Typical reaction from you, mr 50
 

so predictable.

your point-by-point analysis of my post smacks of *personal attack*, but i'll ignore that.

putting the God myth in school textbooks just because many believe it is hogwash. people used to believe the earth was flat. some still do. the god myth was created by primative men who had no knowledge of science or scientific method. they believed in a geocentric universe and the bible (i assume this is your myth of choice) reflects this. If the bible is the word of god, how come he thought the earth was in the center? how can your god be wrong? i thought he was omnipotent.

so many believe in the god myth because it is taught to children before they have any reasoning or logic skills. kids would believe that the color blue is green if you told them that from the time they were babies.

to incorporate the god myth into public education, to me, is like teaching Tolkien as fact.

Here's a pretty good demolition of the Creationist Agenda and the God Myth in general;
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

religion kills.
more folks have died because of your god, or their god, or someone else's god than in all the traffic accidents, diseases and other causes put together.

believe what you please, but don't teach fantasy bs in the school system as 'truth'. We have come a long way in the last thousand years, why undo it?

anyway, sorry to go off topic like that.
:D

unit5302:

pretty reasonable arguments for a rightie except that your characterizing the deficit as something that hasn't happened is bull. there are CONTRACTS in place already. the money is SPENT just like your car payment for the next whatever period. just because you haven't received your bill yet doesn't mean it won't come.
unfortunately, every month the same bills show up.
:(

California, and every other state gets about the same bills each month/quarter/year. unless there are big disasters, most stuff is already calculable.

the deficit is real.
arnold is in over his head and we can have another recall if we get tired of him.
:D

i think the ONLY reason that people voted for him is that most people think arnold is his character that he plays in the movies. everyone knows the name, so he was bound to win right out of the box. once people realize he's just a guy, the novelty will wear off and we'll be saddled with the very reality of a republican gov in california.

i expect more recession, job losses and people and business flocking OUT of the state in the next several years.

i have been considering moving out of state.

"The God Myth"

You are entitled to your opinion. The good thing about it is unlike alot of debates. We will all get to find out if "The God Myth" is true or not.;)

Unit 5302 - You crack me up. You say, sorry Dan... but, your response says... "I am still right and Alexa can't be wrong, and I know your traffic is lower. The message board proves it." Well, you are wrong. Also, you are still trying to say it all hinges on message board traffic, and that is wrong too. Although forum traffic does help a lot, it doesn't necessarily determine overall traffic levels on a site as a whole. MW's media center, user's rides, articles, and several other areas of the site are HIGHLY popular... and receive a lot of traffic; even without the message board.

In addition, Alexa does not have access to our web server logs, and there is no way it can track our traffic with any accuracy. The only thing Alexa tells is that less people clicked on Google search links to go to MW than a couple other sites. So what? There are thousands of people who come here every single day directly, through other search engines, and by clicking on links at hundreds of other web sites. Alexa can't track that either. Maybe Alexa shows some rating or traffic tracking that is lower than some other sites, but that is only based on what it can track. That's only clicks through Google search page results and anyone who installs the Alexa toolbar on Internet Explorer (if it even has that capability). Again, so what. I've never even seen anyone who has the "Alexa toolbar" installed. That tells me how widely used that is. Google is only one of many search engines out there and only a small percentage of our overall unique users each day initially get here through a google link.

Regardless, I like how you just "threw in" trying to poke at MW during the start of a post that really had nothing to do with MW or its traffic. It appears like your purpose in posting within this thread was an attempt to slam on MW, be an advocate for our competition, and put down some of its members while you also claim to be more intelligent and knowledgeable than everyone else. Too bad.

Now:

1] The only reason the Female Power forum died was because GC2 has launched as a complete Web site (where MW and GC2 are partnered) with its own dedicated forums. And, thus this forum is being removed.

2] Please keep this thread on topic to Arnold, California, and politics. MW is not the topic. I have already stated my position, the facts, and feel no need to debate it further.

Snakeman, you got 1/2 the equation right, which is the spending part. The part you haven't seemed to notice is the income part. Income fluctuates with the economy. The deficit is projected income based on predicted economic conditions - spending.

In simple terms X - Y = Z.

Where X = predicted income, Y = known expenditures, and Z = the surplus or deficit. So, while Y is pretty much a known constant, X is not, and is based solely on forecasts. If the economy shifts, X increases dramatically, Y remains the same, and the deficit decreases dramatically.

In terms of Mr 5.0's faith, it's what he believes. Kansas believes it too, since they banned the most widely accepted scientific theory of evolution from their schools. Apparently, the knowledge we have aquired is more influential than the teachings of an old and outdated religious affiliation. That being said, the teachings of the Christian faith more than likely influence every decision you make as an adult American, regardless of whether you believe in the faith. Simply put, Christianity is the basis for almost all of our moral beliefs on what makes a "good person" good. To that, we obviously owe the religion quite a bit, but your analysis of the destruction and pain the very same entity has created as a direct result of the leaders' hypocrisy also contains great truth.

A brief summary would be that Christianity carries with it an extremely powerful and compelling concept that we are all loved and protected by a being with tremendous power, that we have the choice to continue existing, and that what we do in this life means something later. Fortunately, Christianity is meant to teach love, respect, and understanding. Unfortunately, such a powerful message is easily manipulated by the individuals with the responsibility to lead the faithful, and the people who seek such power often do so for their own benefit and agenda.

