Rob's House

This is just plain wrong. Tolerance means you tolerate. You don't have to like it, you just don't interfere with it. It works both ways meaning if you want people to tolerate your lifestyle, you have to tolerate the fact that they find it disgusting. 2. "Ignorant" does not mean something you disagree with; it means something that you should know that you don't. And while I may agree with you that it's silly to take your cues from a second hand account of the unconfirmable opinions of a never seen invisible man in the sky, it doesn't necessarily mean one is unfamiliar with the subject matter.

No, the entertainment value of pointing out your flaws outweighs the annoyance of reading your posts.

I'm not sure what I said that you're disagreeing with here, but whatever, I don't really disagree with the basic gist of what you're saying. I still have a problem with your use of "ignorant" though. That's not it. It's not that discrimination is harmless. It's that not all discrimination is equal, and regardless of my indifference to gay behavior, I find it more offensive to besmirch a guy for simply saying he doesn't agree with the lifestyle as long as he's not advocating hurting anyone or forcibly depriving them of their rights. It's called tolerance, not acceptance, and it works both ways.

It depends on how strongly he believes in it. Sometimes its worth sacrificing a few perks to speak one's true mind. If more people grew a !@#$ing sack and rolled their eyes at the petty whining and begging for grievances that any and every group in this country that can claim some form of marginalization jumps on head first, we'd have a lot stronger society.

All I know of this "controversy" I got from this thread, but if all he said is "it's against God's law" there's no reason to assume he's a religious literalist or that he wants butt-love to be a capital offense.

Angry? no. Annoyed? Very much so.

Or instead of being a capitulating little kitty boy he can say what the !@#$ he thinks.

I love it when the "enlightened" mock the concept of freedom as being sooo passe. You should be smacked for making such a stupid statement. You know, we get a lot of self-righteous libs who got a little learning and think they've got it all figured out, but you really take the cake. You're so condescending yet obtuse which is a highly annoying combination. Every semi-valid point you make is far outweighed by a myriad of baseless assumptions and misrepresentations stacked upon a foundation of broad generalizations. I know in your mind it all fits together in an airtight puzzle that you and your enlightened self-proclaimed "intellectuals" masturbate to; but the truth is you're just some dude who wants to believe so badly that he'll buy anything.

I pretty much agree with this, as well as Tom's suggestion. It's easy to call for tort reform, it's a bit more difficult to find appropriate reform measures.

Here's the real problem with juries. The median IQ in the country (and thus presumably of those called for jury duty) is 100. However, those on the + side are disproportionately adept at getting out of jury duty. The result: The average juror has an IQ in the double digits.

A broke sailor goes into a brothel with only $20. The lady at the counter says she can help him & sends him to the last room where he finds an old, crusty, shrivelled-up, fat hooker. Although he's repulsed he figures as long as he turns out the lights he can pretend she's reasonable to look at so he gets in the bed. She tells him to give it to her but he tells her he can't because she's too dry. She rolls over and fools around with her ****, then rolls back over and tells him to try again. This time he slides right in & it's great. It's the best sex he's ever had & he can't beleive it. He tells her she feels like a 20-year old & asks if she used some special cream or lotion, to which she replies: "no, I just tore off the scabs & let the pus run."

1. Abortion: Only for liberals (it's a truly disgusting practice) 2. Gay Marriage: I don't give a **** 3. Prayers in school: I don't give a **** 4. Death Penalty: Yes, only b/c it can be used as a bargaining chip. Not that I don't think some people need killing, but vengeance isn't a good justification for government policy. 5. Guns: It's a constitutional right (not contingent on the current existence of a militia) and is beneficial for personal defense as well as giving people the ability to organize and fend off the government should it become oppressive. 6. Health Care: We need reform, & that means less government, not more, and government should stop forcing every insurance policy to be so comprehensive in coverage. If you want a policy that offers sex reassignment hormones or psychological counseling, you buy the policy that fits you. 7. War on drugs: It's a !@#$ing travesty. It creates violent black markets, gives dangerous people access to money & power, is a drain on society to imprison so many people who are not dangerous, & there is little to no justification for imprisoning a "free" adult for ingesting a drug by choice. 8. Taxes: fairtax.org 9 & 10. Immigration: First, secure the border. Second, make it easy for people who got here legally & have put down roots to become citizens rather than giving them the boot when their visas expire. Third, now that we've shut the floodgate to illegals we can massively open up legal immigration channels to increase the # of people let in & we selectively choose who we let in based on the economic needs of the country. 11. Free trade: Absolutely. Foregoing the benefits of comparative advantage is foolish & wasteful. VERY limited protectionism for industries like steel that would be essential in time of war that could otherwise leave us helpless in the face of an embargo. 12. Military Spending: this is the most overstated expenditure we have. National defense is arguably the primary function of the Federal government & only accounts for 20% of the budget. 13. Foreign Policy: I'll not tout the name of Theodore Roosevelt b/c I don't care for progressives, regardless of party affiliation, but "Speak softly & carry a big stick" sounds about right to me.

It's called freedom. Maybe my friend who sacrificed to open his restaurant should give the dishwasher & register girl an equal cut of the business. Also, let's abolish the patent office while we're at it.

My openly Marxist friend sent me a link to the first one. I tried to watch it with an open mind & made it through about 5 minutes of pompous melodramatic nonsense before cutting it off. I remember the narrator stating cryptically that if people stopped consuming the whole economy would collapse, which is about as enlightening as saying if it stopped raining the river would cease to exist. When the guy said, very prophetically I might add, "We don't only need to, we HAVE to," I was done & still make fun of my friend for being such a dupe.

I hate to interupt the intellectual beat down Tom is currently administering, but the whole premise of this thread is idiotic on its face. We're pretending two types of debt are analagous when they are not. Most private debt is in some form of investment. Whether you take out a loan for a car and pay it off on time, take a bank loan to pay off your house on time, take a loan to build a business, student loans, etc. This debt is a way of financing something tangible. The private debt most similar to Government debt credit card. Specifically, the kind you run up going out to eat and taking vacations, or paying your monthly bills. Government takes a big loan to pay its bills when they come due, not so it can have the utility of its investment up front and pay for it in installments as its being used.

good one

You seem to have fairly selective recognition of costs that get passed on.

To piggy back on this, every fraudulent vote essentially invalidates one person's legitimate vote, therefore depriving him of his voting rights. If you prevent x legitimate voters from voting by requiring ID but prevent 2x fraudulent voters, you've increased voter participation by x.

When all else fails cry racism

You don't have enough cred to use the "you're an idiot" argument without backing it up with reasoned analysis. I'm interested to hear the flaws of his "idiotic" logic. Would you be so good as to indulge me? Since you're speaking in absolutes, and without any rationale, can you explain why tort reform is inherrently evil? I don't think you get how this works. You make the assertion then you follow with your reasoning. Throwing out baseless assertions and supporting it with "trust me" or "just know this" isn't interesting or enlightening.

I've got a 3 step idea idea: 1. Give the government more power to tax more money out of the rich people and corporations that run said government. 2. ??? 3. Profits

Maybe not the prettiest face, but certainly not a bagger, and with a hot body and a $billion to boot... no question.

Your responses, on the other hand, are an unexpectedly fresh and enlightened look into the mind of an aging, liberal, hippie douche. Let me guess, you predicted that too. You're just a regular Nostradamus.

Many large news agencies thought Scott McClellan's book was important.

Saying this over and over and over again still doesn't make it true.