Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Universe Prince

Pages: 1 ... 233 234 [235] 236 237 ... 244
3511
3DHS / Re: A Word on Guisling Traitor Losers from My Buddy Steve Gilliard
« on: November 08, 2006, 07:04:57 PM »
Quote from: Mucho on November 08, 2006, 06:14:21 PM

It is the favorite trick of Nazis to accuse the tolerant of bigotry in order to cover their own.


You ought to know. You're the one doing it.

Quote from: Mucho on November 08, 2006, 06:14:21 PM

It is true that I hate the SonderCommandoes who stole gold from the teeth of their fellow Jews and the blacks that slaughtered other blacks in Rwanda. Steele , Swan & Blackwell are of that ilk.


First you try to claim you're tolerant, and then you're equating people who politically disagree with you and/or Mr. Gillard first to Jews forced to participate in Nazi concentration camp atrocities and then to genocidal killers in Rwanda. The comparison is ludicrous and hateful. There is nothing tolerant about trying to say that Steele or Blackwell or Swan are the same kind of people who participated in genocidal killing merely because Steel, Blackwell and Swan are dark-skinned people who disagree with you. There is nothing tolerant about calling them traitors because they dare to disagree with what you believe they ought to think. It is, however, ironic that you're trying to accuse someone of being a Nazi while you are the one outraged that someone has opinions and beliefs you think they should not have because of their race. Clearly the only one being bigoted here is you.

3512
3DHS / Re: Just for Posterity
« on: November 08, 2006, 06:21:42 PM »
Quote from: Brassmask on November 08, 2006, 05:48:29 PM

I just know that Bush and Rove and them acted like it was just going to be a GOP landslide and they're shitting their pants today and firing Rummy.


As I recall the story, Rumsfeld is resigning. But surely this vast conspiracy of the Republican leadership is just chuckling behind the scenes to see folks like you so certain that they are "shitting their pants". You don't really think that folks who secretly planned and executed the terrorist attacks, and who so successfully rigged previous elections and covered it all up would be defeated by one election day, do you? Clearly this is all part of their master plan to cover their tracks. No one is going to believe they could fix elections and then let themselves lose. You're obviously letting yourself get misled by their smokescreen of pretending to lose control of Congress.

Yes, I suppose that was needlessly sarcastic.

3513
3DHS / lame duck Republican Congress - a reply to Sirs
« on: November 08, 2006, 06:06:12 PM »
Quote from: sirs on November 08, 2006, 04:45:53 PM

Do you think it plausibe that the GOP, in the time we still have left, would craft Gingrich-like legislation of a pay-as-you-go bill.  For whatever expenditures beyond what's currently budgeted for, that congress be required to offset that spending somewhere else? 

Beyond the obvious political posturing that all politicians get, when they can go back to their consituencies and claim "see, what I brought you, courtesy of the Country's tax payers?", I really wished that the conservatives of the GOP would have stuck to their limited Government principals.  But perhaps, they'll leave that for the Dems, so that they can be the ones to repeal it it and usher in gobs load more deficit spending


In short, no. I doubt they could get it passed in the time they have left, and I'm not sure I'd want them to try. A pay-as-you-go plan would be a green light to pass and/or attach to every new spending plan tax increases. It would possibly put an end to tax cuts, because then tax cuts would probably have to be accompanied by specific spending cuts, and I just don't see how that is going to work in Congress.

Anyway, wishing the Republicans had stuck to limited government principles assumes they had such principles in the first place. I think we've seen that they don't. This is not true of all of them, of course. A few, like Ron Paul, have stuck to their guns, but the majority have appeared to be quite willing to expand spending and government so long as they were the ones in charge. Which makes, for most of them, their rhetoric about limited government not principles but mere lip-service. Can you sense yet my disappointment with the Republican Party?

There are some folks who think there may be a "Libertarian Democrat" movement of sorts with in the Democratic Party. I haven't seen any real evidence of it yet. If I ever do, such candidates just might get my support. Ten, or even five, years ago I probably would not have said such a thing was possible.

My only real hope for the new Congress is there will be enough political obstructionism to slow things down. That is my hope. My expectation is that rather than gridlock, the Republicans will produce mere speed bumps as the political process rolls downhill. I mean, rolls forward, yeah, yeah, that's it, dow-, er, forward.

