Saryctos

Living expenses, aka bills. That's how they do most things(like sign up for parking passes) these days

The liberal tendency of the world is to stop all violence, and conflict resolution means making each party just content enough not to kill each other.

After careful consideration I have determined that I am no longer opposed to gay marriage. Since I no longer care about the legal state of marriage. Once you legally acknowledge same sex marriage it therefore changes the meaning of marriage altogether. Not in the sexual terms, beign gay has nothing to do with gay marriage from my point of view. The fact of two people being the same sex, means that everyone, no matter how can become "married", and it is those quotation marks that make my statement clear. For if it were true marriage you wouldn't feel the quotation fit into place with that sarcastic tone in your head. Me and my roomate aren't gay, but we can get a gay marriage. A heterosexual non-sexual partnership could be done today in much the same manner. This isn't marriage, it's a sham for the purpose of beneffits. This is not to say that a gay marriage is a sham. What it does however, is start a change from marriage(a sexually motivated shared living conditions beneffit), to a sexless system of living conditions and child care. Which here, I am still fine with, but it isn't marriage... This may well qualify as a slippery slope arguement, but it is more of a logical prediction of what the law should/would become. Why bother with the hassle and debate? just skip the mess and make shared living / child rasing it's own law that has a new tag.

A heterosexual marriage has the main purpose of creating children. A gay marriage has the main purpose of gaining beneffits. This in my view cheapens the very meaning of marriage. "Oh yeah? plenty of heterosexual couples just get married for the beneffits." I think they cheapen it's meaning aswell. Now as for the ability to gain beneffits without proving romantic entanglement? I'm all for the ability for two people living together to gain some sort of beneffits along the lines of a current married couple. Most beneffits from marriage are givin' due to the living condition, and then for children. While living together most things become shared, furniture, money, food, etc.. The ability to gain gov't acknowledgement of shared living conditions should not be related to a persons romantic involvement. However, I see this as something new, not an extension of marriage. Which is Why I am opposed to gay marriage, it's not marriage, It's two people romantically involved wanting the beneffits of married couples. Which is a fair argument to make, but it isn't marriage.

But were there Soviet spies in the State Department?

Those color coded useless things are still around...you just don't see them because noone shows them anymore.

It's a deterrent, knowing that the US is legally allowed to use nuclear force pre-emptively would prevent other countries from pushing their buttons by a little.

I am driving through a region in which I know the populace hates pespi, yet it is illegal to buy coke. I see a random person who looks fairly thirsty and I say to them "go buy a coke", and hand them the standard price for a coke in the area, with the intent they buy a drink, how am I not at least somewhat responsible for their actions? There are at least two parts to this, I funded their illegal activity, and I encouredged it take place. Now liken that scene to that of the middle east. I see my neighbor who looks sad/angry and say "what's wrong?", to which they reply "Isreal!", to which I then sugjest maybe they should do something about it, something resounding and absolute. To which the neighbor infurs* that I meant killing Isrealis. Later that week a bomb falls onto my house and kills my children and horribly wounds my wife, and I scream WHYYYY!!! I am not involved in this conflict...

From that point of view the mentally ill or even to some extent autistic fill the same catagory. and they recently(2001?) recieved protection from the death penalty in Texas, and that seemed to go over well with most. The religious demenor* of Bush's views only stem from the way in which his views took root. To call all views that are equivalent to those of religion X to be created from said religion denies the existance personal thought through assossiation.

Question(sort of pertaining to the current discussion...I hope(alchohol is an excellent backseat poster =P)) With the leaps and bounds of new technology, should the modern worker be paid more for working less? Tax cuts, giving people who are known for investing in the economy and creating jobs, more money to expand with, sounds like a solid policy to me. Unfortunately, there is another factor here, rising labor prices will probably force the extra money to jump ship and leave this 'not so fertile' land when it comes to the mindless worker drone. If technology is making your job so easy, why should Companies be paying for both =P

