At 11/8/09 09:49 PM, Memorize wrote: It's because you're parents are illegals.

Wow, back that one the hell up or I NEVER want to see you pull that sort of racist shit again. Seriously, unless you can show where Fli said that, such a statement should never ever be made. I will cheerfully withdraw my criticism if proven wrong and publicly apologize. But yeah, please to make with the evidence.

How is giving tax payer money to fund abortion in any way Health-Care?

What if it's a situation where the mother's life is threatened? I understand not wanting to put out funding for a "non-essential" procedure, certainly one as controversial as that but...no money under no circumstances? Come on...but really, might not be a bad thing for the insurance companies if they're looking to compete (which really is what I'd like to see any healthcare reform do, pressure insurers to be more competitive and offer better care at reasonable prices to the consumer). This gives them an in to offer a service to the consumer the government option doesn't provide potentially. Although there are many vows now to see that rider struck from the bill, so as many people have said, there's no reason to declare any sort of final victory or defeat here unless it makes it through the senate and Obama signs it in. There's still a bill in the Senate floating that this would have to be combined with.

You're retarded.

Name calling really helps you're point.

Isn't sad that we live in a society where you can kill a baby in the womb for any reason while at the same time being bared from ingesting a drug with temporary effects?

Oh crap, do we REALLY have to have the debate about how there's all that evidence that says "life begins at conception" is a manufactured by religion and isn't based on fact again? Not to mention as I said, sometimes abortions have to be done as a life saving measure. By and large is that what they're done for? No, of course not...but that doesn't change the fact that it is possible for them to be performed for that reason and that is the main reason I can't put myself in favor of an all out ban on it. Though I do sit in the camp that would rather see the baby up for adoption.

Even better that tax payer money is used for both of these instances?

I'm still fuzzy on how exactly this bill works on that score. I know Obama has pushed for awhile that any "public option" would have to run like an actual insurance company and collect premiums rather then be federally funded...which might work after a few years, but will need federal funds at least at the start (and then probably forget to stop taking them when they can stand on therr own). You know, nevermind, think I just answered my own query there. :)

At 11/8/09 03:35 PM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote: I'm just hoping Hogan can do something to boost the popularity of TNA. If you look at some of the talent they have there, it would be awesome for them to have more exposure. People like AJ Styles, Samoa Joe and Christopher Daniels are all people I'd want to see more of.

The problems here for me are twofold:

1. TNA has been able to get an initial pop for big stars like Hogan, but usually cannot keep that audience. They tune in, want to see the big star, then tune out as that star kind of fades into just another face in the pack.

2. Hogan has always been about Hogan and nobody and nothing else. So far it doesn't look like he's done anything that makes me believe he's learned his lesson on that score. This is something where one can only hope Dixie Carter has firm control of her company post-Jarrett and isn't looking to give that up to let Hogan turn it into his personal playground like he did WCW.

Ooo, have I missed something here?

Logged into your elite account lately? I'm pretty sure it'll be hitting the mainstream of the wrestling media in another couple of days...even when this company does something right (and that I've been bitching they need to do for awhile) they find a way to screw it up.

At 11/7/09 09:53 AM, Ericho wrote: Uh, yeah, he did exist. If you need any reassurance, Albert Einstein (a scientist in the modern post-Darwinian age) was asked if he believed in Jesus at least as an historical figure to which he replied "Absolutely". That's good enough for me.

Sure because it's a person universally considered to be a brilliant individual backing up your belief. The problem with this (at least insofar as how you phrased it) is I have no idea WHY Einstein believed this to be the case. Did he have a good amount of historical evidence he personally researched? Did he have a historian friend who did the research and convinced Einstein? Or was Einstein merely something of a "closet Christian" so when asked the most basic question you'd need to say yes to to BE a Christian he said yes?

I'm not trying to say Jesus wasn't historical, I really don't know. But I'm saying that once again you've come in with crap evidence and acted like you have something solid. There's a reason we don't allow that kind of hearsay in a court setting

At 11/7/09 10:13 PM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote: It doesn't make sense to feel hostility towards TNA. Ideally, we should all want TNA to be getting better in order to provide some actual competition for WWE.