Dark 5.0, the mere notion that you would question my superiority over you in terms of intellegence, let alone all possible scenarios not limited to knowledge, wisdom, physical prowess, character, integrity, and charisma is just proof of your disasterous inferiority to me.

Simply put, you're apparently not intellegent enough to recognize just how much more intellegent I am than you. I apologize, but I cannot dumb it down more than that. Citing specific examples as I believe you requested would only depress you more as, by default, you wouldn't be able to understand them, either. Please accept my pity.

Actually, Kansas repealed that decision shortly after it was handed down. People took a look at the education vs. beliefs debate and realized they were absolutely ludicrous. Plus Kansans didn't appreciate being the brunt of the world's jokes (yes, everyone everywhere thinks that ruling was complete garbage because it means you can basically throw out your entire science program...god did it all and that's all you need to know. What a load of *****.). God may or may not be a myth, but it's wrong to do things in his/her/it's name. Some many people twist the meanings of the parables in the bible (yes, parables...if you take those stories as direct fact you're just a blithering idiot) into whatever they want it to mean. On the whole the bible is a compelling story, but it's antiquated. It's very anti-woman and in some cases anti-tolerance. Plus if you're a baptist and you read the KJV then you're reading the version that King James thought would be best, not necessarily the whole story. Simply put, the bible is just a novel written by men...I don't see god sitting at a typewritter and going "here...read this...it's good stuff". Be careful when putting your faith in things written by man because on the whole man is infinitely flawed.

Dark 5.0, the mere notion that you would question my superiority over you in terms of intellegence, let alone all possible scenarios not limited to knowledge, wisdom, physical prowess, character, integrity, and charisma is just proof of your disasterous inferiority to me.

Simply put, you're apparently not intellegent enough to recognize just how much more intellegent I am than you. I apologize, but I cannot dumb it down more than that. Citing specific examples as I believe you requested would only depress you more as, by default, you wouldn't be able to understand them, either. Please accept my pity.
_____________________________________________

I think you put it best when you were on this site crying like a little beeotch a few years ago when you said "I guess I will always be just an internet guy."

I have seen a picture of your ugly @ss so lets dont even get into the physical prowess part of your pathetic attempt to sound smart.

As far as character, integrity and charisma go you wouldnt know a damn thing about it. People with these properties normally are not chronic @ssholes.

I understand that trying to sound smart and insult everyone on the internet is your way of expressing your alter ego cause in real life you are a ***** *** sorry excuse of a real man.

If only you knew;)

***No one needs to take time to reply to my single insignificant post. Please read and move on.***

I just want to humbly confess that I am "just a blithering idiot." Have a nice day.

Name calling: 0 Rational Thought: 1
 

Originally posted by 84_GT350 :

Quote:

What gives Mr 5 0? I thought you'd made your point and were giving up on this thread.

Snakeman, to whom my last post was addressed (that's not you, is it?) simply annoyed me with his nonsensical outburst against Governor-elect Schwarzenegger and President Bush. It remains my option to post what and when I choose here, as it is yours

Quote:

You know...I've got a lot of respect for you what with starting this site (I cut my teeth on Mustangs with a lot of help from you and others on this site years ago) which is why I've tried to be as polite and respectable as possible. Apparently you haven't seen fit to return the favor. Apparently you just don't get it.

Oh, I 'get it' alright. Both you and Snake have a mindless hatred for Republican office holders that you can't help venting. Yeah, I 'get it' very clearly. As for your 'respect': I do appreciate that but it has no bearing on what I post to anyone. My last post - again, directed at Snakeman - reflected his rather nasty little attack on Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush. I responded in kind, as I always do. You previously posted fairly calm messages to me and I replied in the same manner. Post nasty diatribles and you'll receive the same tone from me. Reaping and sowing I believe it's called. That's bibical.

Quote:

All you've done is revert to meaningless sanctimony and typical rhetoric about "flaming liberals" that I hear everyday watching TV. Guess what...some of us don't like prayer in schools or presidents who get elected solely based on their last name.

All I've seen from you is calling a wildly successful actor with a degree in Economics and the holder of a huge fortune made in business as well as blockbuster movies - 'a moron' and you insinuate that he ran for Governor just to stoke his ego - which is nonsense, in my opinion, which is what all our exchanges amount to, for the most part. Guess what? Many Americans do want prayer in schools and think your dismissal of a successful president like George W. Bush is based on nothing but silly criticisms like his pronounciation of 'nuclear' and the fact that his father was once president, as if this enabled the elder Bush to negate Americans votes to somehow sneak his son into winning the presidency. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? . You willfully ignore President Bush's successes in favor of issuing petty insults and you seem to actually believe this equates to rational argument when it's simply childish name-calling.

Quote:

Yes, a president should among other things speak with poise and meaning because, among other things, it's a sign of intelligence.

Yeah, Bill Clinton's Arkansas drawl and 'Aw, Shucks' mannerisms really impressed people no end. Not. Do you not yet see how foolish this superficial nit-picking sounds - and how useless it really is?

Quote:

I like how you pointed out the electoral college. If not for that we'd have the lesser of two j@ck@sses seeing as how Bush didn't win the popular vote.

