar

4.2" mortar

Claymore mine

Hand grenades (HE, CS, smoke, etc)

[jgbjgb]

In doing my research for this thread regarding the Amendments, I found these Amendments interesting.

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Could this be interpreted to mean: slavery as punishment for a convicted crime is legal under the Constitution and is not cruel and unusuall punishment? Especially considering the order in which the two Amendments were written and ratified. If the two Amendments were reversed one could argue the opposite.

[Ziggy]

NO to gay marriage. WHY? You gave no reason.
No bible quoting please, such as the tired and overused "A man shall not lay with a man as a woman". Which does not say anything about a woman laying with a woman.....

Legalize marijuana. Just what society needs, drunk drivers and high drivers. If and when we start using technology to keep drunk/high drivers off the road I may agree with you. BUT, then you open up another can of worms regarding second hand smoke. I would be able to walk through a park, get my dose of tar and nicotine AND get a contact high.....and then not be able to drive home because my car registers THC.

I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment, but to say that a firearm is no more dangerous than a brick is ludicrous at best. A brick can not take out a target a half mile away. A brick can not wipe out a room full of people in just seconds.

Illegal Immigration. I agree with you, no "path to citizenship". Though I will reference your "They popped out kids who are now AMERICAN CITIZENS and are reaping the benefits".
This is because of our Constitution you find so dear, Amendment 14, section 1.

The abortion issue. If a man shoots a pregnant woman and kills the fetus, he CAN be charged with a homicide. If a woman chooses to abort her fetus she has that choice and right by law. The woman who got shot did not CHOOSE to get shot and did not CHOOSE to have her fetus terminated. Now, here would be an interesting criminal case, what if the woman who got shot was on the way to an abortion clinic.....
This is all I will say about the abortion issue, it is too volitile of an issue, and in some way why should men be arguing about what a woman should be allowed to do or not
do. Again, please no bible quoting to support an anti abortion stance, to paraphrase you "Once you start quoting bible versus your argument is null and void".



What do you mean "No Bible quoting".I was willing to be objective and open minded enough to agree to disagree until I saw this crap.WHO MADE BOSS.You dont get to tell anyone what the content of their posts should be.

[jgbjgb]

What do you mean "No Bible quoting".I was willing to be objective and open minded enough to agree to disagree until I saw this crap.WHO MADE BOSS.You dont get to tell anyone what the content of their posts should be.

Two or more people cannot effectively debate an issue or topic if one of those people uses the Bible as his/her only reference, back up, or proof for their position. The discussion will last at most two or three posts before he/she just continuously repeats that particular verse as proof with the only explanation being "it is in the Bible thus it is true and factual". You can have no debate.

Public policy in my opinion cannot be set using religious doctrine or ideologies. If this is done they are forcing their religious doctrine/ ideologies on those that are not of their religion, faith, or belief system. In my opinion you are then creating a state sanctioned religion, I believe this because all the laws and policies would reflect that particular religion and their beliefs.

Yes, the majority of Americans are Christian, how many are actually "practicing" can be debated but Christians should not be allowed to set policy based on their Christian beliefs for non Christians such as Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Wiccans, Islam, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.

Let's look at a news story that popped up a while ago. An Islamic taxi driver in NYC refused to carry passengers that were in possession of alcohol, opened or unopened based on his religious beliefs. There was a public outcry; he was forcing his religious beliefs on other people. It is not funny when the tables are turned, is it?

I also see this first hand every day, if anyone has not noticed I live in UT, the Mormon state. Even though Mormons as of today do not make up the majority, they are a formidable force; they continually try to influence public policy, and in most cases do succeed.

Let's look at the Homosexuality/ gay marriage/ civil union issue from a religious stand point. The Bible says it is a sin. OK, so what. Is anyone forcing anyone to practice homosexuality? No. So all the religious people can live their heterosexual, married, sin free life and go to Heaven. And quit trying to "save" those homosexuals by not allowing them to get married/ have a civil union. They are still cohabitating anyways…..

Why are people so against/ afraid of gay marriage/ civil unions? I am using these terms interchangeably. I have heard some people say they are OK with civil unions but not marriage. When asked in more detail they say they (gay couples) should have the same benefits as Hetero marriage but not be allowed to get married. ??????? Semantics.

Let's look at some of those benefits:

The right to make emergency medical decisions
The right to visit in an emergency condition
Life insurance/ health insurance benefits
Can file jointly
Social Security benefits
Retirement benefits
Greater chance for adoption of children (another debate)

Now let's look at some other "benefits" of marriage:

Liable for the others debts
Divorce and everything associated with it (cost, time, lawyers, aggravation, etc)
Alimony
Child support

In closing, those who are adamantly against gay marriage/ civil unions must ask yourself, "Why should I have to pay my wife's/ husbands debts and not those gays?" "Why should I have to pay alimony and not those gays?" " If I have to, they need to also, that's just not fair……"

[TreyP]

In closing, those who are adamantly against gay marriage/ civil unions must ask yourself, "Why should I have to pay my wife's/ husbands debts and not those gays?" "Why should I have to pay alimony and not those gays?" " If I have to, they need to also, that's just not fair……"

And to add to that..Why shouldn't they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of the married folks?:D

The simple fact is, if two people love each other why can't they continue that love to the act of marriage? Homo/Hetro it doesn't matter, the sentiment is there.

