Marriage is in fact *not* an issue for the church to decide up in this here country. See, if it was, there are plenty of unitarian universalist churches out there that will marry gay couples. (Everyone forgets that since we can't have religious exclusion in our country that there is actually more than one church, and that they don't all hate people who aren't just like them.)
* uses the technique Smite on Ice for all those who wanted to but couldn't/didn't * Maybe I said church instead of churches and confused you, but the point I was trying to make was in your post. There arechurches that will marry gay couples and then there are the churches that won't. That is a part of our freedom of religion. The government should not be able to say whether or not a marriage is acceptable, that is a spiritual matter. What the government can say is that gay couples are not entitled to the tax breaks of regular married couples, for the reasons listed previously. The actual condidition of being married has nothing to do with the government (although they try to make it otherwise) and everything to do with your perception and religion. 'Nuff said.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
A Elbereth Gilthoniel o menel palan-diriel, le nallon sí di-nguruthos! A tiro nin, Fanuilos!
Battalon127 uses Smite on Ice
Sep 2, 2004 12:02
I am ashamed to do this, but I feel I must.
ONE: Did you forget about the unwealthy raped single mothers that are trying every damn day to give their child, which was forced upon them anyway, a better life then being thrown into the system, where OBVIOUSLY NO ONE GIVES A S*** ABOUT THEM? I bet you people know someone adopted, goddammit, I'd bet my hands that there is one on that has already posted on this forum.
It is harder to find a good paying job these days as it is with companies laying people off when they are in their 50's. If you thought it was hard to get a good job for your age, think about them!
That's all I have to say right now, except for: for some reason Zelda never really held big with me. I don't know why, mind you, I have nothing against those games.
The New Dawn has risen. Are you the one to unlock it?
Sep 2, 2004 12:03
Thank you, Battalon. You have articulated quite clearly what all of us have been saying and already understood... well, most of us anything. That is why it needed to be said.... uh, again.
This brings up another topic entirely, which kinda relates to what you were saying. The European birth rate, last I heard, was up to fifty-percent out of wedlock. It is kinda funny becaues the reason the marriage-break even exists is getting defuncted!
If you really think about it -- and not even that hard -- what should really happen is that the government should phase out marriage all together. You know, for the gov't. I mean, the basis for marriage is:
1) A spiritual institution, or
2) The legal binding that allows a father or head of the family to control the other's lives and whether they could live at all.
... the second one has not been used in a long time. I mean, legalized parental murder is probably only still around is some really extreme Islamic places. Europe stopped, like, once Christianity tooks it overs.
Back to the point at hand.... new Link rocks, because he looks like old Link. That, and the state should really loose all say in marriage, but that will never happen because modern-day idiots actually think there is something valuable to a bond you can make, promise for life, and then ditch on a whim
Sep 2, 2004 12:11
Oh, ya, MG, you kinda forgot a minor point: for the $300 tax rebate that Bush sent out, you paid $1000 more for gasoline. Of course the math-unknowing Americans will believe that they are getting money in their pockets!
Oh, and, by the way, those tax cuts are part of the budget deficit.
I came up with a both stupid and smart idea: why don't they have both presidential candidates play SimCity 4 for a certain period of time, and then compare who balances the budget better, whose city is more populated and has a better quality of life, etc. Then people would at least very roughly know who has the skills and who is just plain lying. I mean, the elections today are fairy tales starting with the words "If elected, I promise...".
* uses the technique Strike on Ice for supporting neo-cons * LieutenantEagle
I never mentioned Bush's cheap attempt at pleasing the masses with a lame 300 dollar check to everyone. Let me think, yes, never once in this post. In fact, I had completely forgotten about it until you just mentioned it there. I mean, the only thing close to that I remember saying is government spending, but, you know, that generally means the more well-meaning million dollor checks to a single institute, not shilling to the masses. For doing that, yes, Bush is a git, but I never even touched base on that, ye who puts words in others mouths!
As for the gas thing, wasn't that all Cheny's doing? I thought he was the one that had all the junk to do with the oil and big business what-not? Regardless, the gas hike really isn't Bush's fault, that falls solely one greedy America. Whenever an "entrepanuer" sees an opprotunity for more dough, they strike. Leave Bushy-boy outta that one. If anything, his efforts were to lower the price of gas, not raise it. Plus, its not like any Americans are investing in any of those gas conserving cars or electric hybrids. * looks out at sea of SUVs on the road * Hey, when did I road get built in this room?