Agreed 100%

If history has taught us anything, it's that Vince works alot better when he has someone to compete with. I mean, look what we have now: The whole company is TV-PG, there is no blood, and storylines aren't even particularly clever. Even within a PG rating you can make compelling storylines, but Vince is complacent with awful storylines that probably even make kids embarrassed. I mean, there's a drawf, who everyone treats like a child. It's pretty awful when you think about it.

Yep, and when Vince has someone at him, and ideally someone who proves they CAN take him or steal his audience. Well he gets off his ass and starts listening to other people and new ideas. That's why the Attitude Era worked, because it was a bunch of talented folks top to bottom collaborating to keep their jobs and their dominance in the industry. When you're back is against the wall, you fight that much harder. Now? Now it's just complacency, stagnation, and denial. Just wait till you see what happens with The Rumble and tell me they haven't lost their damn minds.

It's got to the point where, in order to get a better WWE, we either need Vince to die and pass responsibility to someone less crazy (and in all likelihood, creative control would go to Steph and we'd still have shitty storylines, apart from if Trips stepped in), or we need TNA to become a company who can actually provide something that rivals WWE. And I don't like to wish harm on anyone, so I'd much prefer TNA to become a respectable second choice, even if that scenario isn't even on the horizon.

At 11/5/09 09:42 PM, Stoicish wrote: The thing is that for a while it seemed like the Republican party had solidarity and all had a central agenda.

Now it just seems like they are trying to figure out who they are: Moderate or Conservative.

I hope Moderate because the Democrats are just disappointing me every day.

I think what's happening now is what always is happening within any large group of people, and certainly a large group not in power: Trying to reconfigure themselves and figure out what face to put forward to win votes. Because in the end that's the game, win votes and get offices. It's disheartening how politics seems to have degenerated into like a big game fight between two teams. The points are scored by who has the most offices...for fuck's sake it's supposed to be about representing your country and your values!!! Sadly I don't think we'll ever go back to that.

At 11/6/09 12:17 AM, poxpower wrote: If you're taking money from people, then it's your responsibility to test your product, isn't it?

But what in fact is the product they're selling?

Is it poisoning people if I sell them expired marmalade? AW BOO HOO I DIDN'T KNOW BECAUSE I WAS SO SURE THAT MY MARMALADE WAS SAFE I DIDN'T RUN ANY TESTS!

This isn't the same thing because what you're selling here isn't a tangible product, you're selling a concept and a way to happiness and control of your audience in some cases.

Just as the buyer needs to do his homework, the seller has a responsibility to deliver on the goods and the kind of shit religion sells can't be given to any man by any other man.

Actually it can. Religion when it's done RIGHT gives people feelings of joy, community, and happiness. People can certainly give that to each other with or without it...so that changes the argument to whether or not religion has a right to charge anybody anything for it's particular brand of it. Also technically all collection plate passes are voluntary, so it's certainly possible to pop nothing in there.

I'm sorry but that's how it works. Ignorance is not an excuse, especially not in the 21st century.

I agree, the problem here is I think you've got a biased and somewhat ignorant view on what exactly it is religion sells to people. Therefore it presents flaws in your argument.

And frankly things like Scientology and the Church of Latter Day Saints are obvious OBVIOUS scams.

Oh yes. But that's them, just because they're obviously crap and scams doesn't mean you can lump all faiths and belief systems into it.

And I'd argue that people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort are pretty likely exploitative jerkwads because no one can be that retarded.

Probably they are, but it goes back to can they be considered representative of ALL theists? I say no, it's like the theist claim that Richard Dawkins represents ALL atheists. They only represent themselves in the end, and if people choose to listen and follow them that's they're own damn business and fault.

I don't think there ever existed one of those.

Oh, I think way back before people could read...maybe...there might be some in africa now. Maybe. Not sure. But I think my points on that one still stand :)

At 11/6/09 12:04 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Judeo-Christian God, but same applies to any religious doctrine with divine beings in it. Allah, Shiva, Izanagi - take your pick.

Problem being they can't all be right. I.E. they CAN be right about a supreme creator...but they can't all be right in their explanation of said being (especially when monotheism clashes with politheism), the explanations and stories don't all agree, so by simple logic they can't all be right in their definitions.