[Ziggy]

Two or more people cannot effectively debate an issue or topic if one of those people uses the Bible as his/her only reference, back up, or proof for their position. The discussion will last at most two or three posts before he/she just continuously repeats that particular verse as proof with the only explanation being "it is in the Bible thus it is true and factual". You can have no debate.

Public policy in my opinion cannot be set using religious doctrine or ideologies. If this is done they are forcing their religious doctrine/ ideologies on those that are not of their religion, faith, or belief system. In my opinion you are then creating a state sanctioned religion, I believe this because all the laws and policies would reflect that particular religion and their beliefs.

Yes, the majority of Americans are Christian, how many are actually "practicing" can be debated but Christians should not be allowed to set policy based on their Christian beliefs for non Christians such as Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Wiccans, Islam, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.

Let's look at a news story that popped up a while ago. An Islamic taxi driver in NYC refused to carry passengers that were in possession of alcohol, opened or unopened based on his religious beliefs. There was a public outcry; he was forcing his religious beliefs on other people. It is not funny when the tables are turned, is it?

I also see this first hand every day, if anyone has not noticed I live in UT, the Mormon state. Even though Mormons as of today do not make up the majority, they are a formidable force; they continually try to influence public policy, and in most cases do succeed.

Let's look at the Homosexuality/ gay marriage/ civil union issue from a religious stand point. The Bible says it is a sin. OK, so what. Is anyone forcing anyone to practice homosexuality? No. So all the religious people can live their heterosexual, married, sin free life and go to Heaven. And quit trying to "save" those homosexuals by not allowing them to get married/ have a civil union. They are still cohabitating anyways…..

Why are people so against/ afraid of gay marriage/ civil unions? I am using these terms interchangeably. I have heard some people say they are OK with civil unions but not marriage. When asked in more detail they say they (gay couples) should have the same benefits as Hetero marriage but not be allowed to get married. ??????? Semantics.

Let's look at some of those benefits:

The right to make emergency medical decisions
The right to visit in an emergency condition
Life insurance/ health insurance benefits
Can file jointly
Social Security benefits
Retirement benefits
Greater chance for adoption of children (another debate)

Now let's look at some other "benefits" of marriage:

Liable for the others debts
Divorce and everything associated with it (cost, time, lawyers, aggravation, etc)
Alimony
Child support

In closing, those who are adamantly against gay marriage/ civil unions must ask yourself, "Why should I have to pay my wife's/ husbands debts and not those gays?" "Why should I have to pay alimony and not those gays?" " If I have to, they need to also, that's just not fair……"

The Berkeley teachings and ideology has destroyed your liberal minds.Distracted from the real truth is what you are.
If I am wrong in my beliefs as a Christian and there is no God or heaven, what have I lost.In reality nothing.I believed a lie and spend a lot of time being considerate of others and reading my bible,going to church etc.When I die I will be a pile of ashes and my life cycle will be over.
On the other hand if I am right ,guess what?I am going to heaven and there are a lot of people who have been decieved and guess where they will be going.I will leave that up to your imagination.
To a non believer that may seem like a 50/50 chance.I am not willing to bet on a 50/50 chance of being wrong for an eternity.Thats not why I believe the way I do ,rather a non religious way to debate.
I am the most irreligious person you will meet as I hate what some religions have done but I cannot change that.I certainly will not force my opinion down your throats but under no circumstances will I let you set the parameters for debate with your rules either.

[pappawheely]

If I am wrong in my beliefs as a Christian and there is no God or heaven, what have I lost.In reality nothing.I believed a lie and spend a lot of time being considerate of others and reading my bible,going to church etc.When I die I will be a pile of ashes and my life cycle will be over.
On the other hand if I am right ,guess what?I am going to heaven and there are a lot of people who have been decieved and guess where they will be going.I will leave that up to your imagination.


Why not just be catholic. That way when you know you are dying , repent. It seems simple.;)

[Ziggy]

Why not just be catholic. That way when you know you are dying , repent. It seems simple.;)

LMAO.You forgot about Purgatory?

[DaveGores]

I don't see that sentence or inference. Again, making my point that two or more people can read the same thing and interpret two or more different ways. Also, how do you know what the founding fathers wanted or intended? I see no proof to back up your claim of knowing their wants/intentions.

I read it years ago, I believe it was somewhere in the Federalist Papers. I didn't just pull this info out of you know where. The Supreme Court's decision was very limited. It made no decision on what type of firearms people could or couldn't own.

