Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Quote
Originally posted by Starkiller: **Perhaps domestically, but a large number of the problems that the United States is facing are due to Clinton. What happened three months ago is not the first attack against the United States, remember. But, Clinton rarely took action, even though he said he would, which led the terrorists to think that they could do things without fear of retribution. Then there was that entire bribe thing towards the end of his term, in which he pardoned fugitives, not to mention the fact that Clinton never took any action without looking at the effect on his popularity rating.
**
Agreed. I don't say this simply because I detested Clinton, but terrorism in America has been caused primarily because of his funding cuts. During his two terms, Clinton cut funding to the military and other related organizations (CIA) by as much as 80%. The FBI was unable to operate properly with such poor funding. How do Americans expect to be protected from terrorism when the protectors can't do their jobs? Another major reason I heavilly supported Bush was because of his views on the military. Like his gool 'ol daddy, he greatly supports the military. It is no wonder why 90% of American soldiers voted for Bush last elections...
------------------ (url="http://"http://saberstudios.evula.net")Saber Studios(/url) - Your source for original EV/O/N graphics. GameRanger: -Sß- Captain Skyblade | Battle.net: Skyblade86 (url="http://"http://home.cfl.rr.com/aresev/")The Legion(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.gameranger.com")GameRanger(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.evula.com/")EVula's Lair(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.meowx.com/")Meowx Design(/url)
Originally posted by Captain Skyblade: Bush doesn't support ilegal drugs, and he has yet to make any effort to stop it. Again, people use drugs as a source of please, and exposure to lack of self discipline.
His administration is trying to stop legal drug use, though. You guys might not have heard about this, but Ashcroft has given an executive order to the FBI to crack down on doctors prescribing lethal doses of morphine etc. to terminal patients under an Oregon Assisted Suicide law which has been confirmed ~twice~ by the voters. Regardless of his views on assisted suicide, Ashcroft should be respecting the will of voters. Yet another case of the Bush administration tossing the Constitution out the window. What happened to State's Rights?
Originally posted by Captain Skyblade: Clinton, in my opinion, was our worst president to date.
I'm not going to try to say he was the best, but he wasn't that bad. Most people seem to equate his administration with his personal problems, but many of his policies were quite good. He's also perhaps the most intelligent President in recent memory. Bush can be a bit, well, slow at times.
How did this turn into a political viewpoints thread? Oh well.
------------------ - Macavenger | e-mail: (url="http://"mailto:e-gamerguy1@attbi.com")mailto:e-gamerguy1@attbi.com(/url)e-gamerguy1@attbi.com
Originally posted by Captain Skyblade: **ares1: Heh, I completely understand the issue of homosexuality, which is one reason I oppose it more than ever now. Americans our day in time believe that "freedom" refers to complete access to whatever they want and wish for. The truth is, the founding fathers created the government as the Bible being the ultimate source of law. The Constitution was based on Biblical principles, which is why the liberals and democrats in Capitol Hill are doing their best to ratify each and every ammendment. **
Complete access to whatever they want and wish for? That doesn't much relate to homosexuality. By that logic, we get what we get and we should not seek what we want. And the constitution is very un-biblical. Sure, some ideas may have been taken from it, but that does not mean that the bible is the backbone of our government nor is it a referance for our government to follow.
Originally posted by Captain Skyblade: **Pornography destroys. I've noticed many people declare "that it satisfies one's desires," but that's a bunch of bull. People who use junk like that to satisfy their lusts expose their lack of self discipline, and they miss out on the happy, guiltless life they could be living instead.
Pornography is a pretty scummy thing, but it is not evil. People should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. When you start taking away the right to free speech on issues like this, you start to fall into a rut. Look at countries like Afganistan - their lives are based entirely on propoganda and highly-biased news from the government. With not freedom of press, things start to go downhill. And not everyone feels guilty about lust. It is a natural thing, and however people want to deal with it is entirely their business.
Originally posted by Captain Skyblade: **Bush doesn't support ilegal drugs, and he has yet to make any effort to stop it. Again, people use drugs as a source of please, and exposure to lack of self discipline. **
Heheheh... support, no. Use, yes. And if someone is stupid enough to light up, then they can kill themselves. Darwinism.