3514
3DHS / Re: Just for Posterity
« on: November 08, 2006, 05:40:40 PM »
Quote from: Brassmask on November 08, 2006, 05:32:44 PM

And now, somehow, they have failed in stealing the elections or successfully scaring the shit out of everybody.


So do you think the Republicans somehow forgot how to steal elections? The Algernon formula wore off and they have all forgotten their former wicked brilliance in stealing elections just in time for the 2006 election cycle?

3515
3DHS / Re: Horses or American jobs? Which is more important?
« on: November 08, 2006, 05:25:47 PM »
Quote from: Amianthus on November 08, 2006, 04:50:26 PM

It's part of their "gourmet burger" line. You pay a bit extra for it, like $1. Ostrich meat has a very low fat content, however, and tastes better than beef IMHO.


Hm. I was not aware of that. Thanks for the info, my friend.

3516
3DHS / Re: Horses or American jobs? Which is more important?
« on: November 08, 2006, 05:23:29 PM »
Quote from: _JS on November 08, 2006, 04:16:18 PM

Obviously this particular question is raised with this particular story because eating the flesh of horses is not palatable to Americans.


Well, the question struck me because if the law that has passed the House passes in the Senate, then people who were not doing anything wrong could easily be out of a job because the legislation will outlaw their business for no other apparent reason but that some people think killing horses is really mean. Which made me wonder where the voices were of the people who talk about keeping jobs in America, protecting the jobs of working people. Does no one care that the people who work at business of butchering horses may lose their jobs? Which in turn made me wonder if there was some sort of moral trade-off, American jobs versus the lives of horses. Personally, I tend to favor people over animals. I feel I should add here that I really like horses. I've admired, since my childhood days, horses as majestic animals. At the end of the movie Hidalgo, with the mustangs running free, I was literally in tears because the sight was, to me, simply and genuinely beautiful. So it is not as if I'm coming at this from a position of not caring about horses. But in this situation, I think the trade-off between people losing jobs and saving horses is a lousy one for the people.

Quote from: _JS on November 08, 2006, 04:16:18 PM

Your question is:
Quote
Is protecting horses worth the cost in jobs of working Americans?

Mine is:
Quote
How far would we go to have jobs in America?


To be fair, I'm not in favor of protectionist policies. I think the hoopla about "sending jobs overseas" is a lot of noise about nothing. Jobs are not physical, finite resources that we need to keep in supply. Jobs can be created almost anytime, anywhere by anyone. My objection in this case is not really that some people may lose their jobs (I believe they could find other work) but that some people may lose their jobs because some group is pushing for legislation to protect horses. It seems to me like a hollow morality that says screw the people but protect the horses.

Quote from: _JS on November 08, 2006, 04:16:18 PM

It is a strange issue really. We won't allow farmers to grow marijuana, but we allowed the transfer of biological nastiness to Saddam Hussein (such as Anthrax cultures) in the 1980's. We allow plenty of pornographic material and a clear market demand exists for it in this country, but we did not allow the day after pill until recently.


It is a fickle society did you say? Perhaps. It seems fairly reliable to me in that this or that moralistic group is always trying to get their moralistic preferences made into law so they can be enforced on everyone else. This is why I am disappointed but not surprised that so many objections to homosexual marriage are made into laws. This is why I am dismayed but never surprised by calls for bans on guns or bans on sodas in schools, et cetera.

Quote from: _JS on November 08, 2006, 04:16:18 PM

The logical approach to your question would be a cost/benefit analysis.


That is an approach, but I don't know if it is the most logical one. I suppose it depends on one's premises. For me, the logical answer to my question is simply 'no'.

Quote from: _JS on November 08, 2006, 04:16:18 PM

But we could just as easily ask another question:

Is protecting humans worth the cost in jobs of working Americans?


I confess I am not sure what you mean by that. Since I was asking about a situation involving the protection of horses from being turned into food for human consumption, I am not clear on what the human correlation to that would be. But then, I am thinking you didn't mean it that way. So what do you mean by 'protecting humans' in your question?

3517
3DHS / Re: Horses or American jobs? Which is more important?
« on: November 08, 2006, 04:35:04 PM »
Quote from: Amianthus on November 08, 2006, 04:15:11 PM

A number of Central American countries use monkey meat in cooking. That may be what it contained.