Backtracking to other person who challenged moi, rape babies? Yeah, what would be so bad about putting them up for adoption? I, in all honesty, know no one who is adopted, which is sad since my great aunt had adopted her son. Never met the guy. He turned out fine, tho'. And, what do you mean putting them in a system where no one cares about you? Last I checked, couples had to wait years before they could get a child adopted since the demand was so high. Adoptive parent, for one thing, are the only intentional parents I could ever think of. I mean, really, who honestly plans their children? We're all accidents, you know it! They actually want a child and do not hold any resentment to them (unless the child turns out to be an ass, in which case, well...).
And, to close, what's with the numbering of the points you were gonna make without doing anymore than one of those points? I mean, pointless much?
Sep 2, 2004 15:30
I always thought the Wind Waker Zelda was cool, but that doesn't change the fact that the new realistic one is about twenty times cooler.
And deciding the presidency with Sim City? I'm going to pretend and hope that you're just kidding about that, for reasons such as the difference between a city and a country, the fact that it would only focus on domestic stuff, and, well, it is just a game. If running a country were that simple, politicians wouldn't have to be liars.
Endless Horizon "It looks like I'm going to die as I have lived.... completely surrounded by morons!"
Sep 2, 2004 15:44
Silly Gobbo, you do, you just don't know it. I'd prove it, but i don't care right now. As for numbering...that is a new thing I started doing when I am upset about something not about vids.
Speaking of which I would comment about how so far the fact that the other screen has been for maps, which a pause button used to cover, so it is for lazy people for now, but I know i have seen others just not remembering them, that and my stomach really hurts right now.(seriously, I don't know,well it was probably something I ate)
If anyone can come up with another DS use, it would be apprecaited.
The New Dawn has risen. Are you the one to unlock it?
Sep 2, 2004 20:06
* uses the technique Strike on MadGoblin *
Okay, I've gone through and read everything said (finally) and am gonna make a few rebuttals. Most likely, if I don't hit on a point someone else has made, I either accept your view since my last post was made without looking up anything, can't intelligently refute your point (MadGoblin I think is the only one here) because your point of view is incomprehensible to me, or I forgot.
1) Tax cuts Economy:
Alrighty, I couldn't remember the exact reasoning why this was, so I actually had my econ teacher explain this. As it is, whoever brought up the point actually contradicted themselves.
Assume you have a paycheck for one hundred dollars. Before a tax break, the government might take an average of about $50 from that. Now you have $50 dollars left to spend. The government spends your $50, through government spending. You spend $50 through personal spending. This is good for the economy.
Now we'll look at your tax break. You now only have $40 taken out of your check. You have $60 to spend. THe government spends your $40 dollars. You spend your $60 dollars. This is also good for the economy.
The difference between the two situations, when looking at the economy on whole? None. So why not let you just keep your money, all of it, and just spend it on what you want? Good idea. Go out, and build your own roads with that (or let someone else, and pay on every road you drive on, every time you drive on it). Get any government aid for schooling? I do. Now I wouldn't. However, the government is a lot better at doing some things (mainly large-sized projects like building roads, maintaining a police force, military, etc...) than individuals. Thus overall abolishing taxes would not work. If you don't believe me, go check out Jennifer Government by someone whose name I can't remember.
Sorry Emmy for insinuating that you were a Bush lover. Can't you forgive me?
For homosexuality, I'll just leave it at this: [I'm too freakin' stupid to stop talking about it, spewing out tons of wrong garbage that was already dealt with in the other post which I would be directed to if I actually read posts well, but with my history, there is no point to it. ~ Ems]
For the marriages, has anyone actually done their 1040s lately? Minty? I'm certain you've done them before.
Now, you remember in the section where you're filling in, there are actually two sections. One for any dependants (children) which are under your care, and another for married couples. They make a pretty damned clear distintion between the two of those. Thus the tax break given for marriage *is not* an incentive for makin' babies. It may have once been that way, but not we have a separate tax break for those who already made babies. Noow the tax break is to help married couples. Give me a reason to believe otherwise. (And Roman government doesn't really affect me any right now anyways, since their intentions back then don't mean a damned thing anymore.)
Okay, yeah, I'm done now. I don't remember any more of the arguements, and I'm tired, and I'm gonna go eat at the caf. Well, attempt to eat.
On a side note of the original topic, yeah, the new Zelda looks kick-ass.
