652 Forum Posts by "Boltrig"
At 1/31/07 06:34 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: She's a female, she's entitled to become president, it's her sexual right.
Constitutional you mean? And shes entitled to run you dimwit. If everyone were entitled to be president then there would be nothing to stop everyone walking into the white house and saying "Im prez now. Im entitled!"
Sexual right? My god, go retrieve your last 3 brain cells from their glass case and use them before posting.
Well you do have to admit creationism is a bit, yknow, wrong. Evolution has been proved. The way I see it, even if there is a god, then it probably started things off and let it be.
At 1/31/07 02:45 PM, Kenzu wrote: I think Gays should have equal rights, BUT they shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, because children can be easily manipulated and I think it would increase the amount of homosexual people in our society, which doesn't benefit the population growth.
Thats a contradictory statement. Either youre for equal rights or for more rights, just not equal ones. You cant say youre for equal rightsexcept certain ones.
I agree with you but for other reasons. Same sex couples are not breeding pairs. Infertile couples yeh sure. Under normal circumstances they would be able to have kids on their own, but gay couples no matter what cant concieve and have kids of their own, so technically they shouldnt be allowed to adopt.
But thats getting off topic. If they are getting the right to adopt, then it should be from state funded agencies only, and faith based at the agencies discretion.
At 1/29/07 09:31 PM, JMHX wrote:At 1/29/07 08:00 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:Oh true that, man, true that.
i hate british people because they all have weird shaped heads and are named simon
My names not simon... Although Im Scottish, so by that list, I should be a barbarian.
..
Kick ass!
*Changes name to Cohen*
At 1/29/07 08:00 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
I'm generally a rightist politically, and i'm not big on political correctness[...]
Thank god, Im not alone! All of us must hold fast and try to bring some reason and common fucking sense to this PC crazed culture!
At 1/29/07 09:08 PM, Aevo300 wrote:
I, for one, support the act.
I dont belive that people's religious rights should be in any way shape or form discriminated.
however, i dont belive somebody should have discrimination thrust upon them because of a way they were born.
so really its either discriminate someone for a choice they make in believing in some superior being that supposedly controls a universe, an entire belief based on a book written almost 2000 years ago..
OR, discriminate someone for a choice they CANT make and do not let them have the right to adopt because in one section of one book says its bad.
Christians can believe whatever they want to, but gays dont have a say in the matter. Being opposed to someone because of the way they're born, is just pathetic.
Saying that the Bible is irrelevant (which your argument pretty much amounts to) belittles the religions founded upon it. Belief is just that. Sometimes irrational, but a matter of personal choice nonetheless.
Im not arguing that gays shouldnt be allowed to adopt full stop. Im saying that the adoption agencies funded in part and run by the denominational groups should be allowed to stick to their beliefs. The new legislation will mean that gay couples can adopt from non-denominational agencies anyway. What does it matter if faith based ones dont allow it.
If you say to christians, "well that part of your faith is contrary to what we as a government deem forward thinking" then you pave the way to start taking the whole thing apart.
And I think you'll find gays do have a say in the matter - how else did this new legislation come about in the first place?
At 1/29/07 08:48 PM, JoS wrote:
Not only that but including countries like Saudi Arabia, a major terrorist state (like it or not there are a lot of terrorists and terrorists connections in SA) would require them to open up their country to the US and others intell. agencies, essentially consenting to being spied upon. Who would ever do that.
Thats a very good point. It works in reverse as well. The US and UK, edgy after being targeted by terrorists on more than one occasion, would be dubious about openly sharing information on military and intellegence matters with whatever middle eastern nations were included in the Alliance.
Fearing the infiltration of extremists or extremist sympathisers into the Muslim nations delegation, the mutual distrust would undermine any attempt at a coherent organisation.
At 1/29/07 03:24 PM, sex-crazed-maniac wrote:At 1/29/07 03:08 PM, Boltrig wrote:Company?At 1/29/07 11:38 AM, sex-crazed-maniac wrote: I really hate Jade Goody. I mean here IQ is lower than her shoe size. And what the fuck is she doing in the house again anyway?I think the question should be what the fuck was her mum doing there?
I think it was to keep an eye on her. Y'know considering she has the mental capacity of a ham sandwich.
At 1/29/07 07:40 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I dont see why gay couples would want to have a marrige cerimony in a church, couldn't they just rent a golf course and then hire a judge to do it?
