Dudde

You're doing those who are trying to maintain the integrity of the board and this thread a disservice by your consistent rehashing of irrelevant ridiculousness, I would appreciate if you would stop - I highly doubt iNow is out on the street right now shooting Republicans in the face with a pistol. I've felt that way myself over the last few months. /off topic In response to "that's all. It ain't not big deal" - I have no idea why you're still fighting in support of the majority on this case if this is the case. If nobody cared, why'd DOMA come into existance in the first place? You seem to be changing beats with the same message very quickly, are you really trying to goad others to argue? This is the second time I've had to question why you're still continuing this debate, and whether you really believe what you're saying. I also find the self-righteous indignation comment extremely infuriating - without causing some kind of flame war, it was the self-righteousness of this majority of people which caused some irrational fear, embedded deep down, that letting same sex couples become legally married would taint them - something that apparently must be stopped. This is completely irrelevant to the heart of the matter - and as someone who's so keen on logic and fairness, as you've been portraying yourself all along, where does this arrogance come from that disagreeing with someone else is an F? If we didn't question what our government tries to say in legislation, foreign affairs or internal affairs, how far do you think we'd have really gotten?

That's a discussion kind of to itself really, I don't know that there's anything after death personally, but assuming there were, I'm sure it would be. Assuming there isn't however, I stick to my aforementioned logic. You should narrow down the scope of what you're asking, i.e specifically 'if the universe were a hologram', else you'll get a lot of jumbled and ridiculous replies

It seems an unspecific sort of question, there are a wide range of answers really. Not being born is...well... not being born. If you're referencing cenception and growing in the womb, then you have cells dividing and creating something according to a genetic code. Whereas when you're dead, your cells have stopped dividing and are, essentially, completely devoid of doing anything. You of course still have some living organisms hanging out, but the cells that were a part of your genetic make-up cease to function. Kind of a weird way to explain it, sorry if the wording is bad (or wrong) - if you can clarify the question, I'm sure you'll get a much more interesting answer

Indeed it would, but I disagree on the point that it would help more than harm. If we started driving down labor costs, it would do wonders for helping a demand for higher skilled jobs, thereby helping create more jobs at the top level (hopefully) by freeing up the necessity to keep a large amount of the workforce at unskilled positions. However, a large majority of the U.S is still unskilled and in rather harsh economic circumstances, before the economy started skipping to see the wizard of oz - I think before we relax any labor laws, we need to tighten up around education to fill the skilled positions. I hope nobody takes offense, in no way am I saying that immigrants are incapable of filling the higher ranks of the workforce - on the contrary in fact, my friend moved from Korea like 18 years ago and has made more money since then than I think my entire family has made over a decade I just think we should better improve conditions in this country at the lowest level, before we just open up the borders and encourage low paying jobs

Sure, I remember you saying your friend was using Flash 3 - any other info you can provide on that? Is it cracked, purchased, torrented - it could just be a really messed up version of the software, you might save all the saved-files in another location on the computer and try re-installing if that's an option. What's the full name of this software btw, performing a search for "flash 3 trouble" produces an expectedly bajillion results with little to no relevance to this. right click 'my computer' on the desktop and go to manage, check out the event logs - look under the application event logs to make sure there isn't anything being reported as an error by flash - a lot of software complaints go here when they're not necessarily erroring out when it's running slow while performing functions, i.e copy and pasting, have you checked the processes tab in task manager to see if maybe one of the processes are taking more CPU or memory usage than the rest? I had a corrupt install of a program one time that ran normally, but one of it's processes was spanking my computer like a girl scout at all times One more thing: is this program the most hardware intensive activity being performed on this computer? You guys play any games, or run 3DStudio max or something, anything that would severly hog system resources? If so, see if you can get it to lag as much as the flash program, if you can duplicate the results with another program, it helps to find out what's up I agree, 250 views is pretty sweet

I don't think you understand how expensive it's going to be for a same sex couple to obtain the same rights, and how much of a ***** the process will be - which is ridiculous, because they're already included with a marriage license. How is this relevant? Are you saying that same sex couples are not discriminated against, because they can pay out the wazoo and spend enormous amounts of time signing legal documents? I understand that each state does it differently, but it starts at a federal baseline, which is much lower for non-married citizens. I agree with your point regarding the Living Trust however, that is extremely prudent planning, especially when you may be too vulnerable or distracted when the time comes to actually need it to fight the state.