The Electoral vote determines the winner and by the way, Bill Clinton never won the popular vote, either, and liberals never complained one bit. Your low opinion of Bush and Gore is yours to hold but don't be so shocked and annoyed when others - like me - challenge you on it. That's how adults interact when they have political opinions so you had better get used to it if you want to go around bashing politicians based on little more than superficial nonsense like their accents.

Quote:

Just because a person may lean more toward the "liberal" side (if you'd payed attention in Poli-Sci class you'd know the entire American political system is classically liberal) does NOT make them a "flaming liberal". So why all the hate?

'Hate'? Nice try at projection but I wasn't the one who called Governor-elect Schwartzenegger a 'moron' and spews contempt for the president...that would be: bi]you[/b], Kansas. Want to try again? You did get one thing half-right. The political system in the United States is 'classically' liberal, but that has zero, nada, no relation to the political liberalism we're discussing here, of the current Democrat variety which borders on and often embraces socialism. I suggest you be more cautious about attempting to lecture those you don't know about politics as they may know a whole lot more about it than you've leared in that Poli-Sci class you slept through, based on what you've posted here.

Quote:

Seems to me you feel so wary or insecure about the validity of your own beliefs and ideas that you feel the need to ridicule anyone who's opinions differ from your own.

Ooooh, I love it when liberals try to play the psychoanalysis card. It's so cute. Unfortunately, ridicule is what Snakeman's opinions deserve and that's what they got. You want a serious, factual discussion? I gave you that, earlier, despite your silly name-calling, because I was trying to show you something, which you ignored and then boastfully and stubborly refused to concede that Arnold Schwartzenegger might be a better man than you gave him credit for. You want to post stupid name-calling attacks on Republicans you don't like: you get ridicule. Do you still not understand how this works, yet? Pity.

Quote:

You said yourself that you'd like to see certain things happen just "to see leftists and die-hard athiests squirm". Why?

Are you sure you're really a college student or are you just faking it here? Do you not understand hyperbole. If you don't, look it up. New at political discussions on the internet, perhaps? You really need to learn how to determine and separate a rather clear overstatement meant in jest to a serious remark. Really.

Quote:

You wanna talk arrogance? This country is NOT based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. People of every religion and faith live here and I can't believe you'd be so arrogant to disregard them just because you don't agree with them.

Get a clue. Contrary to what some Professor may have told you and you swallowed whole because you liked what he said: the United States was founded by serious, religious men who used Christian principles and respected and admired the Judeo-Christian heritage that the folks on the Mayflower brought with them in 1620 and that ran through America in 1776 and has continued to do so up until today. We are not a secular country, despite what secularists want. We are a nation of many religions, granted, but we are not secular. Government is secular but even then, government acknowledges the wealth of religious faith that underlies the miracle of freedom and democracy that is America.

Quote:

But then again that feeds into my other point. Myself, I'm agnostic...NOT atheist. I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know who or what god is and those who DO claim that or that they know "what god wants" should be ashamed of themselves.

No one asked about your 'religious' beliefs here but since you saw fit to inject them: that 'unknowable God' stuff may make you feel better about rejecting religion so you can do as you please without any guilt and I understsnd that but you apparently have no clue whatsoever as to what Christianity is truly about. Your agnosticism is yours to cling to but your ignorant attempts to dismiss Christianity are not appreciated and show little tolerance for others. I tolerate all religions as well as atheists and agnostics but I do not accept what they choose to believe. They feel the same about my religion, of course. No problem, but the bashing of Christianity in America is getting too obvious to ignore and I will oppose that when I see it, especially when done by those who preach 'tolerance' for every other perversion known while bashing Christianity, one of the best forces on earth for the betterment of people.

Quote:

Clinton was a total douche and I love how people dredge him up every time there's a democrat-republican debate, like he's a good example.

Really? I've never heard a Democrat say a bad word about Bill Clinton. He is held by many Democrats to be the finest president in the last-half of the 20th century. Clinton is often favorably compared to Bush for his oh-so-impressive speaking abilities and of course, the great economy 'he' made possible in the 1990's....a cherished Democrat myth. You apparently don't get out much in political circles and seem to have little understanding of the things on which you try to convince us you actually know something about.

Quote:

Here's a crash course in politics: EVERYONE LIES ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE. It's not a party thing. You use words like "us" which to me says you feel you represent an entire party or school of thought. Trust me, I know some die-hard republicans who would be embarrassed by your diatribe.

You're becomeing ridiculous now. Trust me, Kansas, die-hard liberals would think you were doing just fine with your mindless name-calling and inane statements here. You're coming right out of the Democrat playbook only you delude yourself that you're some kind of rugged political independent. Not a chance. As for me: I'm a conservative Christian and I vote Republican. Not ashamed to be partisan one bit and I do not apologize for it. We need partisans on both sides but hiding behind the 'independent' tree is just being too wishy-washy to take a real stand, politically, while pretending you're an independent thinker. I don't see any of that in your posts, just witless Republican-bashing and name-calling to elected officials, proving nothing but your lack of substance on the issues.

Quote:

Yes, America is pulling back from the left but that's because they're scared and many to the right have a "if I can't understand it then it's gotta die" attitude (notice I said many, not all). When people are frightened they'll turn wherever they can for a feeling of comfort. Why these people think the right will give them comfort is beyond me...like wars with anyone anytime anywhere will make us that much safer. But there you have it.

