Are you sure you're in the UK, John? You don't much sleep do you?


I know this country is in deep. Can't argue with you there. And now that Nader has decided to run for office again things look grim for change.
A zionist today is anyone concerned with the support and devopement of Israel. That would include many, if not most Jews. I don't have a solution to the mid-east problem and it's a whole other 100 post topic for sure, but Israel is in a very difficult position. It has told the Palestinians, stop blowing yourselves up and we will abandon the settlements and more. They have not complied so what motivation does Israel have to do this now?

If gay marriage were "legal":
Would the government collect less tax revenue from gays who are married (vs. them being single)? Would an employer have to provide health insurance for their gay workers spouse? When one gay spouse passes away, can the widow/widower then collect the deceased's social security and/or pension?

I didn't say all people are created "equally." And yes, it does (ostensibly) mean we should all have equal rights.

Ideally.

But we don't live in an ideal world - as you have conveniently ignored my examples of, up above.

So, don't dodge the question(s):

There are presumably MANY more minors in the country than there are gays, so lets dispense with any argument based on the number of folks that make up a certain class.

If the standard is absolute, that all people should enjoy equal rights, then children can drink, correct?

And they can drive, correct?

If not, why not?

Might it be because we recognize a distinction between a minor and an adult? And so these two classes of people do NOT enjoy the same rights?

I think its also safe to say there are more men than gays in America. Since everyone enjoys the same rights, men are allowed to choose to abort or to complete the gestation and birth of their children, correct?

If not, why not?

Might it be because we recognize that men don't have wombs and do not carry the children? And so the carrying mother and the impregnating father do not enjoy the same rights in the decision?

If we all enjoy the same rights, blind people can drive, correct?

...

I trust I don't need to go on.

Yes. An argument founded on the simply stated notion that "all people are created equal" and that we "all enjoy the same rights" is pretty naive.

I understand that is the oft-stated ideal of American society/politics, but really, anyone who has spent more than about one semester in some basic core-requirement social studies course should have realized that that ideal, as stated, is nowhere near in effect, nor is it approachable - or entirely desireable, even if it WERE attainable.

These are some of the issues at the heart of the matter, Tim.

Those in favor of gay marraige generally argue that yes, a "gay spouse" should enjoy all of the same benefits as a heterosexual spouse.

See my discussion with Nick (just above) regarding some of the real concerns surrounding these issues.

If you want to get just a taste of how some of these issues will ACTUALLY affect the REAL world, ask an insurance company actuarial what the impact of recognizing gay marriages will be on his company, and the insurance industry in general.

That's basically it in a nutshell. Some will get it, 85% won't!!!!

WOW this is WAAAY OT now.

Conspiracy theorists - UNITE!!!

Geez, don't get TOO patronizing with li' ol' stoopid me, puhlease?

A popularl story, appearing regulary among the fringe conspiracy theorists. Available on any number of websites claiming to have "Solved the Mystery of 9/11," "Uncovered the TRUE 9/11 Terrorists" and similar claims.

Too bad no actual facts support it.

Some helpful hints for you, eh..."Daddy":

1) Look up the NTSB transcript of the events surrounding the Payne Stewart incident.

2) Before reading the transcript, try to familiarize yourself with the concept of time zones and westward movement through them. (Bonus tip: Decipher the abbreviations "EDT" and "CDT")

Dispatched by NORAD???? or dispatched by the last NTSB Air Traffic Controller who had contact with the Stewart plane?

Do you REALLY think that those RADARs and the operators are looking for anything but UNIDENTIFIED FOREIGN aircraft? Do you REALLY think they track domestic commercial flights???

Check the NORAD directives. They don't track identified, domestic flights - even those that appear slightly off course.

Even knowing they only track what isn't being covered byt eh FAA, do you have any idea how many "unidentifieds" they tracked - without incident - in 2000? 20001? Between 150 and 200 PER YEAR.

Surprised they didn't "scramble an intercept" in "15 minutes" on 9/11? I'm not.

Even the most virulently "Pro-Conspiracy" timelines all concede that NORAD was not alerted to the fat that the planes were not responsive until AFTER flight 11 struck the WTC. 16 minutes before UA flight 175 also hit the WTC - south tower.

First, your timeline is off. How long was each plane in flight, out of contact AND seriously off course (remember ALL THREE conditions need to be present before that plane is considerd no longer "identified" and in control)? Try a max of 24 minutes.

Second, your facts are off. Was there an intercept or attempted intercept of UA flight 93?

Um, UA Flight 175 went 16 minutes without communication, before impact???

Nice.

Pleasant.

Maybe - just maybe - I don't subscribe to your nutball theory because I actually understand a bit about how air traffic is monitored and controlled, the distinction between the FAA and NORAD and I know soem of the FACTS (as opposed to goofy, paranoia-fueled speculation) surrounding the events of 9/11.

Were there errors? Sure. As there are in EVERY high stress, extremely quick paced situation.