Hm. I hadn't considered that it might have been monkey meat. It definitely had a unique taste.

Quote from: Amianthus on November 08, 2006, 04:15:11 PM

Although ostrich burgers are really, really good. Many Fuddruckers in the US sell ostrich burgers.


As their standard fare, or does one have to ask for it?

3518
3DHS / Re: Horses or American jobs? Which is more important?
« on: November 08, 2006, 04:01:20 PM »
Of that I have no doubt, Amianthus. I have never had the chance to try either one. Though I did once, in Honduras, eat a burger with some mystery, and clearly non-beef, meat. It was delicious. And I have enjoyed alligator, bison and rattlesnake. I've heard that horse meat can be as delicious as beef, and I hope to try some one day.

3519
3DHS / Re: A Word on Guisling Traitor Losers from My Buddy Steve Gilliard
« on: November 08, 2006, 03:53:27 PM »
Quote from: Mucho on November 08, 2006, 03:34:20 PM

Of course it still exists,  silly boy.


So you admit your hatefulness still exists. At least you're honest about it.

Quote from: Mucho on November 08, 2006, 03:34:20 PM

It exists in the heart of all RW nutcases like Macaca Allen loser of PA.


And apparently in the hearts of left-wing folks like you and Mr. Gilliard.

Quote from: Mucho on November 08, 2006, 03:34:20 PM

Some are begiining to wise up , but not you I am afraid.


On the contrary, I am becoming more and more aware of just how much irrational hatred exists in the political left. Seems to me you and folks like Mr. Gilliard ought to be ashamed to show your bigotry, but apparently such hatefulness is something of which you are proud. Which makes me wonder why your brothers and sisters on the left are not more ashamed of you. Perhaps the supposed enlightenment of the left is mostly a sham, hiding the dirty remnants of bigotry both racial and ideological. No, I'm not saying all the left are are bigots. I'm just wondering why so many of them tolerate language and attitudes as hateful as yours and Mr. Gilliard's.

3520
3DHS / Re: I don't remember - did Pelosi say anything about
« on: November 08, 2006, 03:35:58 PM »
Quote from: terra on November 08, 2006, 03:21:27 PM

..After a  congress like the one we just had...one that worked two days a week and took long vacations. 


Someone remind me, why is that a bad thing?

Quote from: terra on November 08, 2006, 03:21:27 PM

Gosh this is exciting!! all the work that will be done!


Actually, I'm hoping for serious gridlock and political obstructionism.

3521
3DHS / Horses or American jobs? Which is more important?
« on: November 08, 2006, 03:26:29 PM »
Excerpts from "Mr. Ed Goes to Washington" by Jacob Sullum

                              Not content at trying to stop foreigners from catering to Americans’ taste for gambling, Congress is on the verge of passing a law aimed at stopping Americans from catering to foreigners’ taste for horse meat. I generally avoid the phrase cultural imperialism, since it’s often used by people who object to the voluntary consumption of American products by non-Americans. But when Americans want to forcibly impose their culinary preferences on people in other countries, it fits pretty well.

As supporters of the horse slaughter ban never tire of reminding us, Americans are not big horse eaters. The three U.S. plants that slaughter horses, two in Texas and one in Illinois, cater mainly to consumers in countries such as France, Belgium, Germany, and Japan. Since the plants are owned by foreigners and serve a foreign market, the National Horse Protection Coalition asserts, “no U.S. interests are involved.”

[...]

...My wife once discussed the strange American custom of treating cats like family members with a souvenir vendor in Guangzhou. Upon learning that we have three cats, the woman asked, “Are they fat?” One of them is a bit chubby, my wife admitted. “Oh, you should eat him,” the woman said. “They’re delicious.”		                             

Rest of the short column at the other end of this link.

So anyway, I'm wondering what all the folks who talk about the importance of protecting American jobs think of all this. Is it okay to eliminate American jobs if it means protecting horses? Is protecting horses worth the cost in jobs of working Americans?