Gay marriage is a whole other kettle of fish. Its adoption that sthe problem, namely forcing faith based agencies to allow adoption by gays, despite it being against their beliefs.
At 1/29/07 03:24 PM, DrBrainTrust wrote: I'm not 100% sure of how they run things in the UK, but typically if you're running an orphanage you have to have some kind of government certification in order to ensure proper child welfare, right? Also, designating one as a child's legal guardian is a governmental matter as well. So if discriminating against potential parents based on their sexual preference is something the government doesn't allow, then it would be the government's right to either force the orphanage to allow gays to adopt or revoke their certification, effectively shutting them down.
Certification isnt the same as having control over it. The whole thing seems to me that the governemnt is caught between:
1) Discriminate against the church and force it to accept gays, or
2) Let the church stick to its religious rights and have the gays whine at discrimination, despite the fact that they can use a non faith-based agency instead.
I gotta go with the second option.
As a side note, wouldn't it be kinda unchristian to close down your orphanage out of religious pride, leaving the children to the care of secular institutions (which, I assume, was what the Christians in question wanted to avoid when they started their orphanage) rather than letting gays adopt them. Not to mention the whole "judge not lest ye be judged" thing.
Maybe youre right, but if the church lets gay couples adopt through its agencies, thats even more fundamentally unchristian. And it wasnt men who "judged". It was the bible, which is supposedly the word of god.
At 1/29/07 03:28 PM, munchy1 wrote: she has no right to pass judgement on others.
Well said my man. Well said.
At 1/29/07 11:38 AM, sex-crazed-maniac wrote: I really hate Jade Goody. I mean here IQ is lower than her shoe size. And what the fuck is she doing in the house again anyway?
I think the question should be what the fuck was her mum doing there?
At 1/29/07 11:43 AM, sex-crazed-maniac wrote:At 1/26/07 03:50 PM, BanditByte wrote: Boltrig, you should learn liberals don't give a damn about christian's freedom of religious expression.Does that expression including condemning homosexual rights?
Wether you think homosexuals should have rights is a matter of opinion. The adoption centre debate is a matter of debate. The bible says union is supposed to be between a man and woman, and the church follows that. Now gays fear persecution less, and say its between 2 men / women. Fine, think that if you like but dont force the church to cow down to your gay rights demands
At 1/29/07 10:28 AM, Dealy-rizazamatizazz wrote: Was she at all attractive? And i think she can't say crap cause she probably has three or more writers backing her and she reads off a teleprompter. Or she stole her political views from people she hangs out with to sound smart.
I think she started a campain for peace. Hands up for peace it was called. Now shes changed it to hands up for...
She doesnt have a true cause anymore so shes willing to go cause trouble wherever she finds it. Bint
At 1/29/07 07:04 AM, rafattack wrote:
"es bueno, pero no es buenos aires" (its good, but its nothing compared to buenos aires)
Thats a city. The topic is which country is rudest.
At 1/29/07 08:12 AM, Kev-o wrote: I guess Martin Luther King Jr. was wrong for challenging the government.
Did Martin Luther King Jr. say "take up a cause or die"? No.
Even better job - Taxi Dispatch! I get paid to go on NG or whatever, and put through the occasional credit card transaction.
For £5.50 an hour (Approx $11)
The easy life...
At 1/29/07 04:54 AM, LolOutLoud wrote: It would be very hard to accomplish because we'd have to send electrons from long distances... And we can't just send them all over the place for anyone to receive... Then anyone could get free electricity... Also there would be a HELL of a lot of electromagnetic radiation everywhere and we would all get cancer.
Its not sending electrons, its beaming out radiation in the microwave bandwidth. So for now this seems to be a pipe dream, untill the effects of microwave radiation are countered, or a new transmission method is found.
But to respond to your other point, Tesla's whole idea was to give the world free power by setting up a perpetually self-feeding system of waves. To recieve energy, all a person would need would be a rectenna (insert ass joke here) in theirt back garden to convert the microwaves back to usable energy.
Im not sure if free energy for all would be a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand.. its free electricity! The one commodity that everyone uses most. All cars could become electric with no problem, power plant waste would be eliminated. hydrogen fuel cells could be created in bigger numbers for interstellar travel, outwith the reach of the microwave field.
On the downside, the whole power generation industry would be lost, and all kraft dinners in the stores would be cooked ahead of time.
Now that i think about it free power seems like a great idea. Yknow, apart from the cooked people in the streets side.