But for sake of discussion, even you yourself are putting limits on what arms can be possesed or not posessed. You used the words most and small arms. distinguishing between "small arms" and "big arms" and "most" but not "all" the small arms available. You seem to be interpreting (with no back up) and setting limits.....Oh wait, is that not what the Supreme Court does? They interpret the US Constitution and Amendments and make or set limits? Yours just does not jive with theirs.

I'm not putting limits on anything. I'm loosely quoting what our founding fathers wrote. I didn't make any claim about the Supreme Court Decision in DC vs. Heller so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[randy s]

Randy,

You know too much about the cultivation of weed,lol. I dont think that you can't merely excuse the fact that there are people addicted to pot. And I thought that THC was an addictive component.

nope. thc is one of the delta family units that make up the psychoactive reactions a person gets when they ingest the stuff. there are quite a few. none physically addicting like with any one of the nine components of the opium poppy. did the thought ever cross your mind that some folks use weed cause they like it? as far as growing is concerned, i grew the stuff for my best friend who was terminal and i had a doctors note in order to do it within the confines of state and local laws. i made sure not to grow enough to draw federal attention. at the time, my friend was hopelessly addicted to morphine sulfate but his only real relief came from the dreaded chronic. he's gone now and i can't grow it anymore. like i earlier stated, it's against federal law. i don't think you can ever know too much about hardly anything though. but if you only want to research the government dupes invalid points of view, you won't have to worry about that [knowing too much] will you?

[Sheaco]

Has anybody ever wondered why we don't celebrate the Easter Bunnies,Santa or the Tooth Fairies birthday? just a thought.

[Vtr_Racing]

Has anybody ever wondered why we don't celebrate the Easter Bunnies,Santa or the Tooth Fairies birthday? just a thought.

This picture comes to mind! Lol.


http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn231/REMEMBR911ALWAYS/aging.jpg

[Ziggy]

Has anybody ever wondered why we don't celebrate the Easter Bunnies,Santa or the Tooth Fairies birthday? just a thought.

Is there something we need to know?Is there something your hiding?You got a fettish about the Easter bunny,Santa or the tooth fairy.C'mon you can tell us.We wont tell anyone.:D:D:D

[dan200]

Has anybody ever wondered why we don't celebrate the Easter Bunnies,Santa or the Tooth Fairies birthday? just a thought.
this is because Hallmark has not decided to hire professional lobby companies to do it yet.

[Sheaco]

It was getting way to boring in here. I'm just stirring up this turd filled punch bowl:eek:LOL

There's enough HOT air in this place you could float the Pentagon...:D

[Ziggy]

[QUOTE=jgbjgb;497651]Two or more people cannot effectively debate an issue or topic if one of those people uses the Bible as his/her only reference, back up, or proof for their position. The discussion will last at most two or three posts before he/she just continuously repeats that particular verse as proof with the only explanation being "it is in the Bible thus it is true and factual". You can have no debate.

Public policy in my opinion cannot be set using religious doctrine or ideologies. If this is done they are forcing their religious doctrine/ ideologies on those that are not of their religion, faith, or belief system. In my opinion you are then creating a state sanctioned religion, I believe this because all the laws and policies would reflect that particular religion and their beliefs.

Yes, the majority of Americans are Christian, how many are actually "practicing" can be debated but Christians should not be allowed to set policy based on their Christian beliefs for non Christians such as Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Wiccans, Islam, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.

Let's look at a news story that popped up a while ago. An Islamic taxi driver in NYC refused to carry passengers that were in possession of alcohol, opened or unopened based on his religious beliefs. There was a public outcry; he was forcing his religious beliefs on other people. It is not funny when the tables are turned, is it?

I also see this first hand every day, if anyone has not noticed I live in UT, the Mormon state. Even though Mormons as of today do not make up the majority, they are a formidable force; they continually try to influence public policy, and in most cases do succeed.

Let's look at the Homosexuality/ gay marriage/ civil union issue from a religious stand point. The Bible says it is a sin. OK, so what. Is anyone forcing anyone to practice homosexuality? No. So all the religious people can live their heterosexual, married, sin free life and go to Heaven. And quit trying to "save" those homosexuals by not allowing them to get married/ have a civil union. They are still cohabitating anyways…..

Why are people so against/ afraid of gay marriage/ civil unions? I am using these terms interchangeably. I have heard some people say they are OK with civil unions but not marriage. When asked in more detail they say they (gay couples) should have the same benefits as Hetero marriage but not be allowed to get married. ??????? Semantics.

Let's look at some of those benefits:

The right to make emergency medical decisions
The right to visit in an emergency condition
Life insurance/ health insurance benefits
Can file jointly
Social Security benefits
Retirement benefits
Greater chance for adoption of children (another debate)

Now let's look at some other "benefits" of marriage:

Liable for the others debts
Divorce and everything associated with it (cost, time, lawyers, aggravation, etc)
Alimony
Child support

In closing, those who are adamantly against gay marriage/ civil unions must ask yourself, "Why should I have to pay my wife's/ husbands debts and not those gays?" "Why should I have to pay alimony and not those gays?" " If I have to, they need to also, that's just not fair……"[/QUOTE




Either you got tired of typing or I won the debate!!!:D:D:D

[jgbjgb]

Either you got tired of typing or I won the debate!!!:D:D:D

The weekend came.....