That's why I think it's better to argue a creator being or force then it is to try to argue for a particular creator being or force.

At 11/5/09 11:39 PM, poxpower wrote: About as legit as lying to people for money can be.

This is where I always fall out with you, and people who make your similar argument with this: Is it lying if you believe you're telling the truth? To me it isn't. Are there some clergymen and religious folks in it for the wrong reasons who are probably atheists in theist clothing milking people? Sure, I have no doubt of it. But there are also people who truly believe inside there church and outside that they're religion is truth and correct. How do you call someone who honestly and truly believes what they're saying a lier? Don't hit me with misguided, because we all know you could still call a brain wash or misguided, I want how you would justify that that is LYING. Because I don't buy that it's EVERYONE, and EVERYWHERE that lying occurs.

Oh, I also would like to point out one example where someone's religion actually CAN and WOULD dictate behavior and beliefs: Catholicism. To be Catholic you cannot do the following:

1. Use a birth control, even if you or your partner have a fatal STD. No birth control never

2. No divorce. Hate that spouse of yours? Better hope the church is willing to give you an annulment because no divorces! Even though annulment is, ya know, the same thing? It's just that the church gets a cut of dat money to make it so your marriage never happen.

3. Don't not do anything the Pope says. The Pope is infallible, his word is law. If the Pope says this is the way it is, you're obliged by your faith to follow him.

Do people disregard some or all of these rules? Yes. But to be a TRUE Catholic, you're supposed to follow them, and all the other rules, and many people do. So to act like religion CAN'T be an authoritarian and behavior modifying presence is just not realistic.

At 11/5/09 10:56 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: But proving the Bible fallible is not the same as proving the Bible wrong about God. In order to do that, you have to demonstrate first that God does not exist. As already stated, religious doctrine is not sufficient evidence for either argument.

Do you mean God as in "creator being" or God as in "judeo-christian God"? Because these can be two distinct things :)

At 11/5/09 10:13 AM, Outlaw88 wrote: Nothing wrong with house shows just so you know. The first WWE/F event I ever went to was a house show, and it was a blast.

Also I doubt there as long as the ones I used to go to. Back when I first started going they'd tape like two or three weeks of TV in the middle of the main card. Loooooots of squash matches.

I just want to say that Jamie Noble sold the beating he took like a million bucks. There could be no doubt in your mind that a powerbomb on the outside of the ring can be a devestating move and it made 'Pale & Red" look tough as hell.

He did sell it well but how effective was it since nobody really sells these things anymore and nobody really cares about Jamie Noble? Did it make Shaemus look bad ass, or just noble look like a puss? I mean, guys don't even sell HIAC anymore so....

Am I the only one wishing that Hornswaggle gets super kicked in the near future?

No, that character has long overstayed his welcome and it's time to give it a break.

At 11/4/09 02:59 PM, Complete wrote: It is relieving to have Christie, though he might be another politician and break his promises.

I'll have to double check how the two houses are composed, but I think they're still heavily democrat, which might hamper some of Christies efforts. I'm not sure he can actually shrink the state government size since I believe he'll get fights on both side of the aisle there from people who are either looking to collect multiple pensions, or who have a long history of sticking cronies into state jobs for the pensions. We'll see.

Right now yeah, I'm happy to have a change in Trenton, now let's see if it's a change we can live with, after all we thought Corzine was going to be good for us when he was elected.

At 11/4/09 12:07 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: This should be in the philosophy club!

This is NOT politics.

I'd appreciate it if you NEVER do this again ANYWHERE. It can be construed as backseat modding and really doesn't add anything to a thread you're posting in. When you see a bunch of mods posting in a thread, that means the thread has been deemed suitable and we're well past the point of objecting to it's existence.

At 11/4/09 06:55 AM, MaraquanWocky wrote: Here's a question that I never got around to asking: You know that WrestleMania XXVI commercial with the music? Is that gonna be the song for it, or was it for last year's?

I'm not sure if that'll be next year's song or not. It might be too early to tell.

Now that that's off my chest, I have ANOTHER question: Are the SmackDown!/ECW events just house shows? 'Cause that would suck. I wouldn't even get my awesome sign on TV.

