timesjoke

You guys? I did not start this. If the powers that be decide Wez's attacks on everyone is okay on the forum, fine, I don't set the rules. I have tried to discuss in an adult way with Wez but he refuses to do anything but this mindless childish attacks on anyone that does not bow down to him. I refuse to bow down so the only other option is to leave or stand up to him, and to be honest I have considered leaving because Wez is the source of 99% of the strife on this forum and it does not really seem worth it sometimes. As you see, he must make everything personal, look at his last post in this thread "Ajokeofahypocritecontrolfreak?". He just keeps pushing until everyone gives up and lets him win, that is his sole tactic.

Your getting closer, no space, keep trying, sooner or later you will figure it out.

No, the dog crap is these childish attack posts you make and how you take everything to rediclious levels. Like calling all soldiers mindless murderers. More personal attacks I see. You need to go back and look, your the thread starter in all three debating skills threads attacking me, eddo, and brotherman. Everything with you is deflection to avoid taking responsibility for the trouble you make. Instead of facing the issue being brought up about your hostile debating methods, you decided the best way to deflect attention away from your problems was to attack other people. to try and get the discussion away from your problems so you did not have to face them. Your also the only guy keeping the attacks going while everyone else has stopped being concerned with them.

I know you are but what am I?

That is you not me, your the one always attacking people who do not do as you want them to do and play 5 year old games. You have never dissagreed with anyone here without turning to personal attacks Wez. You cannot stand for anyone to disagree with you, that is why you start things like the debating skils threads and such to attack and put down everyone who does not conform to what you believe they should conform to. Hell, your still crying about stuff that happened between you and other people at other forums. To you, the only valid opinion is your opinion. I have said many times that some of what you say is good but you wrap your good points in soo much rediclious garbage that you ruin your good points. It is like wrapping a tasty cherry with dog crap, you cannot give the cherry a chance because you must first get past the taste of the dog crap. If you could learn to stop wrapping your ideas in the dog crap, you would be a great addition to any forum, but sadly I don't believe your capable of dropping the crap. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

I know you are but what am I?

I know I am, too bad your not. The world is not black and white, it is shades of grays. Yes, I agree that the action to cut undeserved checks to the people is a very stupid idea, and yes that would make it be liberal leaning, but that does not make him a liberal. That combined with his amnesty bill support last year started making me wonder about Bush to be honest, but many of his other stands are clearly conservative such as refusing to surrender in Iraq. Only a conservative can stand against heavy pressure and still do the right thing. Your problem is you cannot have good possitions of your own so you must turn to personal attacks and game playing. Bush is not a liberal but you try to call him a liberal to elevate liberals, nice try but no cigar (Monica gets the cigar). Liberals are the true social engineers, they believe government can manage the lives of everyone.

I know you are but what am I?

I know you are but what am I?

I like any idea that helps us to move away from imported oil. There have been stories showing that if we release all patents for fules and fuel economy related items, we could be self-sufficient on our oil needs because of things like making an average car get over 60 miles to a gallon cannot be produced because the owners of the patents will not allow it.

Okay, if you must return to 5 year old crap to dirty up the forums so be it....... I know you are but what am I?

I am starting to believe Al Gore, I mean, we are very warm here in Florida, it is even hot some days recently, so hot I have to run my air conditioning, and that is just rediclious in Febuary. It should be very cold right now but nooooooo us humans have to create global warming with our industry and driving cars, oh well, I guess all we need to do is elect the liberals so they can save us from this very bad global warming mess were having.