°(o.o)° (c) Ethereal Enterprises, 2004
[Editted by MintMan on Sep 2, 2004 22:20]
Ice uses Strike on MadGoblin
Sep 2, 2004 21:29
Yeah! Go Zelda!!! Anyone seen the trailer yet? And what about Metroid Prime 2? That looks good, too, but is nothing in comparison to the awesomeness of Zelda!
The n00b who has been around for over a year and is still a n00b!
Sep 2, 2004 22:34
Ice, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, you're a f***in' idiot.
Hooray! Numba Wun-Thowzand!
Freakin' read what I say, moron.
Tax break one for married couples: Lull into false sense of security; provide with more money to create an environment for population increase.
Tax break the second -- dependents: Rest of the deal on a per-baby basis, 'cause that is what the break is really all about, and the more, the better.
I already said that, most ignorant one. I already stated both things. See, it is a one-two punch. Instead of ploppin' it all down for one lump sum, you have to spread it out.
You have to remember the variety of factors that come into play: divorce, death, leaving home. There are tons of things that can alter the formula, and it was invented way back when and worked pretty solid over the two-thousand years it has been in use.
You know what.... I better break out the sock-puppets.
Almost everyone is capable of being in the position to increase the population. Thing is, you need the natural and logical combination to do so. Now, spiffy thing is, it was human culture that these things got married. To entice the masses to enter into a position that could increase the population, incentive is offered. There is more dished out on delivery of said goods. It is kinda like getting some of the cash up front and the rest when or if the mission is completed. * puts away Armored Core * Now, I think most definantly people are going to bring up sham marriages or barren couples, and like all logical, well-thought out rhetoric, those bases are so covered that you must be an idiot for bringing them up.... you idiot When comparing nonproductive to productive said-unions, screenings would incur too much added costs to justify even doing them. However, there is one thing that can be done to quite easily tell if said-union will be fruitful. I think that'un would be obvious.
Thus why this is one of the only preventions of performing said-union -- nice and broad... well, this and relatives. It could be fruitful, but who would want it to be
By your logic, taking in a bunch of children would be just as good under the government's eyes as poppin' a bunch out. No. They want their population up; taking care of children who because of today's really crappy moralistic structure have a tainted future is a lesser concern, quite a-frankily.
Second, yes, your tax break situation would be true, if by creating a tax break, the government lost all of its funding.
Shoving money at the government is no way to solve problems. I mean, in the short-term, yeah, but the problems are by far more deep rooted. We need things like welfare reform to cut the costs of the government.
Tax breaks, too, are all about cutting out non-essentials. Gobbo's worked in the gov't, and I know he could tell you horror stories about their massive inefficiency in something as simple as building low-income housing. Actually, tax breaks are a good thing in this respect 'cause it gets their arses into gear to hire better building inspectors who of all actually get the work done by independent contractors that they were paid to get done. When the money is harder to come by, you get a lot less waste.
And trust me, there is a ton of waste.
[Editted by MintMan on Sep 3, 2004 24:40]
Sep 2, 2004 23:54
Hey, everyone! What's this? * reaches into mouth * Why, it's words that I did not put there! Wow, thanks, Ice!
When did I ever say, "We should not pay taxes, the Government does nothing for us?" Oh, 'tis right, never! All I said was counter-fact to your whole spiel on tax cuts not effecting the economy. And, by the way, that whole "whether it goes to the citizens or the government, it all winds back in the economy" thing is wrong! That would be assuming the gov't puts 100% of its tax earnsings into gov't spending, which, as I already stated, works exactly the same as a tax cut. The gov't don't do that. They have to moderate it, for, if too much taxes are cut or too much gov't spending occurs, the economy will enter inflation (and the vice versa for recession, yadda yadda, blah blah).
Anyhoo, even tho' I didn't say it before (tho' it was acted like I did), it really wouldn't be a bad thing to give the government less money. Like Ems said, I held a job in a government office. I didn't do anything governmenty, mind you, I pretty much... just... filed things ... * cough * They waste so much resourses! First of all, gov't employees in general are lazy. A lot of them are given cushie jobs based solely on seniority, and get paid good pension afterwards because of such. Like sucking milk straight from the cow. I, sadly, was probably the most productive worker there. I don't say that out of a big head (tho' my head is pretty large... literally, not figuretively ), but because each worker there told me to work less! Hilarious! Back to point, you wouldn't realize how much friggin' money, time, and effort go into telling people "Cut your grass, jackass", and that doesn't include the actual cutting of the jackass's grass! And this is just at the city level! Every city has this!