I did notice that two people have called me or hinted that I was a liberal. I am an independent, you know, one of those guys that can think for themselves :D :D :D :D :D :D

I raise you three smilies.....

I also noticed some participants in this thread have visited my Profile page and some have even given me rep points, so I updated my profile page.

[TreyP]

.....

I did notice that two people have called me or hinted that I was a liberal. I am an independent, you know, one of those guys that can think for themselves :D :D :D :D :D :D




With some of this crowd that means you are a liberal. Anything left of Ann Colter or Rush IS liberal. :rolleyes:

It's hard for them to understand thinking for themselves, they are so used to having it spoon fed from their talking heads on how to think.

[scary fast hummer]

Remember, the "will of the people" kept blacks at the back of the bus, barred blacks from entering restaurants and clubs, kept blacks segregated in schools, kept blacks from being hired for good jobs that they were qualified for, etc.

This is actually very clear headed thinking. It was Alexander Hamilton that said,"The masses are asses." and he could not have been more correct. The modern version of that is "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." (being retired military might give me a special insight on this one:D)

The Puritans, whom we have to thank for our work ethic, lowest holidays in the industrial world and the worlds best holiday (thanksgiving), did NOT travel to the free world for religious tolerance. They came to practice their own version of religious INtolerance. The locals here (in the UK) were most happy to see the backside of them. It was their religious intolerance and "will of the people" that got a bunch of innocent girls in Winston-Salem invited to a local BBQ:eek:

The wise men who wrote the constitution clearly wanted to take the power away from the mob. Remember that you most definitely do not live in a democracy. You live in a republic, where elected officials vote for you. This effectively takes the highs and lows of public opinion and moderates them. True democracy, one man=one vote, is a scary thing. Society can not be run like a playground where the majority rules. It might be fine for picking wether to play baseball or kickball because the majority of the kids in the park want to, but not who can go to what church, or not go, or whom they can marry, or not marry, or who gets to ride where in the bus. Yeah, its all fun and games until its you who has to ride in the back of the bus.

Just for the record, I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. What does that mean? I believe that we have the moral obligation to help care for those less fortunate than ourselves but I want the government out my pocket. I am firm believer in the Reagan/Thatcher "vigorous values" of hard work, thrift, investment, social responsibility, and most importantly, personal responsibility. Lack of personal responsibility is probably the only thing I am vehemently intolerant of. Not everybody is cut out to "pick up your ruck and follow me, I am the airborne infantry" for the greater good but, every member of a society has the duty to live the life examined, change the things you can, protect those who are weaker than you and remove the mote in your own eye before whinging about the log in your neighbor's.

[pappawheely]

It's hard for them to understand thinking for themselves, they are so used to having it spoon fed from their talking heads on how to think.

Statements like that are why you get called a liberal Trey. Anyone who disagrees with them must not be intelligent or able to think for themselves. How do you form your opinions?

[Ziggy]

end of the crazy frog

I think Max was a little intolerant.

[jgbjgb]

I agree to an extent. The founding fathers wanted every citizen to have access to any type of small arms issued to the average infantryman. Therefore they should have access to most small arms manufactured today including weapons such as the m-16 or m4. However, this doesn't mean that you're average citizen has a right to own say...an anti-aircraft battery.

2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't see that sentence or inference. Again, making my point that two or more people can read the same thing and interpret two or more different ways. Also, how do you know what the founding fathers wanted or intended? I see no proof to back up your claim of knowing their wants/intentions.
But for sake of discussion, even you yourself are putting limits on what arms can be possesed or not posessed. You used the words most and small arms. distinguishing between "small arms" and "big arms" and "most" but not "all" the small arms available. You seem to be interpreting (with no back up) and setting limits.....Oh wait, is that not what the Supreme Court does? They interpret the US Constitution and Amendments and make or set limits? Yours just does not jive with theirs.

Just out of curiosity, where is your limit between small and big arms in relation to military weapons?

M16 5.56 mm AND all derivatives including 40 mm grenade launcher (M203)

M60 7.62 machine gun

M2 50 cal heavy barrel machine gun

M72 LAW 66 mm light anti tank weapon, shoulder fired

M47 Dragon medium anti tank weapon, shoulder fired from bipod

60 mm mortar

81 mm mortar

4.2" mortar

Claymore mine

Hand grenades (HE, CS, smoke, etc)

I read it years ago, I believe it was somewhere in the Federalist Papers. I didn't just pull this info out of you know where. The Supreme Court's decision was very limited. It made no decision on what type of firearms people could or couldn't own.