Originally posted by Captain Skyblade: **I can vote next elections, sweet. Hope Bush runs again.:p
Bush is a poor speaker, but he sure gets his point across. Gore is a Bore, and is a poor speaker. Better yet, I never could understand the half of what he was trying to get across...
Gore is a Bore and a poor speaker? How can you call him a poor speaker as an insult when you just called your guy a poor speaker? And he's a politician. He is running for president. He was vice president. I don't think that what we need is a burnt-out, drunk-off-his-ass party animal in office. We cannot expect our politicians to be interesting and entertaining people. Though, I have found some of Bush's speeches quite entertaining.
Just sharing my political views. I think this is interesting, but will probably be locked as it is more suited to B&B; or something. The problem: What if we want debates and discussions that are non-EV, but don't want to deal with B&Bers;?
------------------ --ares (url="http://"http://www.saberstudios.f2s.com/")Saber Studios(/url) -- (url="http://"http://home.cfl.rr.com/aresev/")The Legion(/url)
"A towel is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have." -- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I have evidence that homosexuality is a choice and how it is dangerous. Want to hear it?
------------------ Go to the Escape Velocity Empire. (url="http://"http://evempire.netfirms.com")http://evempire.netfirms.com(/url) Post all your stuff and enjoy everyone else's. Worms Armageddon name: Insano XWA name: KMG_Corran STVEF name: Insano
Originally posted by ares1: The problem: What if we want debates and discussions that are non-EV, but don't want to deal with B &Bers;?
#ev? #politics?
Hmm.. speaking of #ev, is it still around? Back, way back in the day, there was #ev on efnet. Then it moved to some other ircnet, and I don't know where it is now if it is still around. I remember a few of the regulars.. Sparks, laer, HHunter, BPlanet, Natedog, to name a few. Those guys still congregate anywhere?
Originally posted by ares1: Hmm.. speaking of #ev, is it still around?
I think #ev has been supplanted by #levo on Ambrosia's server, but there's no reason someone else can't create it. As for old regulars, I have no clue.
Originally posted by Captain Skyblade: Actually, pornography has become a major political issue lately. I've gone to several Republican county fund-raisers recently, and I've noticed one of their major goals is to completely outlaw the junk. Since Bush is a Christian and conservative, I wonder if he'll ever direct his attention to the issue.
Not if he really wants to uphold the Constitution, he won't...
Originally posted by Captain Skyblade: The truth is, the founding fathers created the government as the Bible being the ultimate source of law. The Constitution was based on Biblical principles, which is why the liberals and democrats in Capitol Hill are doing their best to ratify each and every ammendment.
True, this country was founded with a Christian basis, but that still doesn't mean that the government should censor us.
Originally posted by Captain Skyblade: It's also believed that he is responsible for the deaths of over fifty members of Capitol Hill.
Perhaps it's believed, but it isn't true. Look at (url="http://"http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm")this(/url).
------------------ "My guitar gently weeps." George Harrison, 1943-2001
Originally posted by Macavenger: His administration is trying to stop legal drug use, though. You guys might not have heard about this, but Ashcroft has given an executive order to the FBI to crack down on doctors prescribing lethal doses of morphine etc. to terminal patients under an Oregon Assisted Suicide law which has been confirmed ~twice~ by the voters. Regardless of his views on assisted suicide, Ashcroft should be respecting the will of voters. Yet another case of the Bush administration tossing the Constitution out the window. What happened to State's Rights?
I agree that Ashcroft should be leaving this alone... as it isn't provided for in the Constitution, it should be left to states. Heck, the states are the ones who try people for murder.
Originally posted by Macavenger: **I'm not going to try to say he was the best, but he wasn't that bad. Most people seem to equate his administration with his personal problems, but many of his policies were quite good. He's also perhaps the most intelligent President in recent memory. Bush can be a bit, well, slow at times.:p **
He was an intelligent man, but not a great president. He let his opinion rating drive him, and as a result, he was never firm about anything, but just sitting on the fence on every issue. It was 8 years of ~nothing~ happening, including the promises he made about hunting down terrorists.