Unless you see or hear it explicitly mentioned to be a TV Taping, assume house show.

Based on what I'm hearing my fellow Jersians say (and the reason I voted for Christie personally) is we saw it as not being able to afford another 4 years of John Corzine and Christie was the lesser of two evils. There's hope that Christie might make some changes (he is a former US Attorney who has gained fame for his tough stance on corruption, something Jersey badly needs cleaned up), but in the end I think Christie won simply because he wasn't John Corzine, or affiliated with John Corzine.

Apparently the Democrats and everyone else badly miscalculated just how hated this Governor was, it's amazing to me how over this guy was with the national press though up until now. I imagine you'll be seeing some outlets outside of New Jersey spinning this story wrong as some kind of revolt by Jersey to the right, or a mandate on Obama, or some crap like that. Which it's not to my mind, it was the citizenry tossing out a politician who broke every single promise he made and screwed the citizenry over. Good work Jersey!!

At 11/2/09 10:00 PM, Ericho wrote: Religion is obviously a controversial subject. The notion that I think is that we clearly have freedom of religion (and lack of, I believe), so we should learn to respect each other's freedoms and not say that we are in any way superior to other people for our beliefs, or lack of.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The hypocrisy in YOU making that very statement is fucking staggering considering even a recent sampling of your postings in "the case for god" thread.

At 11/3/09 06:38 PM, poxpower wrote: He's saying that some people say "you're brainwashed" as an argument.

I haven't seen it in theist debates. But I was debating someone (I think RightWingGamer...but it may have been some other hardcore conservative) who claimed I was "indoctrinated" by the "liberal system" because I wholeheartedly support gay marriage. So this argument has in fact popped up.

Which I've never seen anyone do.

Well I have had it happen to me once, beyond that, yeah, I personally have not seen it either.

He hasn't either, I'd be on it.

Links or it didn't happen? Links or it didn't happen Prot :-p

He thinks I just did it in my other post. I clearly did not. You be the judge.

I think what happened is he was referring to the general point that was made about abuse of theists and their views in general here. Then he pointed to you. Also you DID say they were brainwashed in this very topic so...actually he HAS now seen someone argue the point of brain washing and "you only believe because you're indoctrinated to believe" used.

While I'm in favor of third parties another thing that hampers them from getting elected is situations where they are plants by the powerful machine of one party over another. It came out over the weekend here in Jersey that Independent candidate Chris Daggett is being funded by the Democratic Party in Jersey. They know the election will be close, they know Corzine can't get "swing voters" with his record, so now they've got Daggett out there as a spoiler candidate to take votes away and help Corzine sneak by into another term.

So somethimes, a third party can be worse then the big two...because they put out a lacky of the big two.

Ok, now if people don't stop just reading the first post and replying, I'm gonna shut this. THE LAW IS NOT REAL!!!! IT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO NOT BE REAL!!!

So stop debating it like it is, if you want to debate the MERIT or non-merit of such a law hypothetically passing, cool, ok. But this particular movement has been proven to be something other then the topic starter is reading it as.

At 11/2/09 09:58 PM, Ericho wrote: Well, yeah, but don't you think that by not believing in God we become arrogant? By believing in God, I would think that a person would consider themselves to be more humble as they know there is something out there that is better than them.

This argument doesn't work because it supposes that only one side of the argument can be arrogant. I don't see where atheists are really "arrogant" because they don't believe in God. I've seen some arrogance coming out of the belief of some of them that "I know how things work, you don't, I'm smarter then you" aspect. But guess what? The theist side does it too!!! So even if you believe in God, you can still be an arrogant douchebag.

I believe we can understand the Universe, but without God we may become arrogant.

Even with God we become arrogant. We also become lazy because whenever someone says "hey, I just noticed this interesting thing that this star does...I wonder why that is?" someone could just go "God did it. The End." Does that always happen? No. But it CAN happen, and it HAS happened, so don't sit there and act like one side has a monopoly on arrogant answers that defeat the advancement of knowledge and understanding.

At 11/2/09 11:53 PM, Outlaw88 wrote: That Taker movie sounds silly, but at least it will keep him active.

It probably will be, but as a die-hard fan I'm sure I'll wind up buying it.