A fairly small but pretty emcompassing list of rights and obligations can be found on Wikipedia - I searched several other sites, and seemed to get partially what Wiki said with maybe one or two extra. I don't see the relevance to call into question about why a libertarian would want the government interfering to begin with - that's a whole other debate altogether. The fact is that they're interfering, and justifying mental abuse toward a group of people who have different tastes than a majority. nice. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You can't be serious. It looks like his point is that while the government doesn't have any legal jurisdiction in this realm, you do get legal benefits for doing it - the heterosexual ones anyway. Would you strip legal benefits from something complicated as a marriage? The governments are the only entities that have the ability to bestow legal rights The point made against this earlier, is that changing the word is essentially giving a majority a right to still persecute and maintain an unrightful bias against the GLBT crowd by refusing to admit them into an institution, or definition of the 'word.' Relenting shows that our government system truly is broken, and we should push people around as long as there are more of us. Neither naivety nor ignorance can justify this statement. Go outside and experience the world, you'll find this to be quite accurate Let's stop talking about the already established 94%, since we're trying to explain why we believe them to be unconstitutional. This is the equivelant of explaining why you shouldn't eat beef from a cow with mad cow disease, and your rebuttal arguing that most of the cows have it anyway so you might as well.

To be frank, I've never been unfortunate enough (or maybe wise enough) to consider bankruptcy and can't tell the two apart - I'll check it out tonight when I get a chance, are there any sites anybody can point me at that are better than others, or should a generic google suffice? I believe the government is doing what they think is right, but in a rushed and haphazard way - which can only bring oversight and miscalculations - I disagree, however, with Obama throwing any more money at the larger banks and corporations henceforth, it seems they've been buttered up pretty sufficiently to last half the country for quite a while <offtopic>I'm starting to like Obama, and it may be just because of what I've had to compare against - since I was really too young to pay attention to presidential affairs before Bush, I was a Junior when he took office, when I really started delving into intellectual designs </off topic>

I don't know... as long as you pay the electric bill, you'll never need to find a way to ignite sparks in your relationship! Albeit it may be unconventional and quite painful, I think it's worth a shot

Honestly, I know more women that check out other women than I do men, although I bet they have different genetic or subconscious reasons for doing so. I agree with this too - I've been an artist for a long time, and I have no qualms in stating that when given a choice, I'll take any kind of woman as a subject than a guy any day of the week

I noticed that the CEO of AIG stated that he already asked for employees with over a certain bonus give them back, as has been discussed - a lot of employees just threw 100% of their bonuses back at the company, and I feel these were probably the employees that could justify getting any bonus whatsoever Kinda makes me feel bad for employees doing as good as they can and then getting washed over by the higher level either by greed, or incompetence

I was actually focused toward other posters, as I've been arguing about the validity of the lamp post for a week or so on two threads I don't find a problem if someone wants to marry one, and honestly would be the first to try, but my definition has been inclusive exclusively of people. Honestly, I don't think a good compromise should make anybody happy, as that saying goes. I wouldn't mind changing the legal definition to CU or RP - they're both fine, as long as they're defining everyone equally in the term, and the government steps off all the individual definitions and maintains it's umbrella. This way the ceremony can be a personal marriage, and the legal whathaveyou would take place separately. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged btw, NICE!

While I don't necessarily find that getting angry is the most helpful - iNow does have a point. I have pointed out a great number of times in the past why everything you just said is irrelevent, and it's getting annoying for you to employ the same arguments while blatantly ignoring my posts.

I agree with this point, well made. If we start hitting companies that are using illegal labor, we can hopefully slow the desire to run across the border so rampantly - or at least make it look better to become a citizen of the U.S. I'm happy if anybody wants to immigrate up here, just...legally...

Oh for the love of Darwin, go back and read the posts to what Scrappy's been saying, I don't feel like re-hashing. A lamp post is not a person, dead people and animals are not a person, and family members is genetically harmful, though I'm sure they could get married if they tried hard enough. It may be outlawed already, but only by amendments and acts put in place to outlaw a minority rights to do something everyone else can, as said above. I think "a legally binding contract to wed two people" should be fine - define 'people' to exclude dead ones and artificial if you need to. I agree with Mooey's point above - I doubt anybody cares what the law defines it as, so long as everyone is defined equally.