I'm not putting limits on anything. I'm loosely quoting what our founding fathers wrote. I didn't make any claim about the Supreme Court Decision in DC vs. Heller so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I disagree; you are putting limits, first sentence “The founding fathers wanted every citizen to have access to any type of small arms issued to the average infantryman.” Second sentence “Therefore they should have access to most small arms manufactured today….”


Here is what I have found:

1."Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." TENCH COXE, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


2.When in 1837, Georgia totally banned the sale of pistols (excepting the larger pistols "known and used as horsemen's pistols" ) and other weapons, the Georgia Supreme Court in Nunn v. State held the statute unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution. The court held that the Bill of Rights protected natural rights which were fully as capable of infringement by states as by the federal government and that the Second Amendment provided "the right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in on, in the slightest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying of a well regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free state.

The above quote must be taken in context. The case was in regards to outlawing “nonmilitary” weapons, inferring that the 2nd Amendment covers access to both military and nonmilitary type weapons (pocket pistols).

Which is kind of ironic, today the debates and court cases are the opposite, like there are not enough "civilian" weapons on the market, you want those all elusive "military" weapons.

The below two paragraphs and quote is interesting:

The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted to the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "for the common defense".

3.The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." 44William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment

The second bold type ".....without any qualification as to their condition or degree. To mean that one of any state-of-mind can constitutionally keep/bear arms?

The Supreme court has ruled that the mentaly ill CANNOT legally own weapons, this has been upheld, also convicted felons.

The Second Amendment is NOT absolute.

Carrying that analogy/argument over, not every weapon in past or present military use has to be available for your right to keep and bear it, without infringing on your rights to "keep and bear arms".

My above list of weapons are available to the average infantryman/soldier. The two antitank launchers can be strapped over your shoulder. A few COULD be considered a weapons system (mortars) but are not fixed and easily movable with a small squad (except the 4.2"). Two men can easily tote the 50 cal., three if you count the tripod. I ask again, where would you set the limits for public ownership of todays military weapons and justify? And where do you draw the line between "small" arms and "big" arms?

[jgbjgb]

I forgot, here is an awesome debate on the Second Amendment:

http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.9/default.asp

It's long but makes for interesting reading and insight.

[jgbjgb]

Two quotes I found, one interesting, one funny.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." Adolph Hitler

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” - Sigmund Freud

[DaveGores]

You've proven my point for me. I'm not sure we disagree on this issue. While it's a bit unnerving to imagine an average citizen owning an M60 machine gun, the constitution says what it says and the supporting documents support and individual's right to own that weapon. To be honest, I guess I've never given much thought to owning an M60 because it's hard enough to own a AR-15 where I live. As far a mortars and grenades are concerned, they sound like they fall under a different category of weapon than firearm. Although, many firearms had incendiary cartridges designed for them so I'm not sure where to go there.

[DaveGores]

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." Adolph Hitler

What the left in America either doesn't remember or doesn't want the average citizen to know, is that gun control in America was brought about largely because of racism. Many people advocating for these laws didn't like the idea of a newly freed slave owning a firearm. It's a lot harder for lynch mob to hang a man when he owns a gun to defend himself with.

[jgbjgb]

You've proven my point for me. I'm not sure we disagree on this issue. While it's a bit unnerving to imagine an average citizen owning an M60 machine gun, the constitution says what it says and the supporting documents support and individual's right to own that weapon. To be honest, I guess I've never given much thought to owning an M60 because it's hard enough to own a AR-15 where I live. As far a mortars and grenades are concerned, they sound like they fall under a different category of weapon than firearm. Although, many firearms had incendiary cartridges designed for them so I'm not sure where to go there.

Recap

2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A couple of supporting/ explanation quotes:

1."Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…”

2. "the right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or
broken in on, in the slightest degree;


We are agreeing but also disagreeing.

Paragraph 1 clearly states every, meaning ALL implements of the soldier. Paragraph 2 clearly states arms of every description, and not merely such as are used by the militia, meaning all types of arms, not just “military” arms. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is NOT absolute, that certain weapons (arms/implements) cannot be purchased by the public and NOT infringe on the 2nd Amendment. You seem to be agreeing with them, you are using the term “fire arm” and you concede no anti aircraft batteries, nukes, grenades, mortars, etc, which are all “implements” of the soldier.

In the military, when the commander yells “prepare arms”, “open arms” “inspection arms”, this is in regards to personal weapons such as rifles and pistols.

Between the two paragraphs there seems to be a disagreement, one says “arms” and the other “implements”. An M16/ Baretta 9mm/ Colt 45 (replaced by 9mm) would be a personal “arm” of today’s soldier and a claymore mine would be an “implement” of today’s soldier. An M60 could be classified as an “arm” being that an infantry squad would have an M60 gunner, but it is not his “personal” “arm”, same could be said of the 50 cal or any other myriad of “shootable” weapons.

Outlawing the individual from owning an M60 does not infringe the 2nd Amendment as ruled by the Supreme Court, and with this ruling I agree.