It's offical. I'm going to the Royal Rumble!

Sweet!

Anyway, Raw had it's ups and downs. At first I thought the segments with ozzy were great, since he's so damn funny. but when they had that talent segment I was like Ugh... Not this crap again.

The talent segment I thought was funny, the opener was kind of painful and makes me wonder if DX is going to have to be together forever so they can help the guest hosts book the show.

I did like some of the matches though. The opening bout was good, as was the 6 man tag. I thought Jericho and Big Show would fight each other more since they will be opponents at the next PPV but it makes sense that they would gang up on Cena.

Those two guys won't get into the "break up" and fighting each other phase until the match itself I'd think. They could really try marketing Taker as the underdog here because he'll be facing a team who will most likely try and eliminate him and then deal with each other.

At 11/2/09 09:48 PM, Ericho wrote: I understand what you mean. A lot of people are misrepresenting the founding fathers either by saying that they were Christians or atheists. In reality, most of them were neither and were deist. I've heard some people say that that was just as close as you could be before being an atheist, but whatever.

What does that honestly have to do with anything that was laid out in the opening post? Did you even read the opening post? Or did you just decide to use this as a continuation of your arguments against atheists?

Ok, since Mike Johnson reported it on the main site I can stop being cryptic:

The project I mentioned with Taker yesterday is a film project. It'd be a western set in the late 1800's which would serve as an origin for the Undertaker character. Taker would feature prominently in it and the budget would be 3.5 million meaning it would be headed direct to DVD. I'd be curious to see how this would work out, and as I said this could be good for Taker in that it would give him and the company an excuse to give him a couple months or so off while they shoot this.

At 11/2/09 07:42 PM, darkrchaos wrote: I was watching the news and they had the huge thing on Obama being too skinny. Did we run out of news or something. I couldn't stop laughing after i heard this.

Well if they don't report on that, the news might actually start having to talk about things the administration or their parent companies might not want you to hear about. Can't have that!!!!

wouldn't that be a good thing?

Sure, if what they catch is actual criminal activity and not something they then decide is criminal activity. That's why you limit these powers and make police and law enforcement proceed cautiously, so that everything is documented and they can't just have the authority to say "oh we caught them doing something bad...trust us". Warrants are for our protection.

because there's plenty of dissent nowadays, if they were gonna do something, they would have already.

What the hell do you think things like "support our war = support our troops" and other propaganda was? It was benignly dealing with dissent because they haven't gotten the power yet to deal with it more actively. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, there's elements seeking it though. Freedom and Liberty doesn't tend to die overnight, it's usually a gradual process.

i'd rather a "potential" threat from the US government, than a very real threat from islamic extremism.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Nothing is more important then my rights and freedoms to me. Limited government power and increased responsibility lets me have that

that doesn't mean that they're gonna misuse it.

It doesn't mean they'll use it responsibly either.

I'm done with this debate I think unless you can come back with some amazing new argument backed up with FACTS and SOURCES. Because once again you seem to have bitten off a topic you aren't really equipped to properly debate.

At 11/2/09 06:44 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: yeah, look how that turned out. if weak-ass clinton had cared more about safety than BJs, he could have adequately prepared us for the attack.

I could have sworn he was out of office for 9 months when we got hit....

by that logic, there's no reason to declare war, imprison criminals, or censor extreme opinions (e.g. if bin laden were to appear on CNN)

No, it isn't at all actually.

dude, if they suspect you might be a terrorist, it's for a reason.

You're sure about that? Never mind the cases they got wrong? Like when Cat Stevens made a terror list? I'm not saying it's malicious or that any goof up would have to be malicious. What I'm saying is mistakes happen, and the more we do to STOP mistakes, the better.

zero, thank god. but that's because we are more careful nowadays than we were before.

Really? Because I remember where Homeland Security ran a test on the security of federal institutions a couple months back and they all failed. I think it's more that it takes time, money, and effort to launch an attack. They can't hit whenever they want like the government wants us to believe.

no, it's because there are more pressing issues to deal with right now. bin laden is off the radar, when he gets back on it we'll shove a nuke up his ass, but until then we have bigger problems.