Yeah, and there you have the empty liberal version of what the war on terror is about. You are so far wrong that it's rather sad, actually. Here's a 'crash course' in political and foreign policy reality for YOU: America is under an unrelenting attack from radical Islamists and it did not begin and end on 9/11/01. The current administration is doing everything in their power to halt the spread of terrorism to America by cutting it off at it's knees in the middle east, where it florishes and grows. Liberals think this is a bad thing, apparently, and do nothing but attack the president and whine about the war in Iraq. The majority of Americans, despite the 24/7 trumpeting of the liberal media that attack Bush, see the war on terror as necessary and vital to our security and way of life. No one wants another 9/11. That the Bush administration is fighting terrorism on many fronts in many ways is clear and that is what is turning Americans away from the always-negative, weak-on-defense Democrats that want to defer our national security to the United Nations and have the approval of France before making a move against our enemies. That foolish attitude and the constant attacks on Bush trun normal people off and probably ensure a Bush re-election in 2004.

Quote:

Basically I think everything you've said is incredibly biased and pompous and that you need to open your mind a little more to other possibilities. I know it's scary...but there's a good chance you aren't right.

Well, basically, I think you have only the smallest understanding of the way America was founded and the political system works. You spout the liberal line very well, then believe you're independent because - what - you didn't like Clinton? It's not personalities that matter, it's policy and ideology, of which you show little grasp. It may surprise you but I've read all the Democrat/liberal positions many times and seen them debated and have debated the issues myself, more often than I like to. You see, I educate myself on the issues, the history and ideology behind the issue. You call people 'morons'. Big difference and one that is clearly and painfully obvious. I suggest you either become educated on what you're posting about or quit now while you're ahead as this is going downhill real fast.

A friendly hint: Compared to Unit 5301, I'm a loveable teddybear. He's very sharp - and very cynical - and never gives an inch so I wouldn't advise even trying to debate him with the meager rhetorical weapons you possess.

Re: Typical reaction from you, mr 50
 

Originally posted by Snakeman
:

Quote:

so predictable. your point-by-point analysis of my post smacks of *personal attack*, but i'll ignore that.

If you choose to post snide and petty attacks on public officials here then don't complain when your attacks are challenged. I do post analysis sentence by sentence, point by point, to exclude protests of "I never said that' and to clarify what I'm posting about. Works very well, especially in longer posts or those with many different points being made.

Quote:

putting the God myth in school textbooks just because many believe it is hogwash. people used to believe the earth was flat. some still do. the god myth was created by primative men who had no knowledge of science or scientific method. they believed in a geocentric universe and the bible (i assume this is your myth of choice) reflects this. If the bible is the word of god, how come he thought the earth was in the center? how can your god be wrong? i thought he was omnipotent.

Snaky, you cannot for one moment prove to me there is not a God. You must know that. The atheist explanations of how the universe, the earth and man came into being are improbable except to those who want to believe them. On the other hand, I also know that I cannot prove to you that God exists in a tangible way and the bibical explanations of how the universe, the earth and man came into being are clearly seen as nonsense to you and thus, summarily rejected. I'm willing to let it rest there, unless you want the whole atheist/Christian debate to start here again. I'm willing but not anxious as nobody 'wins' - but I will defend my faith if you choose to ridicule it.

As for your claim that 'God thought the earth was in the center' (of the universe)...I have no idea what you're referring to except some atheist canard submitted as fact that twists something written in scripture. Elaborate or drop it.

Quote:

so many believe in the god myth because it is taught to children before they have any reasoning or logic skills. kids would believe that the color blue is green if you told them that from the time they were babies.

Well, by gosh, they didn't fool you! Another rugged individualist who makes his own reality and calls it rational because he's at the center of it. Neat. Foolish, but neat.

Quote:

to incorporate the god myth into public education, to me, is like teaching Tolkien as fact.

Oh give us all a break. You really think I have the time much less any interest in going to some anti-Christian, atheist website? Not likely, Snaky. I'll go to yours if you go to my pro-Christian, anti-atheist sites. Better yet, let's skip the whole exercise. I know full well what atheists think of Christianity and I've read all the arguments and had many debates over this subject, in person and on messageboards. By now, you appear to have at least a clue as to what Christians believe. Neither of us need to read more propaganda from the other side and even if we bothered to do so, I can guarantee that no one's opinion will be changed so why bother. You atheists demolish nothing but you make a lot of claims and ask a lot of 'questions' that you've already answered - in your favor. Ive been there - and it's really tiresome.

Quote:

religion kills. more folks have died because of your god, or their god, or someone else's god than in all the traffic accidents, diseases and other causes put together.

Absolutely wrong on every count but a popular atheist talking point I've seen a thousand times. Did you actually think you had an original thought, there? Atheist communist dictators like Stalin and Mao caused tens of millions of deaths in nations where no religion was ever allowed, far more than any religion ever caused, although the Islamists are catching up, but slowly.

Quote:

believe what you please, but don't teach fantasy bs in the school system as 'truth'. We have come a long way in the last thousand years, why undo it?

'Religion' won't be taught, creationism may be, someday. , at least as an alternative to Darwinism, which is as much unproven as the existence of God in tangible form. Sounds fair to me.