As for the M16 (the basic infantry M16) the civilian version AR15 should be allowed but not the M16 itself. The main difference being auto vs semi. And last I was aware the M16 was altered to have only a 3 round burst capability, not true auto, unless that has changed. Also, there are many variations of the M16, including the M203 (M16 w/grenade launcher, a "personal", "basic", "infantry", "arm"). Under your thinking would you allow all variations or limit to the basic model?

[mgobaja]

The question I have is did the founding fathers have an idea of what kind of weapons we would have today. They were in the muzzle loading weapon stage still. They new nothing of fully automatic guns like we have today.

[dan200]

I hope you guys don't consider explosives to be firearms. They are different.

When our founding fathers formed this country it was to escape unfair taxation and oppression from their previous government. They actually had to go to war to fight their own government. If they were unarmed or lesser armed this would have been much more difficult. The reason they want the citizens to be able to bear arms was should the need arise for the citizens of a country to start a revolution against its own government it could be done. This is so that an overly taxing and freedom oppressing institution cannot force its will upon the people should the people chose to rebel. The musket and the m-16 are the same thing in this aspect. There are systems of checks and balances in the foundation of our government. This is one of them.

[jgbjgb]

I agree and disagree.

One could say the musket to the infantryman in colonial times is equivalent to the M16 to todays infantryman. BUT, the front loader, single shot musket, and equivalent pistol, were essentially the only arms available to anyone.

Today you have an abundance of arm types from pistols, shotguns, carbines and rifles in numerous configurations, magazine capacities, and calibers. You have ball ammo, frag ammo, hollow points, magnums, and "hot ammo". You have tritium night sites and high powered scopes.

To me, having the ability to keep and bear 1000+ different types of arms and not being allowed to have ONE M16 does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment. To me this can be construed as an extremist view.

That being said, lets say str8xedge gets his M16. Does he also get all the accessories that go with it? (flash supressor, noise supressor, night vision scope, tracer rounds?)

The irony is, twenty years from now when the M16 family is replaced by a newer better infantry soldier rifle, we will be having this same debate, he will want that one too, he will never be happy. What happens if sometime in the further future our infantry soldiers have energy type arms like lasers, etc.?

[twillis]

. Can a person that grew up in a hostile environment have the same view on life as a person that grew up in a ideal environment?


A coworker and good friend of mine survived a childhood that no one should have to. At six or seven he and a sibling saw his mother stabbed to death in their home by a "boyfriend" so crazy he WANTED them to witness her murder. As a young adult his biological father and his step-mother had their young daughter and son removed from their home after they were charged and convicted of sex cries against them. The only remaining relative, his (somewhat wealthy) grandfather, refused to get involved in any way, and forbid him to help them. He chose to to adopt and raise them as his own, rather than let the State raise them. Somehow he ended up smart, well respected, incredibly talented, financially secure, and a great parent. He is probably the most popular (especially with women) person I've worked with, and is a genuine cool dude. He isn't bitter or broken, has zero resentment about his past, but he cannot stand to hear anybody whining about their all their problems and how the government should help them. His view on life is simple, you want it, go get it-but be willing to EARN it.

[Infidel Racing Team]

If I am wrong in my beliefs as a Christian and there is no God or heaven, what have I lost.In reality nothing.I believed a lie and spend a lot of time being considerate of others and reading my bible,going to church etc.When I die I will be a pile of ashes and my life cycle will be over.
On the other hand if I am right ,guess what?I am going to heaven and there are a lot of people who have been decieved and guess where they will be going.I will leave that up to your imagination.
To a non believer that may seem like a 50/50 chance.I am not willing to bet on a 50/50 chance of being wrong for an eternity.Thats not why I believe the way I do ,rather a non religious way to debate.
I am the most irreligious person you will meet as I hate what some religions have done but I cannot change that.I certainly will not force my opinion down your throats but under no circumstances will I let you set the parameters for debate with your rules either.

Oh, The famous Descartes hedge....... If you are familiar with the famous mathematician Descartes he once jokingly proposed something along of what you are saying....

There is a fundamental flaw on your assumption, How did you calculate the odds for God to exist? Even If I grant you that "God" exists how do you know it is the God you worship?
Why couldn't it be Zeus, Allah or the Yahweh in the Mormon interpretation.....any of these Gods would clearly send you to their hell for being an INFIDEL (welcome to the club:D).
I imagine that if God exists, he would favor a person who seeks the truth as a virtue and does not base their beliefs on cowardly hedges like Descartes suggested.

In either way, you are exactly in the same position as me (an Agnostic) when it come to a hypothetical judgment day by any of the thousands of versions of "God" that have been worshiped all through the ages of humanity.....

[Sheaco]

The question I have is did the founding fathers have an idea of what kind of weapons we would have today. They were in the muzzle loading weapon stage still. They new nothing of fully automatic guns like we have today.