He's off the radar because of bigger problems yes, and because he doesn't scare people as much anymore. But rest assured when he sends in another video at a political convenient time it'll be all over reminding us to be afraid. Then we won't catch him then either. Also I think there should be a rule over saying things like "shove a nuke up his ass" if you want to sound credible.

oh, please. it's one thing to say "bush wanted it", but the entire government?

Ok, I'll narrow it down: FBI and CIA. Those are the big guys. Do a little basic reading up on this stuff and see what pops out.

no, you can't, but 99 times out of 100, they really do have the best intentions. that's not to say that i ALWAYS agree with them, but once again, i perfer to give them the benefit of the doubt in such a time.

Stop using personal assumptions like they're facts. If it walks like a power grab and talks like a power grab...I live in one of the most corrupt states in the country. The government is NOT always intending the best for it's people, it usually just intends the best for itself and you've done nothing to prove otherwise.

you didm't "show" anything, you're just taking a few examples and overblowing them.

How? I don't see where I misrepresented what those examples were about (I.E. I brought no conspiracy or theory into say "Watergate" I merely postulated that the facts in the case seem to suggest the validity of my point). Please show me how I "overblew" my examples.

they earned their ticket the milisecond they decided to start hijacking planes.

Not according to the laws of this country they didn't. But I forgot, revenge beats the law or common sense.

there, you have a point, we always need habeus corpus.

I'm glad we agree on something. I also believe we should charge, try, and then imprison all these folks base on the crimes they committed and what is decided by our current legal remedies. Throwing them in a "secret" prison forever is wrong. You can't have one standard for 99% of criminals and then a whole new standard for another.

we are not the ones gunning down civilians in the streets or suicide-bombing skyscrapers.

Well, we have in the past, bad things happen in war unfortunately. The second thing no way, but you missed my point. My point is if you have an angry person, and they aren't horribly educated, and you show them the kind of things we have done at Gitmo, don't you think that makes this person more susceptible to the actions we want to stop? Seems to me it does.

but if, to prevent it, we have to use unorthodox treatment of prisoners that, according to the geneva convention, don't even qualify as legal combatants, then be it.

They haven't proven that.

no, people think of the CURRENT president when they think of the government. not some asshole from ancient history.

Well that makes people very stupid, because most of the examples of government corruption and abuse aren't all that ancient.

and you AREN'T?

Nope, I'm basing it on what I've read and observed of the facts and my beliefs. There's a difference.

how does that effect you DIRECTLY?

The government can now investigate me at any time if I have done something to make their "suspected terrorist list" which could be as simple as checking out the wrong book.

although i agree that you have a point there, didn't lincoln also do that? didn't he become our second greatest president (first being washington)?

I don't remember that, perhaps if we investigate if he did and what that was in relation to? And how long was it done?

again, DIRECTLY?

Why does it have to be direct? IT'S AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW AND THE PRINCIPLES OF MY COUNTRY!!! That's direct enough for me, and I don't want to wait until I'm directly effected, I want it stopped now.

because unless your idea of a good time invovles bombs and infidels, it doesn't affect you AT ALL!

Ok, I'm done with you now. You have no clue what you're talking about and you obviously think the government can't make mistakes on this even though they have arrested the wrong people.

and what would you call this? prosperity?

No, but people still have jobs (I do) they didn't lose all their money because their bank failed. It was a necessary evil/

i disagree with welfare, bailouts (all kinds), public healthcare, etc.

Well, some common ground, not much. I believe in welfare reform, I'm not against public healthcare though what I'd really like is for the insurance monopolies to be broken down and they actually be forced to compete but I doubt that will happen. I doubt true public healthcare will come from all this as well.

like? (before you answer, consider the fact that we knew almost nothing at the time)

We actually had a lot of possible evidence that something would happen, it was failed to be looked into and now here we are.

alright, let me put it this way: let's say that every phone in america is tapped and listened to, what's the worst that could happen that DIRECTLY results from that?

False arrests, loss of basic privacy. It's pretty obvious you don't believe in the right to privacy here, or you just think the government would use these powers responsibly despite the fact that history tells us governments don't.

i don't consider that to be an essential right, i consider it to be a privilage, a reward for a time of peace and prosperity. but until then, it is a very small price to pay in return for protection of my OTHER essential rights #1 being the right to life.

