bart1123

Damn wrong forum Bart

In a really bad ABU type voice Oh my goooodness...Ijus know there was someting not quite right with me.

I've had real problems today with the site loading extreamly slow. Finally set my browser to open the site...went to the soda machine, answered a client call, fixed a snack and when I came back it loaded. Anyone else having probs with the site loading or is it just me and my squirel powered machine? Bart

Snip dangle....Snip dangle

FOOD FOOD FOOOOOOODDDDDDDD....Cut the crap and get me something to EAT!!!!!!! Bart

I inadvertantly implied that this was only a debate regarding multiple wives for one husband...I apologize I'd be interested to see if anyone would be offended by that concept but not bothered by 1 husband multiple wives. I was fascinated by the information you posted from your Anthroplolgy class. It never occured to me that ploygamy would bring families closer together. My assumption was that eventually in ploygamious(sp?) relationships jealousy, and emotion would eventually become a factor and the relationships would suffer. Realizing too that these examples were accepted practices of the time and therefore not viewed out of place, my assumption deals only with the socity of the last 75 years or so. excellent point...but I still find it hard not to approach it from an emotional angle. What does sociology say about people and their emotional needs in a relationship/marriage? And perhaps it is more a psycoligical question than a socioligical one, but if a man (or woman) has more than one spouse what is the emotional toll that takes on all members of the marriage(s)? Will it eventually boil down to someone needing to be the alpha-female/male and the compition for that role being destructive to the marriage(s) as a whole? <with large smile and tongue planted firmly in cheek> Gays and Lesbians are having enough trouble getting married to ONE person...If they wanted polygamious marriages I think the opponents would implode! Great arguments lokibird, looking forward to your response. Bart

I'd cure the national debt by legalizing drugs. To produce marijuana would require a goverenment license. $75K/year. If you are caught growing marijuana without the license you are forced to leave the country and all of your assets are sold on Ebay with the proceeds going to the families of military personel killed in active duty. To Sell marijuana would require a government license. $55K/year. If you are caught selling marijuana without the license you are forced to leave the country and all of your assets are sold on Ebay with the proceeds going to families of police & fire fighters killed in active duty. To buy marijuana would require a government license. $10K/year. If you are caught buying/using marijuana without the license you are forced to work on a highway crew maintaining and repairing the inter and intra state highway systems for a period of no less than 4 years and no more than 10 years. The money for these projects would be subsidised by the revanue collected from the aforementioned licenses. On top of the aforementioned licenses each sale of marijuana will be taxed in much the same way cigaretts and alcohol are. So on top of your government license to sell and the license to buy you will pay a local tax for each purchase, in essence double taxing each transaction. The majority of proceeds from these taxes will go directly to increasing the education budget of each state, there by providing better schools and higher teacher pay. The only marijuana that will be allowed to be sold in the US will be cannibas grown here. Anyone attempting to import the wacky plant will be placed on the highway crews for no less than 10 years and no more than 25 years. And the assets will be sold on Ebay with the proceeds going toward medical research to cure, cancer, alzheimers, AIDS, male pattern baldness and the common cold. If you cause a wreck in your car because you are stoned you will loose your drivers license for 1 year and your license to buy will be revoked for 2 years. All of your assets will be given to any persons injured by your stupidity. (P.S. this could also apply nicely to drivers under the infulance too.) If after both licenses are reinstated and you do it again, you loose your drivers license and your license to buy permenantly, but you will be forced to work in a cannibas production facility for 3 years with manditory drug testing daily. If you are caught with the drug in your system see above penalty for buying without a license. If you kill another human being while stoned...you fry. For other drugs like Cocaine, Heroin, Crack, Meth. I have no sympathy for you. If you insist on doing those types of drugs fine, but if you are caught your ass gets shipped Greenland where you won't hurt anyone but yourself. Oh and your assets get sold on Ebay with the proceeds going to GF and Phreakwars for maintaining this site. Please note too that with the various licenses mentioned above: If you grow cannibas then you most likely will need to sell it. Either to a Cannibas retailer or wholesale. Either way you will need to obtain a license to sell as well as a license to produce. The same applies to buying cannibas to sell, you will need to obtain a license to buy your inventory as well as the license to sell it. As well as the local taxes to be paid anytime the product changes hands. My plan would be to use the revenues generated by these taxes to reduce the national debt and increase eduction spending thereby giving American students a better chance at staying ahead in global academics. I wish I had some really intelligent thoughts on this, but this was what I was thinking about while mindlessly folding laundry, it made me chuckle and I hope it did you too. Vote Bart in '36