However, I did not need to see it up front and personal to know the horrors of government waste. The ultimate proof is, of course, political parties. Do you have any idea how much money is shilled out just to run? Any shmuk can say "I want to run for president", they can meet a few requirements, and, bam, a cool million dollars (if not more) is shilled out to finance their efforts. Just like that. Do you know how much crap it takes to run those Democratic/Republican National Conversion, too? Way too much. That's all gov't dough, too. Our tax dollars... for balloons! THAT is why I say (this time, actually ), yes, the gov't could stand to have less money. They really should get themselves in order.
Trillion dollar debts. Pssh! If we cut all non-essential fundings, (ie: keep road repairs, welfare, etc. and ditch disease research grants [i still hanker that cancer was cured years ago, and greedy asses are just riding the funds], political party funds, etc.), this country could say, "I'm debt free! Hooray!" and do a very untasteful jig in celebration.
I know someone adopted? Oh, I take it that either you or someone else at these forums is adopted. Well, let me think here... adopted people are more likely to become serial killers, so that mean, I'm adopted!
[Editted by MadGoblin on Sep 2, 2004 23:55]
Sep 3, 2004 11:42
I agree with MadGoblin in the fact that the money used for the conventions was wasted. I mean, we already knew who the candidates were, and conventions are not required by the Constitution...so why couldn't they let all that money go to pay for education, or at the least to stage a [series of] debates between the two candidates? (Or to stage a SimCity 4 comparison...jk).
Cutting disease research, however, is only necessary for the already-cured cancers, not for Alzheimer's, cystic fibrosis, and AIDS.
Also, we left out the issue of stem-cell research. Bush uses his "moral" values to disallow stem-cell research by saying that you are killing something that has the potential to become a human being; the Republicans also claim that this research will not necessarily lead us to a cure for Alzheimer's as the Democrats so vehemently proclaim. But, first of all, if Bush has "morals", why did he send off hundreds of people to their deaths in a war on oil? "Thou shalt not kill"...well, I think about a thousand infractions of this commandment are on Bush's conscience. Second, about the "not necessarily" claim...had it not been for science, we would have still been in the middle ages, believing that gravity was a divine force and that vivisection was a sin (does that make all surgeons go to hell?). Science is currently growing extremely fast, and placing political barriers to stop science is simply an anachronic method. We may not find what we think we might find with that research, but nevertheless, humanity never knew what it might find until it first experimented. Finally, if you still claim that it's wrong to kill something that might become a potential human being...well, let's see, the only reason I can think of why Bush wants more humans is because he wants more taxes.
Remember Einstein's words of wisdom:
"Politics are for the moment; an equation is for eternity."
* uses the technique Guard in case angry religious fanatics attack * LieutenantEagle
Not crazy religious fanatics. Again, Bush is not using proper logic (big shock there), but you are still wrong about stem cell.
It does not kill something that has the potential to be a human being. It is killing a human being.
Let's see... forty-eight chromosomes... cellular make-up... reproducing... yep, that qualifies as life. People might not want to think it because they cannot see it, but it does not make it any less alive.
Why? Because it has to depend its mother to live?.... yeah, then most children would not be considered humans either.
When a kangaroo is born, it crawls from the birth canal up the pouch and finally inside of it. It has no legs, is entirely blind, and was only conceived about a month prior, if that. It is, like, a centimeter big. However, in development terms, it is just like the tiniest of baby fetuses. I hella know people would see that kanga which by all terms is still fetal and see a living creature, so why the Hel not an infant human?
.... because people are stupid. * uses the technique LandSmite on LieutenantEagle and his justification for abortion/legalized murder *
As far as diseases go, yeah, research should prolly be done. Cancer most likely does not have a cure because any one cure would not be able to solve all of it. That, and I am more than certain that if a cure did exist, whoever knew about it would have to come out with it to save someone they love afflicted by the disease -- who the Hel doesn't know someone dying of cancer?
AIDS, on the other hand, deserves no attention for a cure. Don't be a whore and do get AIDS.... 'tis a pretty simple disease to keep away from. As spiteful as I am, I'm sure no one would find it surprising if I did not shed a tear for the stupid dying.
Unless of course you talk about over in Africa where they don't know why the Hel their life expectancy is thirty years old. Just get some programs out, yo.
MintMan uses LandSmite on LieutenantEagle
Sep 3, 2004 17:14
Its just not whoring yourself, its needles too, not just getting high, but tattoos, and especially the occasional blood donor with a dirty needle.
The main thing I don't get are those hyper pro-life people(just the ludicrious ones) bombing abortion clinics. I mean lets support pro-life by KILLING the mother AND the UNBORN CHILD. That makes sense.