I actually kind of like the way that would break down as was my original thought on the process, but I actually switched midway for a few reasons. I think the main reason is because most unions of this type in the United States is called a Marriage, as opposed to anything else. I'm not saying that's all there is, and if there are already a lot of religions or groups that get married in the U.S calling it something different, somebody let me know, I'd be interested to check it out - As far as I know though, there's only marriage - since this is the term that's been coined for a very long time and is inclusive of the act of getting married, I wouldn't opt for a new set of definitions to usher forth so the same thing can apply to slightly different groups of people. I think even if the government went the CU route, it's a term long standing in society, and I doubt the common populace would have problems calling it as a marriage still

But the nudists will have legal rights, whereas the GLBT crowd will not, as long as the nudists are heterosexual. I do see where you're coming from, and partly agree to an extent - but I doubt you'll get the currently married couples to give up the legal rights that being married permits them. There are some pretty shiny benefits endowed to two people becoming one in spirit (and law.) That's actually what the name is all about too - same sex partners don't want to say they're married, they want the legal benefits that come along. I bet we could drop the divorce rate a bit as such

I think I'm in agreement with that - it's not necessarily the nicest way to enforce the immigration laws, but if they would be nice and go through legal channels to become citizens, I'm sure we'd lighten up. I actually know a lot of people who've immigrated to this country and are very, *ticked off* shall we say, at people just bolting the border. I don't think it's a good idea to stop enforcing the law

I have to disagree with this argument. The government is an organization that depends a lot on taxes made from how well economy flows in it's country, at least ours is. Once the larger corporations started failing and dying off, their revenue decreases dramatically - and because we've already established (somewhere) that government shouldn't have any say in the regulating of corporations, you can hardly blame them when the companies start flopping belly up. I agree with how crappy the government is up to about 4 months ago - I haven't had sufficient time to let Obama try what he's going for, but we backed an ******* of a president for 8 years while he put our noses in the ground, I think we can give the guy more than 3 months.

It's disappointing to see the same irrelevance and references to the same arguments as before, do you even think for yourself? - Seriously, same sex marriages are the same as an army of irresponsible adults who can't manage their own stress, and so get high and do damage to others? Don't argue this point, I know the BS legalized pot arguments come up with, and I have first hand experience as to why I know it's BS - the main point here, is that it's irrelevant. You mean the definition and act that was explicitly enacted to infringe on the liberties of an arbitrary and minority group. That DOMA? That was another document that was set forward specifically to take rights away from others, America wasn't as always open-minded as I'd hoped it would be. (I would appreciate you not trying to reference marriages to inanimate objects and dead animals at this point. I think that point has been refuted enough, is irrelevant, and in no way symbolizes the union of two people. 1 person + 1 person = marriage.) Because it defines something that was for all americans to a more narrow definition, excluding a group of people not for legalities or reason, but for taste and opinion. I don't remember saying my opinion was better than yours. You still fail to provide your own opinion and frequently refer to the same arguments, which leads me to believe it's all you might have. If that's all supporting the anti-same sex marriage side, it saddens me to see how long this national debate has raged.

It kind of depends really on what you're backing up, and what you're backing it up to. Is this just for a single machine backing up to external HDD? Personally I can't vouch for or against it, but with a little more info we can probably help see if it would be a viable solution for you.

Obama does seem happy to take blame for a lot of the recent misunderstandings however, I've seen a few recent quotes that at least show on the outside that he's interested in a long term fix, rather than keeping afloat and doing it again. CNN again because my work doesn't block it. Maybe just pretty words, but I haven't heard them from someone in office for quite a long time, at least he's making outward effort

Does the Pope lead christianity? I've been out of the loop longer than I thought. This is very funny, and while I saw it on some national news, it makes me writhe in laughter and cry for humanity

Now wait, you've already established that you didn't want to impose your beliefs, or principles if you would, on other people based on the fact that it's your principle. I'd like to see less of "the rest of the 94% notwithstanding" statements, nobody is arguing the majority is against Same Sex marriage - what we're arguing is that they're imposing their own beliefs on the minority of the population But why? What have they done that's so intrusive? Irrelevant, and the revving of the engine has an impact on you as a person, to your ears, as opposed to same sex marriages, which can happen with you blissfully oblivious Frankly, the courts can prove as biased as the people they represent - the justices were once part of the average citizenry too. I would trust them to read into the laws and try to leave their personal prejudices at the door much more than I would trust anybody I could speak to on the street, but it doesn't make them perfect. I'd like to see less of what you see in others and society and hear why you're really opposed to same sex marriages if you have one, you're kind of running this discussion in circles by referencing the same numbers to every response.

Oooh yeah, i wish that was a thread option. i don't think I've ever had anything by Lindt, or at least not actively that I knew about, but I don't like the other...