No, I know your a liberal, there is a big difference. Only immature liberals resort to childish name calling and refusal to admit even the most basic reality that does not conform to your forced social programs. There you go again with your childish personal attacks. Why is it your incapable of an adult conversation without either proving your as stupid as a box of rocks or attacking anyone that does not agree with you? No, I do not like the "stimulus" package, it is just a waste of money the same tax payers will pay back in inflation, but I really don't like the fact the Liberals held up the package trying to force even more billions of added extra "free" money to certain groups like paying extra unemployment money, adding more handouts on top of the already bad handouts was a purely liberal idea. No, that would be you, if you had any idea what your talking about you would not be relying on personal attacks and posting other men's opinions instead of talking off the top of your head the way I always do. You see, I educate myself on the topics being discussed, I don't have to copy/paste what others write. Look, your just not smart enough to discuss anything with me, as evidence I offer your not even capable of making a simple post without several edits, try hitting the "preview post" tab to the right of the submit reply tab before you hit the submit tab. If you take some time to preview your posts, you won't need to keep editing them.

I don't think he ever knows what he is saying. It is the liberals that are wanting "more" sociel programs, they even held up the plan for giving out free money (I hate the idea) to add "more" free money the conservatives did not want.

Joking or not the kid should have known better. There are certain things you just don't do and promoting illegal drug use at school is one of them. We have to have some standards. We do not have free speach at the cost of others. If you yell the "N" word at a group of blacks, you can be arrested and put in jail for many years under hate crimes. You cannot threaten the President's life, you cannot yell bomb on an airplane..........there are many examples of where we draw the line on what we are allowed to say. I find the better story to be how a kid acts like an idiot but many people flock to his support. We are sending a message that what he did was okay and he did not see where he was wrong, and as such, cannot learn from this experience. He will most likely live his entire life thinking he is a victim of society and the government. I guess this is another example of how stupid kids get when smoking pot, lol.

If there were so many safeguards, then why did it all get so blown out of wack? Because man created the safeguards, and men can change or ignore them. The original intentions of the founding fathers was to "not" have an all powerful government lording over the States. The States were all supposed to be independant so if we go back to the "true" constitution, we must remove 99% of everything the federal government now does. And I support that fully. We should not have welfare, we should not have any federal social program of any kind, not even social security. And what good will changing justices do? Do you think all this mess happened in just a couple years? It will change nothing, sure, you can have a few changes in the short term, but then a few other justices retire or die and new justices come in and it all swings back the other way again. You cannot have an all powerful government and expect it to be controled, the very notion is rediclious. It sounds good on paper just like socialism sounds great on papar, but it is the reality of man that screws it up. It is the men involved in the system that makes it impossible to control due to the corruption that "will" insert itself into that system. Think of it another way, there is not one federal politician that will allow the power to go back to the states now, they are too important in their minds to be reduced to nothing so they will simply draft a new amandment to cover what you try to take away with changing justices. It is like how they vote themselves pay increases and better benefits.

No it does not. If the intent was to draft a very specific set of reasons, that was simple to do, all they had to do is list the duties (as they did) and leave off the general statement. Even a 10 year old could figure that out, but by including the general statement "first" that means the following was examples, not limitations. If they wanted the general statement as fluff or leadup but still wanted to define the following examples as the "only" use of the federal government, they could also have added something like "limited to the following" just before the list, but they did not do that. Again, these were not stupid people, if they wanted to draft a list of very specific and limited jobs of government, they could have done that. The general statement is not only a part of the paper but is also the "first" part and that means it has a greater weight to the writer than the "examples" that follow. But, let's assume for a moment that they just messed up and never intended the general statement to be included or given weight in the first place. What is the difference? My point is based on how things naturally flow, not what a few words say on a piece of paper. By having "any" excuses for an all powerful government like these several jobs detail, you have created a monster that is destined to take over. It is impossible to control something like that. Even if your right and you make them admit your right, they will just vote in an amendment to give them the power that way, they have the control, not the piece of paper. Once you give men the power to be all powerful, they will be corrupted. Let me repost my quotes: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." ~ John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" ~ William Pitt the Younger The idea that an all powerful government can be controlled is simply wrong because that government is run by men, and men are the problem, not the government.