3522
3DHS / Re: A Word on Guisling Traitor Losers from My Buddy Steve Gilliard
« on: November 08, 2006, 03:02:18 PM »
Thanks for reminding the rest of us of the hateful core of your and Mr. Gilliard's ideology. Disgusting bigotry such as Mr. Gilliard's comments and your own wording of the subject line need to be brought to light every now and again to remind people it still exists. Personally, I hope for the day when such hateful talk as yours and Mr. Gilliard's no longer pollutes our public discourse because the hate from which it flows no longer exists.

3523
3DHS / Re: I guess the evidence is in.
« on: November 04, 2006, 03:55:45 AM »
Quote

"We will await the outcome of this story, but the possibility that an illicit relationship has occurred is alarming to us and to millions of others," Dobson said. "The situation has grave implications for the cause of Christ."


Quote

"It's religious hypocrisy with a political rocket booster," said Kuo, who thinks politics is corrupting Christianity. "It's tragedy enough if a pastor falls, but this is not about a pastor falling. This is about a politician falling, and the politician is bringing down Jesus with him."


I am of the opinion these people have no idea what they're talking about. Bringing Jesus down with him? A completely inane and ignorant notion. How can these people be leaders in the Christian community?

3524
3DHS / Re: Gas prices HAVE been tinkered with
« on: November 04, 2006, 03:41:23 AM »
Quote

"Despite the blizzard of warring TV ads that voters have had to endure on Prop 87, the truth is that oil companies have abundant incentives against commercial development of alternative fuels," said Dugan. "The companies' most profitable scenario is to sell less product for steadily higher prices, even though they have tens of billions in spare cash that could be going to development of clean fuels. That's why voters have to ignore the negative ads bought by Chevron and other oil giants, and vote to get oil alternatives to a point where they're truly competitive."


Nonsense. Oil and energy companies know that the first one to solve the problems of efficient production and use of alternative fuels is going to make billions of dollars in profit. And this "tens of billions in spare cash", oh come on, don't be stupid. Oh yeah, all that profit just lies around, waiting for someone use a few dollars to take the crew out to lunch. People who have no clue how business works have no business (no pun intended) telling me how to think about businesses and corporations. We cannot vote alternative fuels into competitiveness. The idea that we can is just nonsense. If the folks complaining about a lack of alternative fuels in the market would instead spend their time doing or raising funds for research into alternative fuels and/or development of alternative fuel engines, then maybe we would actually achieve getting there faster. This constant whining about oil companies making too much money does nothing but contribute to an environment of envy and division when what we need is cooperation.

3525
3DHS / Re: Racial vs Intellectual Diversity
« on: November 04, 2006, 03:23:28 AM »
Quote from: The_Professor on November 03, 2006, 06:36:24 PM

The new testament. How about the numerous anti-homeosexual referecens made by Paul?


What about them? And since we're talking about the New Testament, I'd say we might be closer now to the idea of personal responsibility and service to others rather than lording over them than we were 50 years ago. But then again, given the nature of the words and political activity of the "religious right" perhaps we are losing sight of Biblical values taught to us in the New Testament.

Quote from: The_Professor on November 03, 2006, 06:36:24 PM

AS far as your last statement, earlier I indicated it was IMHO. I believe our governemnt should reflect Christian values. Obviously you disagree, and that is fine.


Whoa there, bub. I never said our government should not reflect Christian values. We were talking about American culture not government. Our culture is not a theocratic one and never has been. However important religion is or has been in our culture, we do not structure our lives around dictates from priests or pastors or holy men. They may teach us moral rules for living, but they do not rule our lives with authority. Anyway, when people start talking about comparing our culture to Biblical values or some such, I always want to ask why this is to be our standard. And almost invariably the answer involves something to do with our government and/or our laws. People wanting to "return" to some sort of Biblical standard frequently seem to mean imposing their moral preferences on other people via legislation. You did not say that, but you did turn from talking about American culture to talking about the American government. So which one are we talking about? Christianity reflected in government or in culture?

Quote from: The_Professor on November 03, 2006, 06:36:24 PM

Tell you what: get together 50 reps from a wide selection of Christian denominations and be guided by that, if this compromsie will serve.


Will serve what? And why do I need 50 representatives of Christian denominations to guide me? Do you think I am incapable of a my own personal relationship with God and making up my own mind about such matters?

Pages: 1 ... 233 234 [235] 236 237 ... 244