Originally posted by Insano: **I have evidence that homosexuality is a choice and how it is dangerous. Want to hear it?
Sure, I'd love to refute it.
Originally posted by ares1: **Hmm.. speaking of #ev, is it still around? Back, way back in the day, there was #ev on efnet. Then it moved to some other ircnet, and I don't know where it is now if it is still around. I remember a few of the regulars.. Sparks, laer, HHunter, BPlanet, Natedog, to name a few. Those guys still congregate anywhere? **
#ev is on AfterNET, now.
Originally posted by Captain Skyblade: **Nah, I think he was expecting 5,103.:p
Actually Jimbob, it's not that I'm tired of the Boozerama Bar, I'm just tired of the same subjects being repeated over and over day in and day out. I read over the Boozerama posts every now and then, but there really hasn't been anything new lately...
Only 5,103? That'd be dissappointing...
-Kevin
------------------ I need a new sig, ferazel_09 threatened me when I stole his.
OK, here goes. These traits exist in almost all homosexual men. Remember, I don't have anything against homosexuals, just their actions.
1. Almost all homosexual men had an absent father from the home. He was either working all the time, or not around the house because of a divorce or other reason.
2. They had an overprotective mother and/or one who hated men. This could have been from a divorce, abuse, or other reason.
3. They were recruited by someone else. This one's the biggie.
As for dangerous, increased risk of aids. Much higher than in heterosexual people.
Reasons 1 and 2 have no choice involved, but are unfortunate conditions that some have to deal with. What's number three supposed to mean? And where ddi you get this stuff?
Hrm... Well, my cousin is gay, and her mom is probaby the nicest person I have ever met. Not really overprotective, either. Her dad was a great guy, too, if a bit stern. He was always around. Recruited? I really don't know what you mean by that. Insano, can you back up what you are saying? I don't quite get the point. People become gay if their fathers aren't around, so homosexuality is evil?
As for the aids thing, well, that doesn't make it evil. The consequences of an action (or lifestyle) do no determine good from evil. It's all about motivation. In this case, gay people are not really motivated to be homosexual. It is either a mental thing or a hormonal thing, but no one wakes up in the morning and says, "You know, I think I'll start taking an interest in the same sex!"
Originally posted by Insano: **1. Almost all homosexual men had an absent father from the home. He was either working all the time, or not around the house because of a divorce or other reason.
2. They had an overprotective mother and/or one who hated men. This could have been from a divorce, abuse, or other reason.**
Uh, and how do you know this? Is there a source, or is this just what you've "heard"?
Originally posted by Insano: 3. They were recruited by someone else. This one's the biggie.
Recruited... er, OK. If someone doesn't want to do it, they won't. It's as simple as that.
Originally posted by Insano: **As for dangerous, increased risk of aids. Much higher than in heterosexual people. **
That's because heterosexuals tend to stick to one partner. It's a function of the way sexual relationships tend to work between homosexuals, not that they're somehow dangerous. Besides, what's the risk to 90% of the population?
Yes, unfortunate conditions. These contribute to the final decision. And I got it from a radio broadcast.
That's why I said almost. There are exceptions. And the point of this wasn't to prove that it is evil, that's a whole other debate, but to prove that it is a choice.
Recruited... er, OK. If someone doesn't want to do it, they won't. It's as simple as that
Exactly. It is a choice. Someone makes the suggestion, or recruits, a person, and they have the CHOICE to accept it or not. It is possible for a homosexual person to not be a homosexual anymore. There have been several cases of this happening. Further proving that it is a choice.
Originally posted by Insano: **Exactly. It is a choice. Someone makes the suggestion, or recruits, a person, and they have the CHOICE to accept it or not. It is possible for a homosexual person to not be a homosexual anymore. There have been several cases of this happening. Further proving that it is a choice.
Several, as in a few thousand out of a few million? It merely proves that some people struggle to define themselves, and it is true that there are many people are bisexuals, but choose to lead a heterosexual life.
And, even if it is a choice, who are you, or anyone else, to condemn it? It's not like people are forcing you to do unpleasant things.
Who are you to say it's right? And it's not me saying it's immoral. It's God.