I didn't know about that being a custom in Native American tribes...being Chickasaw I can only assume it is no longer practiced snaps fingers . I apologize that I haven't done what I said I would and give this some thought...a sick 1 year old and 3 year old can take up all free time I do know that the Old Testament talked about it and that for that time it was widely practiced. But then again there are many things in the Old Testament that are not and should not be practiced today, in my opinion. Without sparking an "Evolution" debate (already one on the forum anyway) I beleive that we as a species evolve and things that made sense or were practical 2000+ years ago do not necessarily apply to today. Without doing much (read any) research, I would guess that at the time having multiple wives was a method of survival. Life expectancy was, I assume much shorter than it is today and to insure that your blood line was continued it may have been necessary to take more than one wife to increase the chance of your children surviving. Lets say it was customary for a man to father 8 or more children (Jacob had 12), I know my wife was more than done after 2 so I can only imagine that no matter how subservient the wives were back then the idea of having 12 kids would push any woman over the edge However in a day when the world population is growing exponetionally the idea of having multiple wives to produce an entire football team seems almost irresponsible. Gonna wrap this up for now...I apologize if this is dis-jointed, but talking off the top of my head will often produce those results. Thanks for the topic...looking forward to what you have to say. Bart

Bill Gates: Convince the chickens to cross promising an easier crossing. Then when all the chickens cross the road upgrade the road...forcing all of the chickens to cross back.

I'm not sure what you are reffering to, this was in my opinion a very civil debate. I am assuming that your cryptic description is in reference to the Mormans (Church of Latter Day Saints) and the practice of Polygamy. This is actually something I haven't given much thought about. My gut says that so long as it does not cause harm to anyone, and that all members of the relationship(s) agree and know of one another then there should not be an issue. I'll think on this one and get back to you on what, if any, my deeper thoughts are on this. Good question, got me thinking now Bart

can't stop watching can you?...pass the Milk Duds please...

Uh...please don't quote the ENTIRE previous post in your reply...it makes for very long reading and is annoying to scroll past something already read. Thank you...carry on.

It's kinda like a really bad car wreck...you know you shouldn't look, you don't even really wanna look...but damn you just can't help it! be sure to include yourself there MIRH. We may not see eye to eye but I respect your posts. Bart Kinda sad that this will most likely become a "name calling contest"...again p.s. I am aware of the spelling errors (kinda and wanna)

MRIH, Thanks for your thoughts. I agree your response would've been much more appropirate and would've also helped many, myself included, believe that that the adminsitration is first and foremost interested the safety of the soliders. I understand too that in war you don't get everything you want, and that you can't wait until you have it all before going to war. I heard an interview on the radio that said that after Viet Nam the U.S. military essientially "redesigned" the way they go to war, by using fast large force attacks to keep the chance for a "drawn out war" down to a minimum. The problem is that this war is lasting too long for that school of thought to be as effective as it has in the past and now they are having to improvise how this war is being fought. In my opinon it would've been nice to hear that from a member of the administration rather than a consultant working in the Pentagon. I'm interested too...do you feel like once the conflict is resolved and a new government, puppet or otherwise, is in place that the terrorists will once again focus on the U.S. and other Countries? Or will our presence in the Middle East be enough of a deterant to keep attacks like 9/11 from happening again. Thanks Bart

It's not a big secret that I'm on the left side of politics, much to the dismay of my father in law. But I'd like to ask for some opinions on Donald Rumsfeld's answer to the National Guardsman's question regarding armoring up their vehichles in the Middle East. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that every morning I hear about more U.S. Soldiers being killed by bombs, RPG's, or insergent (sp?) attacks. Seems to me that we've been in this thing now long enough that specific needs (like increased armor) have been identified and some action could've been taken. Sec. Rumsfeld answer was in my opinion pathetic and to a degree insulting. He may as well have said "Look we didin't expect this to take this long and the plan we had isn't playing out the way we wanted. But hey that's not really our fault so get out there and quit your bitch'n!" I'll admit that I wasn't a big fan of the war in Iraq, but once it happened I realized that the best thing to do was to support the troops. The Sec.'s answer doesn't really give the impression that the "powers that be" feel the same way. I know I'm gonna get a load of crap from some of the extreme right by saying that the government isn't doing a perfect job and that they have made mistakes, but I look at some of the choices and statements that they have made and I just see a mediocre track record in this war and other foriegn policy. Just my opinion...what do you think? Bart