At 1/26/07 12:51 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: You can't send electric power itself wirelessly other than by creating a bolt of lightning. Which is way too complicated and impractical to even be considered by a sane person.
Because electricity needs to travel PHYSICALLY to what you are trying to power. How the fuck are you going to power a cellphone wirelessly form a tower 10 miles away?
Do some research before you parade to the world how dumb you are.
Not technically true. As mentioned above, Tesla was able to conduct trials in which he lit numerous lightbulbs at a distance. With research and development, this could very well be turned into a business reality.
Do some research into advanced physics before you parade to the world how blinkered you are
At 1/27/07 09:49 PM, LordGilingham wrote:
Weren't the Brits the ones who started the slave trade in the states? Atleast we are trying to mend for our ways.
Have you ever seen Jerry Springer? Its not that bad. Just Hicks and Cross Dressers, its on during the day anyway, no one really watches it (that I know).
Aren't you the one making the stereotypes about Americans being racist? How one TV show on day time TV makes us all foulmouthed hicks? What?
Once America gained independance from the UK, did you immediately free the slaves? Hmm? Didnt think so.
Movie with the most uses of profanity - Jerry Springer the opera. Beating the previous record held by South Park Bigger Longer and Uncut - also an American production.
Where did I use the word hicks?
At 1/27/07 06:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You are seriously wrong in your reading of the word altruism. The way you put it, it IS impossible, but in the way it is used in the world is not one that is so strict it makes itself undoable.
Agreed. If the definition is made so strict to the point where the act appears to be an insanity, then it porbably is an insanity. The case of the man throwing himself on a grenade next to a dog (mentioned above) This would probably be viewed as insanity by society, so the definition needs to be loosened a bit.
I think altruism could exist in the animal world (unlikely, however) because animals have to cogitive thought process that would lead them to the conclusion "if I sacrifice something, I will be rewarded"
At 1/27/07 10:13 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:
You're a hypocrite either way if you support equal rights. But if they can't deny interacial marrages, than they shouldn't be able to deny same sex marrages/couples. And visa versa; there is no middle.
Hypocrite seems to be your favourite word. Go use a dictionary and come up with something else to say. Yes all political arguments can have a few cries of hypocrasy! thrown in for good measure, but it gets boring.
Yes equal rights, but for the church as well. Just because its old and seen as outdated, doesnt mean that its an easy target. Try telling Muslims their religion is irrelevant. Same principal, the Muslims just havent lost the passion for their faith. (And please no rants on extremism; go start a new topic for that if you must)
So are you saying that because church doctrine is not in favour of gay adoption, then... they should stop interracial couples from being joined in wedlock. Im going to go watch the discovery channel for an hour to try and counteract the infectious stupidity of this argument.
Sorry for the above post, I thought it wasrefering to Muslim extremeist. Ill just rephrase it into:
Other branches of Christianity do it too
At 1/27/07 01:22 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote:
Yes, but regardless of what religious values they are teaching them, they are still indoctrinating young children. They are instilling political views into little kids, kids too young to understand the issue and make their own choices.
And so does Christianity. I was raised Catholic, and made my confirmation at the age of about 8 or 9. Im sure a 9 year old has the mental capacity to weigh up the arguments for and against belief in a god and make a decision that will affect the rest of their life.
At 1/28/07 06:20 PM, Blah1blah1 wrote:
Fair point, but in a previous version off the show (in which Jade was a housemate). In that series Jade was constantly bullied for being Fat, Ugly and Stupid. Now, to be fair, Jade can't help those things anymore than Shirlpa can help being Indian.
I see the point you make, and I dont understand why the people who pick housemates let her on in the first place, but some of your argument is flawed.
Shirpa cant help being Indian, but Jade could have changed a few things there.
Fat - coulda gone on a diet, but shouldnt have to. Its a choice.
Ugly, well its all perception.
Stupid - This is the main point.
No one who is a product of the UK school system (who actually made use of their education) can be this dense. If she squandered it, and came out sounding slightly less intellegent than the tarmac I drive over, then she deserves everything she gets to be honest. To come out of (at least) 11 years of education, part of which Im sure is learning about tolerance and multiculturalism, and then spout such crap on TV, bring on the abuse. She seems like the kind of vacuous tramp that was part of the popular clique, and spent all day every day obsessing about her hair and makeup rather than imporving her intellegence from the level of amoeba.