Re: Name calling: 0 Rational Thought: 1
 

AHHHHHHH! No...apparently you still don't f@cking get it. I DO NOT "mindlessly hate" republican office holders. I simply dislike those who I believe are not up to the task and/or who are doing a bad job. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICAL AFFILIATION. I don't know how I can make that any clearer so there it is.



His acting career doesn't even have the slightest bearing on his intelect. Next thing ya know you'll be telling me Steven Segal is a genius because he's a successful actor. I'll give a little on the economics degree but a degree doesn't necessarily dictate intelligence either. There's plenty of degree-holding professionals out there who don't have a clue. Perhaps I should've made my reasons for my dismal thoughts of our fair president more clear. Besides having the grammar of a 10 year old and, in my estimation, the intelligence to boot, here's some more reasons. First, our economy is in one of the the worst states it's been in my admittedly short lifetime. People are loosing jobs left and right and I haven't seen a single thing done about it yet (I'll throw in yet...let's see if he can pull something out of his @ss on this one). His "leave no child behind" program does absolutely nothing but put a higher stress on teachers and an economical strain on already wafer thin city and state budgets. So far, I've seen no REAL progress in the "war on terror". Yes, our men and women fought in Afghanistan and are still in Iraq and god only knows wherelse but the fact is we're still supposed to be in a "constant state of alert". IMHO, he's left our people in harm's way way too long and he seems to be just itching for any chance to keep them there. He's also done the diplomatic equivalent of thumbing his nose at anyone who doesn't agree with us like their opinions are invalid...great foreign policy tactic.



I'm neither shocked nor annoyed at anything except the fact that you've completely ignored anything I've said regarding my political affiliation (or lack thereof). You still lace your posts with words like "liberal" or "democrat". Guess what...I'M NOT EITHER ONE. Unless you feel like calling me a liberal because it either makes you feel better or because I tend to do my own thinking instead of choking down whatever my political friends tell me to think. I think I cleared the rest of that up in the above paragraph.



I used the word "hate" simply because that's what your disdain for anyone left of conservative seems closest to. Just because I called Arnold a moron doesn't mean I hate him...can't say I know the man personally. Just because I don't think he's up for the job is a far cry from hating him. Now who's being a projectionist? As far as classical liberalism vs. practical liberalism, I'm quite aware of what you're saying. Just pointing out that in the eyes of the rest of the world we're ALL liberals (yes, that includes you) so I don't see the point in throwing that word around. I also think your views on the democratic party are pretty skewed. I'd say they're pretty far off from socialism. What's your next trick? Call them all pinkos or commies? But if that happens then I call you a reactionary and it just never ends. You know...political parties don't always have to be like two little school kids calling each other names. Like it or not we have a bicameral political system and you're going to have learn to get along with "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever name you want to paint on them or else nothing will ever get done. And I assure you...I've been quite awake in all of my poli-sci classes and my american government classes so don't discount my knowledge just because you don't like what I have to say. I've given you that courtesy and I'd appreciate it returned.



You still speak of republicans and democrats as seperate beasts. In reality they're much more alike than I'm sure you'll ever admit. Everybody wants pretty much the same things done but has different ideas on how to get there. They also resort to the same petty name calling and bickering. When you speak with such intolerance it makes anything you say hard to take seriously.



Trust me....if I didn't understand hyperbole I wouldn't have been able to stomach much of what you've said. And honestly...with the remarks you've made I'm honestly not sure when you're serious and when you're not. You know...like when somebody says enough things that are ridiculous or sarcastic you begin to wonder when they're serious and when they're not?



Yes...FOUNDED. And that's even a stretch if you consider landing in a pretty random place and then chasing/killing off the native peoples and taking whatever you want then enslaving other to do what you don't want to do part of judeo-christian beliefs (unless I missed that part in philosophy of religion. If you have documents that say otherwise please send them my way). It may have been FOUNDED on those principals but it is far from BASED on those principals. Not to be a huge downer...but you're talking about 380 years ago. Last I checked a lot has changed. If we were so judeo-christian there'd be no seperation of church and state as many christians seem to like to cram their message down anyone's throat whether they want to hear it or not (and this is coming from the son of a fairly democratic ex-priest). Simply put, religion holds ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS in modern day politics other than as a platform to win the votes of other church/temple goers or as a finger-pointing campaign like prayer in schools or the ten commandments on judicial buildings. It's all just soundbytes.



Oi...again...as I stated, I don't "reject" religion. I merely don't see any point in picking one, blindly following it, and calling all those who don't believe what I believe wrong. Please, don't tell me I know nothing about religion. As I said, I'm the son of an ex-priest so I know enough not to know it. I'm just lucky enough my parents (my father especially) was kindly enough not to ram it down my throat. I can see your parents didn't afford you this courtesy. Again...I'm not dismissing christianity...but I'm not embracing it either. Nor will I dismiss any other religion because they can't all be right and there's an excellent possibility that none of them are. I know how it must drive you nuts to know there are others out there with different ideas about god and that you can't stop them. The reason people bash christianity in America is because the spotlight as of late has been on a lot of negative things that the church is committing and then deposing. I'm not sure people are knocking the religion as a whole, but rather generalizing it for bad acts of a few(priests molesting boys, the nomination of an openly gay bishop which, while not bothering me, seems to really piss off 700 Club fans). Trust me, this I get. But I also realize that many of christianity's bigger symbols are simply codes of living that any man of any faith can embrace. Everything from the parables of the bible to the ten commandments. There's nothing special there...just stories and rules that, if you're a good person regardless of your faith, you already live by anyway.