And yet Federalist paper #41 still includes the general comment "general welfare of the United States" and your not admitting that the reason for that general statement was to allow for change as seen fit by future generations. As I already pointed out, the rest of the paper is very clear so if these reasons were the only ones to be allowed, there was no reason for the general comment to be included. You cannot have a federal government that is limited, this is the lesson we learn or we don't. Sooner or later, a all powerful government will slowly take steps to completely take over everything. It will happen with tiny baby steps to be sure, but it will happen. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." ~ John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" ~ William Pitt the Younger The very concept of having a federal government is what causes the corruption we have today, the only way to stop it is to completely remove it's power to control the States. In my opinion of course.

I honestly do not believe there is a "true" Hillary. She is constantly changing like she has mental issues or something. Maybe all the years of conforming to what advisors say has messed her up, who knows, but I do know she will completely change again if she wins the whitehouse.

A little more perspective in the argument for abortions for medical reasons: How my twins saved my life by kicking loose a tumour while still in my womb | the Daily Mail

If were going to talk about abuse, most of the time it is men abusing women. Sure, there are men out there getting abused, but they account for very few in comparison to women. I even see the fashon industry as abusing women. They offer unrealistic and unhealthy goals for women to try and meet and many fall prey to eating disorders and such because of it. Give me a woman with curves any day, preferably a cup size C or better That would depend on the reason they are consenting right? Sex with your wife because you bought her a new diamond tennis bracelet is okay, sex with a woman because you paid her 20 bucks is called prostitution, everything is about intent. If the woman liked to get beat up to please her sexually, fine, I don't have issues with that but doing it for money or being pressured into it is something completely different. If we see a video of a man beating the out of his wife but the woman says she wanted that beating after her husband told her to say that, how do we know the truth? I believe the point it changes for most of us is when you are making video tapes and stuff. Most videos are made to sell, not keep for private use. The minute the sex becomes a public act, it changes. Private is private, don't make videos about it and you never have to answer questions about the videos now do you?

Well maybe, but with the way homosexuality is completely accepted these days, that would not count either. Not if the pot fills their need at the time. The point being made really covers two different kinds of pot smoking kids. The ones being a rebel are doing drugs because their illegal and considered bad by society. Once pot is legal and completely accepted like drinking is now, they will need a new drug to be rebels with. The second type who just do it for fun are the same as drinkers, their use is restricted by the stuff being illegal but once it is legal and accepted, they can use it without the negative illegal part. Many kids never use pot because it is illegal though so now you add them into the numbers and suddenly you have a very out of control situation on your hands. So, one group of kids get driven to harsher drugs to remain the rebels, and other kids start using pot because it is suddenly accepted and you cannot get into trouble. Not good if you ask me.

It is not my interpretation of it just like this comment you posted was not your opinion but another man's opinion your using. The point he clarly misses though is if the specific points given were the only intended uses of federal government and power, then the general part would have been worthless right? If this was the case, they could have simply said that the following were the on;y things allowed, but that is not what they did, they allowed the general term to stay. Clearly like the basic constitution we started with, this was seen to allow other things to come as well, to suit the needs of a changing society. You keep missing my point about how one thing leads to another in a natural order. By making exceptions for an all powerful government in some ways, we pave the road for an all powerful government in other ways. It is all of our faults becasue each of us can see where "some" of what the government does to manage our lives is good. Some can see more good then others to be sure. The only way to change it now would be to go back to almost no federal Government (something I fully support) and get rid of all the social programs completely. Remove the federal government for all things except for crimes crossing state lines, world trade, and running the military. In my opinion, all other things should go back to the states to decide how they want to do things. But that is just me.

In America there are laws where the prosecuter can file without the victim. Domestic violence and beating the elderly are two good examples. I believe the point Snaf was going to make was how do we know for sure that the woman "liked" the acts? There could be a lot of reasons other than enjoyment for the woman to be involved in violent sex.

Exactly, your 100% right, what good does it do to rebel with something that is legal? Thats like a girl wanting to rebel by dating a doctor instead of the out of work biker.