Well I don't agree with you at all. Because time and again it's been proven that when government is given expanded power they don't give that expanded power back. I find it funny you don't consider something (privacy) which is in the Bill of RIGHTS, to be a right...well ok, scary actually.

actually, he would laugh in your face. in his time, the british government was doing unspeakeble things to the colonists. if you were to ressurect him and say "i use my telephone to talk to someone, but now the evil government can hear what i say to him" what do YOU think he'd say?

I think he'd say the government doesn't have the right to listen to you without legitimate reason. These guys fought taxes over tea, they didn't want government telling the people "ok, here's what we're doing" and the people having no say in it. Did you study american history at all?

More in the next post.

At 11/2/09 03:10 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: and you're saying that islamic terrorism ISN'T a good reason?

There's no good reason for warrantless wiretapping. We've dealt with THIS SAME GROUP before and under Clinton we didn't expand government power this much. There IS NO REASON TO SUSPEND WARRANTS!! You can get a warrant to tap a guys phone? Fine, that's within the legal framework I find acceptable. But to tap anyone at any time because they MIGHT be a terrorist? No way, it's unnecessary, it's using people's fear to expand your own governmental power.

this is a crisis, i would much rather perfer to have the government listen in on my calls than to experience 9/11 all over again.

How is this a crisis? How many times have we been attacked since 9/11? How many really? They haven't gotten smarter or better equipped since then. It's fucking propaganda, why do you think they don't even mention catching Bin Laden or terrorism that much anymore? Because he's a useful bogeyman to scare people like you into letting the government intrude into their lives and suspend their liberties. These are powers the government wanted for years, 9/11 just gave them a situation where people would role over for it.

with the exception of nixon, none of those had anything to do with wiretapping. and nixon was busted before he could misuse the information he had gathered.

But it proves my point about how you cannot trust the government to always do the right thing. That was my thesis, you're point was you felt you could trust the government, I showed you why you shouldn't.

P.S. what have you got against gitmo?

Oh come on...torture, suspension of due process...that place is like giving people like Osama a Christmas present because they use that to help their recruiting drives. "see? See? Americans torture our brothers and violate their own rules and supposed morals...surely now you see how evil they are and that they must be destroyed?". I don't want to become an animal in order to stop animals, and I have never heard a persuasive reason as to why we need to do so.

no, it doesn't. it proves that there's occasionally gonna be one person who isn't trustworthy.

These were all Presidents and most of their immediate staff's implicated. They are what people think of when they think of the government.

the government as a whole, although it really doesn't know how to use tax dollars efficiently, can be trusted with this sort of thing.

You're basing that on what? You're own personal beliefs? Or do you have some evidence I'm not aware of? I know I sound terribly sarcastic with that (and truthfully, I somewhat am based on what I've seen you post here and in the past) but I am truly willing to listen if you have some information I don't.

in fact, all of this was most talked-about during the bush administration, and tell me, what did bush ever do that ever put our core rights at risk?

Patriot Act. Susension of Habeas Corpus, the warrantless wire tapping. If you were/are suspected of terrorism, you're rights disappear. How does that NOT violate or take away from our core rights?

if anything, the government's too benevolent for it's own good, always handing out money left and right.

The banks had to be saved or else it was depression time. But the other bailouts I did not agree with. I also have some serious issues with the way government operates and spends money on certain programs and what not. So depending on the things you disagree with them spending money on, we may have found some common ground here.

no, that's not what i'm saying at all. i'm saying that in these extreme times, i think we should give our leaders the benefit of the doubt until it becomes a clear threat to our liberty.

It already has. In extreme times like that we should be watching them EVEN MORE. Because history teaches us that when things are extreme, or perceived to be extreme, leaders and governments ill make grabs at even more power for themselves and less power for the citizenry. I also wholeheartedly believe that while the threat is real, it's been blown out of proportion.

it's not a loss of privacy, it's a desperate measure. if we had done this before 9/11, we may have had a shot at preventing it.