The New Dawn has risen. Are you the one to unlock it?
Sep 3, 2004 19:41
Pretty much any reason you would get AIDS (sluttin' it up, shooting heroin, getting a tattoo from unsanitary conditions, piercing, whatever, etc.) are all based on stupidity. I mean, c'mon. Its not like you just walk down the street and get AIDS. In that respect, barring freak accidents with shattered glass and whatnot, a good smack about the head is all I say is needed to keep people from catching it. But, no, people have to be whores... asses.
As for Bush "killing" people, those people didn't have to die. I smiled when I heard of those Iraqi soldiers who just laid down their arms and said "Screw this noise, I hate Saddam!" I mean, you'd have to be near stupid to think a tyrant had good intentions.
As for the abortion clinic bombings, their view is in that old age saying, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." In killing one or so abortion performing doctors, how many human lifes are you going to prevent from being born? (already conceived, just get more formally developed. people really need to realize that fact, as already saided) The answer: prolly not much, as that knocked up devil-slut would prolly just go to another one Of course, any one who franticly and violently upholds their view is always no different from any psychopath. ... hooray
And, I said "cut all that funding" as a quick way to pop us out of debt. I didn't say it was a good idea... although it might surface some disease cures. As for the popping out the cure since they might know someone who has it, I truly believe they would not. Greed is humanity, and I would not doubt for a second that someone would choose money over the life of a loved one. Hell, it happens all the time, usually them killing the so-called loved one. I've seen enough eps of Law & Order to know.
Sep 4, 2004 20:26
You guys forgot to mention the offspring of someone with AIDS, in which case they would have no choice in the matter. Think about it.
* uses the technique HeatWave on MintMan for not thinking * The n00b who has been around for over a year and is still a n00b!
Rook uses HeatWave on MintMan
Sep 4, 2004 22:15
*sigh...* If I had any idea how techs worked, and I had the ability called... "extinction" I think I would use it on all of you right now.
Seriously; you guys are arguing about political/religious/moral issues on a forum, and not only that; a thread titled "Nintendo". Now... last time I checked; Nintendo did not have to do with abortions, Iraq, or the insane lies Bush has put the American people through. Seriously... at least try to post something semi-relevent to the post. If you're going to debate on this; you should at least make a seperate thread for it guys.
*cough* Now that i'm done with that...
Nintendo rules; Zelda and Metroid rule!!!
The insignia of the Apocalypse engraved upon his blade. the day approaches...
Sep 4, 2004 23:51
On Sep 4, 2004 22:15, msanis said:
Zelda and Metroid rule!!!
What? What's your problem boy?
On Sep 4, 2004 22:15, msanis should have said:
Zelda and Samus are hot!!! ... bong!
There. Be glad I came by to fix that up.
Yeah, seriously, several people have attempted to steer this topic back on track (to Nintendo), but someone always is popping in to put their two cents in, which normally isn't bad, unless it's Ice and his Ems' editted posts which dip back into the things that were already covered years ago. In fact, if anyone even wants to think of it again, read this article. It was so good, it changed the way I looked at the subject, and I was already against it!
Anyhoo, by the power vested in me by KK (since he told me to do so), and anyone else with mod power, I declare open season on any part of a post made after this one that falls out of line (ie: ain't about Nintendo or related-ness).
I hear that the DS may be having a 'net hook-up, which, technically, would allow one to connect with an infinite number of other players! Can you imagine? The craziness! It my mind!
Sep 5, 2004 24:31
The Nintendo DS will connect wirelessly over a guaranteed range of, what was it, 30 feet, and a possible range of, oh, a lot?
Somehow, however, I'm not so sure about the infinite number of players...I think Nintendo will stick to four-player games (or 8-player as in MKDD); one example is Mario 64x4 on the Nintendo DS.
Has anyone played Donkey Konga yet? I read about it in this month's NP and it looks really...strange.
* uses the technique Heal on msanis for a good point about politics being non-Nintendo * LieutenantEagle
Prime 2 is really lookin' freaky. Almost bad. Almost, but not quite. It's still lookin' pretty good. Have you seen the picteres of the good guys? They look like badguys. I'm probably gonna start the game and wind up shootin' them!
As for Zelda, they made the moblins look pretty cool. Now they look dangerous. If you watch the video, the weird big thing that's swinging a long weapon that is blocked by Link's shield, not the lava golem, that's it.
The n00b who has been around for over a year and is still a n00b!