Automatic Weapons have been around since the 9th Century. Duh?:D

[Ziggy]

Oh, The famous Descartes hedge....... If you are familiar with the famous mathematician Descartes he once jokingly proposed something along of what you are saying....


There is a fundamental flaw on your assumption, How did you calculate the odds for God to exist? Even If I grant you that "God" exists how do you know it is the God you worship?
Why couldn't it be Zeus, Allah or the Yahweh in the Mormon interpretation.....any of these Gods would clearly send you to their hell for being an INFIDEL (welcome to the club:D).
I imagine that if God exists, he would favor a person who seeks the truth as a virtue and does not base their beliefs on cowardly hedges like Descartes suggested.

In either way, you are exactly in the same position as me (an Agnostic) when it come to a hypothetical judgment day by any of the thousands of versions of "God" that have been worshiped all through the ages of humanity.....

If you read my post in its entirety you should have picked up that my faith is based on something other than calculating the odds.I will engage you regardless, as it is always fun to have a discussion (not a ranting match) in this arena.

Unlike you,my fundamental belief comes from a personal experience and not from a book.I dont let other people shape my beliefs.Thats what happens to over educated liberals after they let some college professor twist their minds with the threat of a bad grade if one does not agree with the professors theology.
However, having said that,the most toxic belief for a human to have is that another human cannot change.I will save a seat for ya.;);)

[Infidel Racing Team]

Unlike you,my fundamental belief comes from a personal experience and not from a book.I dont let other people shape my beliefs.

Really? Let me ask you some basic questions so I dont jump into conclusions.
Please answer them so I can understand your point:

Are you a Christian?
Do you follow a Religion?
Do you attend any kind of a church?
How do you know what is good or bad?

Based on your responses I will come back with a rebuttal if there is one.:)


Thats what happens to over educated liberals ........

There is no such thing as an over educated person


...However, having said that,the most toxic belief for a human to have is that another human cannot change.

Basic problem between Religion & Tolerance....somehow we manage to tie back the subject with the thread title:)

[Ziggy]

Really? Let me ask you some basic questions so I dont jump into conclusions.
Please answer them so I can understand your point:

Are you a Christian?
Do you follow a Religion?
Do you attend any kind of a church?
How do you know what is good or bad?

Based on your responses I will come back with a rebuttal if there is one.:)



There is no such thing as an over educated person




Basic problem between Religion & Tolerance....somehow we manage to tie back the subject with the thread title:)


1.Yes
2.No
3.Yes
4.I am programmed to know the difference hence an arguement against Evo.

Overeducated people are mostly the cause of the divisions we have in todays society.

As I have stated previously, I am very irreligious but I think most people dont know the difference.

[Infidel Racing Team]

1.Yes
2.No
3.Yes
4.I am programmed to know the difference hence an arguement against Evo.

Overeducated people are mostly the cause of the divisions we have in todays society.

As I have stated previously, I am very irreligious but I think most people dont know the difference.


Ok. I hope you see you are contradicting yourself. Let me show you:


Unlike you,my fundamental belief comes from a personal experience and not from a book.I dont let other people shape my beliefs

Then I asked you if you were a Christian, which you replied: Yes.

As you can see, unless you claim that Jesus himself came and had a chat with you the knowledge of Jesus and Christianity has come to you as teachings from ancient books mainly the new testament. This contradicts your above statement. You are actually been influenced by those who wrote about Jesus and those who introduce you to that religion.


If you attend a Church, then you are most likely to observe a service devoted to worship a God. Since you are attending a Church it is most likely you learn what "God" is through it, if not.....What is God to you? If it defers from the one in Christianity then it is most likely you are not a Christian, right?


4.I am programmed to know the difference hence an arguement against Evo.


On the contrary, being programmed is another term for "instinct". Genetic information is passed generation to generation and through natural selection this process is being polished.......This is Evolution at its best, How on Earth do you suppose you got that info if not by Evolutionary means?


Overeducated people are mostly the cause of the divisions we have in todays society.


Ludicrous, This line of thinking not only is conformist but also dangerous. Your statement would have some moral credibility if you were sending this message from a cave via pigeon.....Most of the "stuff" you enjoy as today's comfort has been design and created by "Overeducated" people.
Although Education is not the only means to sucess, it is something that contributes greatly to it...it is maybe (besides intelligence) the single most important factor.
Glamorizing the lack of education is a fool's consolation.



As I have stated previously, I am very irreligious but I think most people dont know the difference.

Someone who attends mass or church is not as "irreligious" as the average person. Unless you are a priest or pastor......:D

irreligious:
1 : neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices <so irreligious that they exploit popular religion for professional purposes — G. B. Shaw>

[Ziggy]

Ok. I hope you see you are contradicting yourself. Let me show you:



Then I asked you if you were a Christian, which you replied: Yes.

As you can see, unless you claim that Jesus himself came and had a chat with you the knowledge of Jesus and Christianity has come to you as teachings from ancient books mainly the new testament. This contradicts your above statement. You are actually been influenced by those who wrote about Jesus and those who introduce you to that religion.