Do I think there is the possibility that U.S. intelligence/officials screwed up - and MAYBE could even be implicated? Sure. It's possible.

But if you are going to try to convince folks of that with ill-informed rants about the role of NORAD, erroneous timelines of Payne Stewart's unfortunate demise and the hijacked planes on 9/11, you will have an understandbly hard time of it.

Real, actual, provable, facts would work best, for that job.

Uh, John, in case you didn't know ( you seem to "know" everything about everything.....) Tommy Franks
is not, was not, and will probably never be the "head of the army"..... :rolleyes:

It occurs to me that most conspiracy theorists are basically disappointed, bitter, former Star Trek convention attendees who enjoy their self-aggrandizing posture of the alleged knowledge of some "inside perspective" that only they and a few other "believers" share. They want so badly to believe in their own rightness, that they make this stuff up, regurgitate it all over each other, and then eat it up as if it were truth. It really doesn't matter where their so-called "facts" come from - as long as it supports their theory, they take little snippets of hearsay and extrapolate that to the nth degree to somehow or other support other non-facts. And certainly, if someone comes along and attempts to shoot down their theories, well... of course, those people are uneducated, unworldly, naive, simple minded and unable to comprehend the alleged story behind the story.

In reviewing the past few posts, the longer the rant, the more incomprehensible Mr. Gee becomes. I don't take issue with his point of view (which, however ignorant and misguided it might seem to me, is his prerogative) as much as his credibility. My question is, other than periodicals and internet websites, what first hand knowledge does he have of anything he professes to lecture us on? And, of course, posts with thinly veiled slurs, profanity and name-calling certainly don't add to the perception of any true intellectual plausibility - in addition to not really being appropriate for this forum.

ok, i hate to post on this topic now, when were are talking more about 9-11 than gays getting married lol. but here is my stance on the original topic:

first off, i don't claim to know anything about the world and they way it works. we are here for such a short amount of time that you aren't alotted enough time to truly grasp the meaning to every topic.

i have noticed thru all these posts that it looks like to me that the majority of the people posting are against Bush and his standings. i have no right to speak for him or anyone else on their personal beliefs to the issue at hand.

i have noticed that there were only a few christians that have posted to this topic.

i am a christian. i have made a choice to dedicate my life to living for god and doing his work as well as i can. i believe that as a christian, god wants us to react to the world around us and how he allows it to change. i belive that god gave man free will. thats why i cant force my religion on anyone. its a choice just as any other choice that someone makes. the free will that god allows man to have allows the choices of man to change the world either in a negitive, or a positive way. either way, i still am called to serve my purpose no matter what way the world changes. there will come a time when god will resume his role as king of everything including this world, but as of now man is free to have his will. but that doesnt mean that god doesn't use everything that happens in this world for his purpose. that is why i believe that everything happens for a reason. god's reason. this is what i choose to believe, please dont take this as what i think you HAVE to believe. as i said, you are free to think differently than me.

ok so this whole thing ties into my belief of:

if someone asked me if gays should be allowed to get married, i say that all i can do is cast my vote in what i believe is correct. if there was a imaginary vote ballot of

"gays allowed to be married?"
[] YES [] NO

and everyone had to cast their vote, and gays were allowed to get married, as a christian, i believe that it is pointless for me to take power against those who have expressed their will for this particular issue. instead i should take my life to the streets all that much more and spread what i believe to those who are willing to recieve. like many have said, everything happens for a reason. war, hunger, racial issues, discrimination, etc ect ect. i dont claim to know why in all cases, but i do know who. all i can do
is my best at loving everyone for what god has made them.

i dont want to start another 40 reply crossfire debate here but i do believe this too:

gays are not born gay. we are all created the same. it's the way god made us ever since the beginning. i belive that as humans, growing up we are super receptive to everything that happens around us. all the choices and decisions that a person, and the people that surrounds that person effect that person incredibly. i do belive that the "i was born gay" statment is something that is used as an excuse to be accepted for that person's personal choice to be gay. i have talked to homosexuals about that statement, and have recieved answers of, yes your correct, and no, your wrong. all i know is what i belive on that issue. homosexuals are just as human as straight people are. which means they deserve just as much love and attention from me as unsaved straight people do.

i am just as human as the next guy, i hope this doesn't sound like i have this holier than thou additude. i slip up A LOT. i mean A LOT. i make bad descisions everyday. i sin everyday. so dont think i am any better than anyone else.

i dont want everyone to think that this issue is just a religous related topic. everyone has their opinion, religiously based or not.

i think that nuendo sounds a whole heck of a lot better than pro tools! and YES, that does mean that if you are using pro tools your wrong to use it! IT'S JUST WRONG PEOPLE!!!!! USING PRO TOOLS IS DISGUSTING AND SHOULD BE BANNED!!!

lol just kidding

"i have no right to speak for him or anyone else on their personal beliefs to the issue at hand".

You have no right? Yes you do. Are you a Commie?