Ok...hopefully this will get across my lack of political loyaties. I totally agree. Clinton was a total @ss who disgraced the job with his very presence. I'll compare him to Bush only in the light that I think they've both done this (unless, as I stated before, Bush can pull something out of @ss real quick). While you may not agree that he made the economic upturn in the 90's possible (I honestly don't care if he did or not...he's still a dickweed), you have to realize that people will give him credit for it. I doubt many of the decisions Bush is handing down are his own, but people will give him credit for those as well. All of the presidents of the last 50 years have only been as good as the people they have doing their thinking for them.



Apparently I need a copy of this "playbook" of which you speak because you still haven't gotten the fact that I'm neither liberal nor a democrat. Perhaps this post will clarify why I make the distinctions I make and if they don't then I can't help you. For what it's worth, I think staunch political loyalties are a huge mistake. If that's the case then this country is screwed. Nothing will ever get done because of pety difference and partisan bickering not to mention endless philibusters on bills that could help the people of this country. As I said before...the main function of any given government is the protection and well-being of it's citizens. I don't see that with a purely partisan attitude. There need to be people out there like myself and many others who just call it like they see it with no across the line voting and support of initiatives and ideas that are actually good rather than voting on who those ideas are coming from.



This I can semi-agree with. I DO think there needs to be a war on terrorism but I don't think we're doing it the right way. America may be under unrelenting attack from radical groups (although some are in our backyards...not halfway around the world) but soon, if we keep up this trend, the rest of the world will be under unrelenting attacks from US. The only things I can see to criticize here are that we've gotten to the point that we're almost as bad as those we persue...we're (as I stated before) like a drunk in a bar swinging a bottle. Pretty soon it's going to be the diplomatic equivalent of "what the hell are you lookin at France?". I think we may have gone a bit too far on this. It also seems ike some think that now is a good time to get all of those people we just plain don't like. Take Cuba. The last time they were anything near what you could call terrorism was during the missle crisis. But hey...we can go after them because it'll look good to the hispanic community. You may not agree with Castro and his form of government but you can't say they pose any harm to us. Besides...he'll be dead soon and the Cubans can do whatever they want. I also don't believe vague thinly veiled threats being announced helps anyone. "Be on the look out...but we're not sure for what or for whom.". WTF is that? Does that mean that taxi driver who doesn't speak good english is a terrorist or that the nuclear missle cruising over my head is a threat? Plus I honestly don't see a huge reduction in the propensity to commit terrorism or in the chance of another attack. Go into their countries and piss them off even more....sounds like a good plan. Although that's a catch 22...can't exactly sit around and do nothing either. Lesser of two evils I suppose. Also, I'd like to see this liberal media you speak of. I watch quite a bit of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC and besides those two jack@ss crybabies Donahue and Geraldo I haven't seem much. Unless you count Hannity's retarded step-brother Colmes (sp?)



You couldn't have illustrated my point of you're inability to grasp anything I've said any better. I consider myself nothing...not an independent, not a democrat, not a republican. If I spout a "liberal line" it's only because I support those things which I believe are right and some (though certainly not all) may happen to be a bit to the left. Whether or not you and I agree has nothing to do with my place in the political spectrum. Your belief that I'm uneducated on issues and simply reduce myself to name calling is yours to keep but I assure you is greatly mislead. Just because I'm a good bit younger than you doesn't mean that I don't keep up with what's happening in our world (remember the word "our"...I'm sure it's been a while since you've used it) and do my reading on it. In fact it's most likely because of that age difference I have the open mindedness to see things for what they are and not for what some party tells me they should be. And before you accuse others of "name calling" I suggest you go back over your posts and count the number of times you used the terms "leftist" or "liberal" or some combination of the two of which I have stated numerous times I am neither. The funny thing is that I think you and I are more alike than you'd care to admit...we just believe in different means to the same ends. Although I'm sure you're inflexible enough to even realize that.

This just confuses me...I don't have a clue what that's supposed to mean.

Dark_5.0, I'm a chronic ******, as you put it, because I sometimes have to deal with people at your level, and it's incredibly frustrating and difficult for me to suddenly stop using 75% of my brain to communicate directly with you. I don't need to respond to you further. As typical, you're out of your league with me.

Mr 5 0, you must enlighten me on this Unit 5301, he sounds like my kinda guy!

84_GT350, Mr 5 0 is politely advising you to avoid getting into a debate with me based on my critisism of your position. He is right. I am a lot meaner than him. Of course I think I already made my point, and left you out of it for the most part.