In actual fact I talk with Him daily.Unless you have experienced a miracle I can understand how you perceive things the way you do.


If you attend a Church, then you are most likely to observe a service devoted to worship a God. Since you are attending a Church it is most likely you learn what "God" is through it, if not.....What is God to you? If it defers from the one in Christianity then it is most likely you are not a Christian, right?

Wrong.It does not defer from Him to the best of my knowledge.I dont have all the answers but as for your question to me,God is the Creator and He knows me.What more could I ask for.
Have you ever read the bible?If you have ,what is the oldest version that you have read?



On the contrary, being programmed is another term for "instinct". Genetic information is passed generation to generation and through natural selection this process is being polished.......This is Evolution at its best, How on Earth do you suppose you got that info if not by Evolutionary means?

Wrong again.Its my instinct to survive.
I dont have time to answer the 2nd part of that statement today.










Ludicrous, This line of thinking not only is conformist but also dangerous. Your statement would have some moral credibility if you were sending this message from a cave via pigeon.....Most of the "stuff" you enjoy as today's comfort has been design and created by "Overeducated" people.
Although Education is not the only means to sucess, it is something that contributes greatly to it...it is maybe (besides intelligence) the single most important factor.
Glamorizing the lack of education is a fool's consolation.

I would never glamorize the lack of education.Its just not the be all and end all.Ask Bill Gates.Most of the techno stuff I have today is because of his work and he was a college dropout.:D


Someone who attends mass or church is not as "irreligious" as the average person. Unless you are a priest or pastor......:D

How do you know?

irreligious:
1 : neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices <so irreligious that they exploit popular religion for professional purposes — G. B. Shaw>

Not an accurate depiction.

[Infidel Racing Team]

Not an accurate depiction.

Can you elaborate a bit more? I went with the info you provided. It was very generic so I guess my response was also generic......

The old GIGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out) issue :)

[Ziggy]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irreligious

As you can see,there are a lot of different versions of the word.Note the 2nd option also.

Lack of organized religion does not mean anything more than a desire to know the real truth without being a blind misguided sheep.Like you, I dont like the way some people teach or are perceived to be teaching.Consequently I am very careful about what I ingest.I have studied most all "Religions" back to as far as they are documented and I have come to the conclusion that the "Big Bang" is and was physically impossible.If it could be proven and not just theoretical,if it was not all conjecture, guessing and calculations,if it were not shoved down my throat, then and only then would it be worthy of a second look.
The "God" thing has been proven to me and I have real evidence and thats hard to refute.

[Infidel Racing Team]

.............I have come to the conclusion that the "Big Bang" is and was physically impossible.If it could be proven and not just theoretical,if it was not all conjecture, guessing and calculations,if it were not shoved down my throat, then and only then would it be worthy of a second look.
The "God" thing has been proven to me and I have real evidence and thats hard to refute.

It would be very presumptuous of me if I tried to tell you anything about your God experience. That is a personal thing and I have nothing against this, I wish everybody had the same perception about religion as you do.

Now, The Big Bang is not the most logical thing out there, but theoretically it is possible…..Remember we live in a “middle world”, our common sense is based on our senses and perceptions……We are not as big as a star or small as an atom, we are not as fast as light speed and our senses do not work for anything beyond our “middle world”…..Our cosmos is full of amazing things that escape our comprehension but they do happen…….Quantum Mechanics is my best example, no one really understand how it works, but it gives results 99.9999% accurate .

[pdailey]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irreligious

As you can see,there are a lot of different versions of the word.Note the 2nd option also.

Lack of organized religion does not mean anything more than a desire to know the real truth without being a blind misguided sheep.Like you, I dont like the way some people teach or are perceived to be teaching.Consequently I am very careful about what I ingest.I have studied most all "Religions" back to as far as they are documented and I have come to the conclusion that the "Big Bang" is and was physically impossible.If it could be proven and not just theoretical,if it was not all conjecture, guessing and calculations,if it were not shoved down my throat, then and only then would it be worthy of a second look.
The "God" thing has been proven to me and I have real evidence and thats hard to refute.

Not true, have you read "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown. LOL

[Sheaco]

Not true, have you read "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown. LOL

No, But I did see Angels Do Demons III. I think Jenna was in it.......:D

[Infidel Racing Team]

No, But I did see Angels Do Demons III. I think Jenna was in it.......:D

Now Jenna is the best proof that God exists and HE IS A MAN!!!!:D

I cant imagine a Universe without Jenna, Mercedez or Brianna......;)

[DEZERTSUB]

After reading all this...

I've come to the conclusion I'm not tolerant.

And I'm ok with that.

If you're not, then you're intolerant too.

"I have yet to meet a liberal tolerant enough to accept that I'm conservative"--me:)

[Vtr_Racing]

I think were all tolerant now by reading this! Lol