The civilian terrorist complex I believe is seen to anyone in the region as a way to leverage political support with devoloped nations knowing full well what most of use pass right over. The detatchment from WAR and citizens. In the wartorn countries everyone is in, the people see war as engulfing the entire population and the idea of civilian/military is less clear cut than it is for most. While we in modernized nations will send militaries to fight one another, whether it be among cities and towns, the conflict is restricted to military personel. While this makes 'civilian' casualties lessened thanks to no carpet bombings/indesriminate bombs, it Solidifies the idea for most that only the military need be involved, and the seperation between daily life and war should be as minimized as possible..."I have a life to get on with, why should the war in blah blah blah influence my daily routine?" A very good read, although Sci-fi in nature are many of the older Battletech(the books contain a lot of political talk when not focussing on the fighting) books, The Series named Twilight of the Clans, specificly makes clear my attitude on the subject. To give a brief description, there exist a warrior like people using war as away of deciding almost every political differences. The war they fight is almost like a game, with distinct rules and regulations and verritibly 0 impact on the population other than a new flag over their heads(I see this as basicly NATO regulated warfare). The people of the rest of the universe end up getting into a war with them, except they fight more of a 'total' war, bombing manufacturing plants, power plants, and basically shutting down infrastructure for the entire society. The warrior culture civilization is appaulaed at this and there ends up being a larger conflict between the two. Eventually the 'total war' message gets driven home as a terrible thing and that any war should not exist other than to stop war altogether. Not a Siskel or an Ebert, just writting it up fast because this section isn't really that important(although I REALLY enjoyed the series ). Point of ALL that is, I think the developed nations see war as something other than the physical solution to a problem, and more of a political end of the rope, when diplomacy won't get what you want. I feel the detatchment of the populace of countries from the wars they wage is leading to a lapse in the restraint of wars, and that when a country's populace wants a war it is seen as futile as there is no political agenda behind it.

I wonder what the bill said verbatim, because I don't see why Bush would veto the ability to choose that your embryos be donated to research rather than simply destroyed. This seems like a very lack luster veto for the only one he's done =/

Guy1: please don't do that... Terrorist: what will you give me If I do? Guy1: stuf... Terrorist: Cool, so if I piss you off I get stuff? Guy1: F that forget the stuff...please stop doing that. Terrorist: why should I stop if there's nothing in it for me? Guy1: Well...I'll hit you! Terrorist: Well then I guess I'll have to defend myself! Jihad!!! Guy1: WTF? get dead! Guy2: Why did you kill that terrorist? Guy1: he won't stop doing things that I don't like! Guy2: deal with it... Guy1: I just did!!! Guy2: I don't like how you did that. Please don't do that... Guy1: what will you give me If I do? ... Circular problems like this have few answers other than compromise(not seen as a compromise from those making the concessions) or remove a part from the loop. Isreal it seems, is tired of making concessions that endanger their citizens.

did they have a pre-called state due to timezone shift though =P

The only problem I see with young politicians is the flip flop fad factor(jeez so many Fs). The older politicians will tend to stick to their guns, some may call it stubornness, but that's what you vote for, a viewpoint that you want. If the younger candadites are likely to change their view on an issue they would e a thorn in the side of those who voted for them. Another problem I see is that when lobbying their age will give off less authority and might have trouble gaining support from special interest groups.

oh I see =)

The straw man came from when the argument changed from you avoiding smoke, to avoiding smoke in a non-smoking area. protecting minorites from the tyranny of the majority comes to mind in this case.

My use of feesible was propably a bad idea, as I was trying to convey that they are not as easy a moneymaker. Also note that in your link the company's shares dropped 3% immidiately due to the change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Owning a non-smoking pub doesn't seem feesible(from the example) as if they made just as much money they would be much more accessable in a competative market. Based on that generally same pattern in most sectors of smoking changes, how does a ban on smoking seem like anything a business would want? If however these bans are only for the public health, I really can't see a reason to agree with them other than if you are a non-smoker wishing to gain access to areas generally associated with smoking without having to pay for the difference. It seems as though the people are using this sort of legislature to bulldoze through smoker's rights in an effort for "equallity" while harming business' on their way through.

I think you have the solution within your problem. Don't like the smoke, get away. If people stop going where smoke is present, then let the market forces drive establishments to remove smoking for you.

Smoking bans should be at the choice of the establishment, not the government. If certain public venues don't want to ban smoking they shouldn't be forced into losing a possibly key demographic to their business. You don't like a place that doesn't ban smoking? complain to the owner, not the government.

Freedom to Americans means the right to perform illegal activities when all parties involved are ok with it. Obviously any sort of big brother activities would infringe upon the blue law mentality of the people.

/wrists