In actuality, the Democratic & Republican parties are very different from one another as a general rule. Democrats are fiercely loyal and dependant on one another. Very rarely will you see one buck the trend against how other Democrats are voting/speaking. Republicans; however, will vote much more independantly, based on what they feel is the best for their constituents. Democrats are masters of the negative campaign, and disrespectful debate. It's been sick to watch every single Democrat vs anybody debate I've ever seen. Not only will the democrat refuse to let the other debator speak, but they'll basically sit back and lob insults the entire time. It's how they avoid letting people know what their policy is. If people knew that, the Democrat wouldn't stand a chance at getting elected. It's also why they run negative campaigns focusing on their opponents flaws instead of their own good qualities. What I've come to see is that I like neither party, but at least respect republicans. Both are partisan and often disagree just for the sake of disagreement.

Since we're all letting it out, I have no political affiliation, no religious affiliation, and no faith system I believe in.

What I really want to know is where did that post that I put in here explaining alexa ratings go? Must be that nasty edit/delete bug this place is so famous for. :p

Geee, I can't recall having to delete any posts for quite a long time now... wait a minute... perhaps that's because you left for quite some time! :p

Don't come here to bash MW, attack me on my own site stats when your not in any position nor have the logs to know what they are, and expect to be welcome. I'm not going to have you suck me in to a continual debate over MW. As I stated at the end of my post, keep this thread on topic to Arnold, California, and politics. MW is not the topic. I have already stated my position, the facts, and feel no need to debate it further. So yes, continued attempts at doing so will be deleted. That's my privledge, as you're certainly not the one flipping the bills to operate MW.

That's what confused me. The only thing I corrected you on was my brithplace. Like you said...that didn't have much, if anything, to do with me.

BTW...if you think this site is bad for edits/deletes, I could recommend you to at least one Chevy board where one disagreement with the owner will get you banned.

<------needs an IP blocker so he can go back and f@ck with that guy.

I love this place!
 

great site, dan!
i need to come by more and shake things up
hope you aren't irritated with me for baiting 5.0...
he's funny.

Arnold is pro marijuana though. He kicks asss!

Oh for the love of...if that's your entire basis on endorsing him do us all a favor and shut the f@ck up. If you've got anything else, I'd be more than willing to entertain it. Weed is for losers...have some self respect.

weed is for losers, eh?
 

arnold smoked a lotta pot...he's governor of california and worthy of great respect if you believe some of these guys.

george bush did cocaine, he's president of the USofA!

Cannabis (weed to the uneducated) has been approved for use as medicine in quite a few states, the Supreme Court just denied Bush's latest attempt to circumvent state's authority in deciding what is best for its citizens. Cannabis helps many people who are in constant pain, can't eat because of chemotherapy, and many other afflictions. Cannabis has never been attributed as the sole cause of death in the thousands of years that mankind has used it. prescription drugs like oxycontin (any Rush Limbaugh fans out there??), Nicotine, caffiene, even water toxicity cause hundreds, if not thousands of deaths annually.

but cigarettes and alcohol are legal, while harmless marijuana is put on the shelf as "worse than we thought" WTF does that mean? are the doctors that prescribe marijuana for their patients WRONG?

so, aids sufferers are losers because they need cannabis to fend off the nausea from the chemicals they have to take to survive...are LOSERS??? I hope your mother or father never has to endure chemotherapy without the benefits of medicinal quality cannabis to ease the nausea...
a new study has shown great benefit from cannabis in combatting the twitches/tics in Tourette's Syndrome sufferers.

current drug policy stifles research and denies the benefits of fiber-cannabis to farmers. anyone old enough to remember "Hemp For Victory"? it was a U.S. government slogan to get the public to grow hemp to aid in the war effort.
persecution of Cannabis smokers started in Texas when the cops wanted a way to harass the mexicans. let's stop the ignorance. Education = power
support NORML
support a reasonable drug policy in the United States.
http://www.norml.org

I don't think he was refering to smoking marijuana in a medicinal sense or for it's uses as a cash crop. I don't think there's anything wrong with using it as a medicinal remedy or as a means of making textiles, paper, etc. That, however, is a far cry from recreational use. Take it from a former loser...I smoked pot (or "cannibus" to those of us you'd like to think are uninformed) for 3 years just about every day so, while it may sound a little hypocritical, I actually know how badly it can screw you up. I watched good friends who had goals become listless wastes of space because they just wanted to get high. In that effect, yes, it's solely for losers who have problems they don't want to deal with. Cigarettes are legal because their metal effects are so minute that they're almost non-existant. Alcohol is legal because it can be regulated...you have no way of knowing how much tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC to those who are uneducated) is in one plant or one leaf or one joint. And NORML...NORML is a joke. They do lobby for it's medicinal use but they also advocate it's recreational use. That's a pretty slippery slope. They also believe that "drinking and operating heavy machinery while under the influence of marijuana should be prohibited". Ummmm....both are actually currently prohibited. So...to summarize:

1. Marijuana for medicinal uses (i.e. cancer patients, AIDS patients, etc) = good

2. Marijuana as a cash crop = good.

3 Marijuana because you can't deal with your problems = you're a loser.

Unit:

As long as you think you are smart I am happy for you.

You just keep on tooting your own horn and I will continue to live in reality.

You have got to be the most insecure and immature person I have ever run across.

Your standard response to everyone has always been. "Your stupid and not worth my time."

If nothing else your unjust arrogance has been amusing. Someone in your position calling me dumb deserves a good laugh.

You talk the talk but you can not walk the walk.