I guess she cant change now though. Ever since being on the piece of shit show the first time round caused her to be locked into the role of thick twat. Its become the basis of her undeserved success, so any attempt at bettering herself could damage profitability.
What a sad statement.
At 1/29/07 02:15 AM, Shootem-up wrote: apathy is not a good thing. the more the public become apathetic the more the "powers that be" can fuck with you. Go ahead be apathetic (god knows i am) but is it wrong for someone to want change?
Its not wrong for someone to want to change, even encourage people to be more active, but to tell them that they may as well be dead if theyre not willing to go out and take up a cause? Granted they will be few in number, but what about the people that are happy with the country. The people who think that everything is ticking over just nicely enough for now.
Loch Ness Monster - thats another good point. The activists that are only so vocal about things because they think its what they should be doing because of friends / coursemates / pop culture / whatever, not because its what they believe.
InsertFunnyUsername - I am not a hypocrite. I made a NG thread to put forward my view on pushy activists. That is not the same as being one. I think theyd be pretty ticked off that youd compared the two!
Some posters seem to have the idea that Im against free speech. Im not. Im against pushy protestors that think they are always in the right, and expect you to take up their cause as well. When the UK followed the US into Iraq, there were mass protests in almost every city. Can you imagine what would happen if a small number of people excersised their right to free speech and made pro-war statements? Theyd get a new one torn! Hardly free speech, is it?
I can see your point but it is kinda flawed. Take the london bombings. Young muslim men feel dissalusioned with their country and are tempted into extremism by corrupt "community leaders"
I can see why Christans would be getting dissalusioned with the state of affairs right now, but for them to take action in the form of terrorism serves even less purpose than usual. Which is tricky.
America / UK whatever are fundamentally Christian nations, and the predominately Muslim countries are already in such a state of turmoil that the message wouldnt really get across.
I cant see a Christian Holy war anytime soon.
At 1/26/07 10:05 PM, mrpiex wrote: The ruddest country by far, is Britian. They are the most racist, foulmouthed, retards that I have ever seen. With sucky teeth.
Racist
Britain never had the KKK. Weve never had to undo our racist damage with affirmative action. One fucking nil.
foulmouthed
You have jerry springer. Two fucking nil
Retards
Not smart enough to come up with an intellegent statement? Resorting to derogatory statements and stereotypes? Three fucking nill and thats game.
At 1/27/07 05:51 AM, SirLebowski wrote: The British, I would say. I can tolerate smugness, being a dick because you take too much pride in your country is much better than being a dick because you think everyone else is inferior.
Why do you have the idea that the British consider everyone else inferior. We dont. Just you.
At 1/27/07 01:26 AM, chocolate-penguin wrote:At 11/16/06 07:43 AM, Boltrig wrote:Almost none of which would have been possible without electricity or advanced computers.At 11/15/06 05:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote:TelevisionAt 11/15/06 10:20 AM, boltrig wrote:
Penecillin
Sean Connery
Decimal point
Pneumatic Tyre
Cats Eyes
MRI Scanners
Pedal Bicycle
Fax Machines
Anastheics
Fingerprinting
Breach Loading Rifle
oh, and the US Navy, but you dont agree with violence, do you?
Lets have a look at just my little list there and see what items were / would have been invented anyway without electricity and advanced computers
Penecillin
Sean Connery
Decimal Point
Pneumatic Tyre
Cats eyes
Pedal Bicycle
Anastheics
Fingerprinting
Breach Loading Rifle
and the US Navy
So your "most of" consists of 2 items. And it was still a Scot that invented them regardless you belittleing cock. And before you go believeing that it was your lot that invented 'leccy and computers, go research. The greeks and Babylonians knew about it first, and modern harnessable electricity was pioneered by:
Luigi Galvani - an Italian
Alessandro Volta - another Italian
Michael Faraday - Englishman
André-Marie Ampère - A Frenchman
Georg Ohm - A German
Frankiln and Edison I hear you cry. One a researcher that laid the way for the above to create modern electricity, the other an inventor that built upon the established concept.
Count it.
At 1/26/07 05:11 PM, mrdurgan wrote: whats wrong with being obsessed with music? its one of the most powerful, beautiful and skilled forms of artistic expression created by man!
Its fine to enjoy music, but when you obsess over it to the the detriment of other aspects of your life, thats when it becomes a bad thing.
It has to be said that there are worse things you could be obsessing over