You can't prove that, and there are lots of things we could have done before 9/11 to have prevented it. This does not help the case for wiretapping without warrants at all.

it's horrible to me, too. but you need to understand that sometimes you need to break the rules (that includes the ones in the constitution) in order to assure the greater good. i'm not saying that the government should make a habit of this sort of thing, but in such dire circumstances, i think we can make an exception just this one time.

See qoute by Ben Franklin. If you're willing to trade away your essential rights and liberties...you deserve whatever consequences you get from it.

you and i BOTH know that Benjamin Franklin was referring to martial law, similar to what the british imposed at the time, when he made that statement.

But that doesn't make it not true in this instance. If Franklin could look at America now, in my personal opinion he'd say exactly the same thing.

look, what's worse:
some dude in the fbi hearing you talk to your significant other and forgetting it soon after;
or a relapse of the 9/11 attacks.

You assume all their listening for is terrorism. What stops them for listening for other criminal activities? Or even extending the rule to looking for people who are just basically dissenters to the government? That's the potential slippery slope you put yourself on by allowing a government to subvert the law this way. Because this is such a vague "emergency" and there's absolutely no indication they will stop doing it ever, in fact all they've shown is they want even MORE power in this and other such sensitive areas.

At 10/30/09 07:00 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: that seems like a great idea, they've already got my vote. MoarEffingBS doesn't know what he's talking about.

Why don't you back that up with something instead of just dismissing the guy? Since a lot of what he said looks bang on correct to me, and I doubt it would be hard to try and counter his sources if he truly is full of it or making things up :)

At 11/2/09 02:17 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: i don't see how this is "basic"

Constitution guarantees rights of privacy and that the government should not interfere with the lives of it's citizens without good reason. The whole warrants concept was set up to further this. Warrantless wire tapping is completely against the american people.

if it were anyone else, i'd be shittin' my pants, but i think i can trust my own government.

Ahahahaha. Right, the guys that get busted for corruption at state and federal levels? Nixon? Gitmo? Tea Pot Dome? Yes two out of four are in the past, but I think it proves my point that the American government has proven it is not always trustworthy. Not to mention the history of government in general throughout history proving it is not always benevolent and trustworthy. People like you scare me, just go along and be obedient to what the government tells you right? How un-American.

well you obviously were, tell me, what happened in the "last decade" that was so horrible AND directly related to wiretapping.

The loss of privacy in giving the FBI and other agencies the right and ability to spy on their own citizens. Anything that limits liberties or violates our Constitution is horrible to me. Anytime government oversteps it's bounds is horrible to me.

i actually believe STRONGLY in the constitution. but i also believe that in times of crisis, we should put aside minor or insignificant rights in order to secure our right to life, which is obviously our most important right of all.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty and freedom for security, deserve neither Freedom nor Security" --Ben Franklin

It's scary how naieve you are RightWing. You really think the government busting down basic liberties and freedoms is for our own good and surely they'd never abuse that or do anything wrong with such power? You haven't paid attention over the last decade then obviously. Nor do you really believe in The Constitution

At 11/1/09 10:35 AM, Outlaw88 wrote: Taker vs. McMahon would be a total waste. I'd rather Taker go out with a better match than that. Do you think this may be the last WM he'll make it to? I really hope they keep the streak alive and let him go out with a perfect record.

I hear some talk of a project in the works that would involve Taker and should give him some time off (I can't comment further because it was an Elite exclusive on PWInsider, and I understand and respect my terms of service). The talk of Taker being done has been slowing down, and I think the last couple of months of multi-man matches is WWE acknowledging that if they use Taker the more they can hide the shortcomings and rest him in matches will be better for his long term health. If he is going to get some time off then we're probably going to wind up with him taking on Vince at Mania because they'll do something where he's screwed out of the belt in Buried Alive or some other gimmick that would give them an excuse to rest him and let him work on this other deal.

Personally I hope they come up with better for him to do. It's no secret I think that even if Taker can keep going a couple more years or so on a limited schedule, the matches he has left should be treated as precious commodities, especially Mania performances. They shouldn't be wasted on stroking the boss's ego.

I might be going to the Royal Rumble. Its being held in Atlanta and there are still tickets available.

Wow, that's pretty cool. The Rumble is easily one of the best PPVs all year and always one of my favorite concepts. I got to go to Summerslam 97 and that was a really fun event.