Closing the curtain, dimming the lights
 

84_GT350:

After wading through your last lengthy, and frankly, tedious message to me I've decided that this exchange is getting far too long-winded and has lost most of it's meaning as it has devolved into personal bickering, as most political arguments eventually and unfortunately do. If you won't stop it, I will, as it takes two to argue and I don't have the time.

I'll throw out a few of the more salient points I've made (that you've managed to ignore up until now) and beyond that, you can post to your heart's content if you wish but I'm done here. Life is too short ot spend this much time trying to educate those who already believe they know everything, even when they only grasp the barest edges of what they are pontificating about; in this case, politics and foreign policy. Despite what some folks think, I don't 'know it all' by a long shot - but you, my friend, have a lot to learn.

You made reference to the fact that I'm older than you, which is true. My school days are far behind me. You believe I'm not 'open to new ideas', which, if you knew me personally, you would know was laughable. I hate to deflate your assumptions but (outside of personal information) nothing you've posted here is new. Nothing. It's all been said before, many times many ways. Same goes for my posts to you, lest you think I'm being unfair. Conservative and liberal politics have been around long before either one of us was born. As you said: the two major parties are similar but where you are greatly mistaken is that their phiolsophy is anywhere near similar. It is not. Republicans are far more wary of taxes that burden the middle class and far more alert to the need for defense than any Democrat. It's n old debate and you appear to have taken - whether you realize or admit it - the liberal side. Your statements on the Iraq war and the ongoing war on terrorism are quite indicative of that mindset; the one you insist you don't have.

You're furious that I keep referring to you as a 'liberal' and I respond to that in this way: I call them as I see them; you know: if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's probably a duck. Same with those who insist they are independent, then spout the same ideas, same lines and attack the same people as admitted liberals do. I understand that you don't like Clinton and probably share some agreement with conservatives on some issues but it's my judgement, based on what you posted here - not what you claim to be - that you are, at heart (as it were) a liberal. I've been around politics for a long time and believe me, I know liberalism when I see it. Don't run from it, it's who you are, at least politically. Examine the tenents of the Democrat party and I think you'll find much you agree with, once you understand them.

Your agnosticism is common and I find it a bit sad but you're young enough to grow out of it some day...or maybe not. That's not my business, really. I have little interest in debating 'religion' with you as I stand firm in my Christian beliefs and don't need to defend them to anyone, especially anonymous strangers far away from me. Your resentment at the fact that America is, demonstrably, a religious country and that Christianity, especially, underlines much of our collective attitudes and does seep into politics is understandable, as you have no religion. That's your choice to make, for whatever reason, but it has little bearing on the 90+% of Americans that believe in God and more importantly, have a religious faith - often, Christianity in some form (Protestant or Catholic). That you believe that religious belief doesn't matter to people and has no play in politics is simply, well, naive.

Frankly, much of your commentary in this thread has been naive, starting with your shallow denouncations of California Governor-elect Arnold Schwartzenegger based - as far as I can tell from your posts - on the fact that he's a Hollywood actor who made violent movies and has an accent. This brings us full circle. This thread originally was about the election of Arnold Schwartzenegger as California Governor. We've managed to veer off in various directions, as is common on political threads, but I would contend once more that Schwarzenegger's election was not only a good thing for California but a sea-change in politics that allowed the people, via the ballot, using their power to decide who governs them and to me, that is the essence of democracy, even for those who didn't like the outcome.

With that observation I close our dialogue as it's clear that you will keep repeating the same things - I'll keep opposing them with facts you'll ignore - and no purpose is served. I try to discuss politics on a serious basis with those whom I consider at least serious enough to use up my time on. We had some interesting exchanges but frankly I've stated all the points I have to make here. I only came back to the thread to challenge 'Snakeman's' claims but you decided to take it personally and continued the exchange, which I responded to. Now, I see you're becoming strident and bordering on insulting - and so am I, which elevates neither of us so I think a respite is in order. That said, I close my part of the exchange as other sites, other issues, call. I wish you well in your studies and your life and I hope that some day you'll see at least a little of the truth of some of what I've given you. If not: oh well. It was an interesting exercise.

Mr 5 0

Finally! Something we can agree on. These posts have become way too long winded and tedious. While I can't say I bothered to read your entire post (I assume it was more of the same sanctimony and passive aggressive cracks at your belief that I'm naive, liberal and stupid) I will only say that when you debate theories, ideals, and opinions no one is truely right. I know you'd like to believe you are, but you're not. Neither am I. I've got my opinions, you've got yours. We're not going to ever agree so why get carpal tunnel syndrome trying to prove a point that the other one doesn't want to hear. I must say I'm a little disappointed at some of the seemingly below the belt and, as I stated before, somewhat passive aggessive knocks you attempted to take at me personally. Not sure how my opinion on someone neither of us has ever met got so personal to you (at least enough that yousunk below a standard of maturity I remember you having long ago) but I suppose that's the entire nature of all politics when two people don't want to budge. Besides, it's a moot point anyhow. I'll congratulate you on a good debate and just say that while I can't say I agree with you on many things I take no personal offense to that and hope you won't either. As for your opinions about me being naive...you're welcome to it but I assure you you're quite wrong. I will say, however, it's been a long time since I've seen a thread as lively as this one on this board in a long time. Interesting.

As for Dark 5.0's post...care to enlighten us on who/what that was about Dark? I got lost there.