123 Forum Posts by "CrispiNuggets"
At 2/20/06 08:55 PM, x_xSKUNKx_x wrote: Marijuana will be legal one day, it's just like prohibition, as soon as they make it legal,
Actually its not like prohibition.
whats up all? Haven't been here for quite a while...
At 5/12/05 01:38 AM, JohnnyWang wrote:At 5/10/05 10:31 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:Well, conservatives are working hard to stomp freedom of speech, ever heard about "free speech zones" during Bush's speeches and such?At 5/10/05 10:20 PM, Proteas wrote: Yeah, he read it at the beginning of a school year at some Highschool in the south and was promptly fired/suspended.So much for "Freedom of Speech"...
Thats not an idea made up by Bush, just talked about by him. It is understood from interpretations from the Court Justices of the Supreme court where speech is more untouchable. Only un-educated fools say that the freedom of speech clause is allwithstranding.
Correction, I was under the impression that you wrote it, however I realize you did not. Now just allow me to say it wasn't meant to offend anyone, but was mostly adressed to the author.
At 5/21/05 10:43 PM, RK1989 wrote: inoticed your the same age as me 1989 (its a sign your joining me in hell) lolololololol
Anyways i am away to my bed since is 3:42 am scotland , cya 8er that was fun posting, good luck with the church even though i disagree, u will here no more, of my stuff since u wont wish meluck i wish my self it lololololol, cya in the next life (HELL)
Well, you're an idiot. Grow up. As sure they are in god, you are sure in hell. How the hell do you know that? Hell came from religion idiot. Path to inner self? You obviously haven't cracked the shell on your being. Oh, and you obviously don't know that much about religion if you think the Bible- which you most commonly refer to as "the book"- if you think it was built on war and hate. You think you worked out the kinks to discover something if anything on whatever stance you think you might be on? Think again dumbass.
You obviously need some grammar and spelling, and if you're doing that intentionally, it just makes you look bad and articulates your opinion in the worst possible manner- moronic.
It made a conveinent use of pointing out hypocrisies in our nation. Now I haven't read any of the other comments so I can respond from my very own point of view. I am sure some people have brought up very good points for and against the message this poem speaks.
The message calls that we say "Under God" in our pledge of alliegience... having some poetic experience, I guess you might call it that, you understand symbolism. "Under god" is a symbollic mentioning that there is a higher power above the nation. Not that its actually a god or a specific god.
Now your biggest mistake is that you can talk about religion in schools, however you cannot promote one religion over the other. You cannot say- lets have the ten commandments but not the 5 pillars for Islam. You cannot say, now we recite this prayer, without reciting them all. You want it both ways... You don't care if someone is offended by your prayers but you are offended by paganists, in a sense. We're a secular nation not because we believe in one belief over another and thats preety damend obvious because we allow none of it to be forced onto another. Public schools are subject to the Bill of Rights since it techincally is a federal building. And you can bow your head individually.
Look- basically you hod these ton of individual rights, but as a group- there are many more things to consider. That makes sense... your individual rights are strongest as an individual.
At 5/16/05 10:44 PM, bradford1 wrote: Is a Christian BORN a Christian? No. He/She becomes one. So if 'becoming' a homosexual (which is impossible, you are born that way) is a sin, and homosexuality is 'a way of life' (which it is not.) Than the many Christians who say that homosexuality is wrong because it is a choice and a way of life are improperly interpereting the Bible to make it favor them. Only monsters alter their own religious text away from 'love your brother' to 'if you love your brother you burn in hell.' After all, Christianity IS A CHOICE AND A WAY OF LIFE, and if Republicans alter their own peaceful religion into a mock-fascist belief so they can get away with homophobia, then they are hypocritical and will rot in the new hell. Jesus loves us. That is a main Christian philosophy. Jesus was a man who cared for everyone, prince or prostitiute, and he would cry if he heard such foolishness. Jesus died between two common theives, and he forgave them before he died, and they went to heaven. Homosexuality is uncontrollable. And if homosexuals must go to hell, and are worse than theives, I'll be damned with them if a single theive goes to Hell! Jesus would not forgive a homosexual, homosexuality is not a sin!
I just have to say that this a preety crappy analysis and explanation. Religion and sexual preference? Whats the common link? And on a previous post you said it couldn't be inherited? Fli says it deals with genotypes and phenotypes? If sexuality is a gene, it can be passed on.
You argument is contrary to itself, you argue that homosexuality is not a sin- I assume. However you go to say if Jesus would not forgive homosexuals... you'd rather go to hell. Do you even understand that one of the underlying christian beliefs is forgiveness and pacifism? If homosexuality is not a sin and you shouldn't need to make that choice. And if it is? You friggin decided what you said- I just repeated it to point out your mistake. =/
At 5/21/05 03:48 PM, Froibo wrote: Who cares and how is this political? Just because you hate gays dosn't mean you need to make laws against them. I would have thought America learned that after segregation in the south. How dose this benefit our country by arguing about this?
I agree, who cares? However, apparently some people do. And it is political since anything within the public's interest is in fact politics. Although it'd be cool, this isn't a polical science forum, its just a politics forum... thus anything can be politics if it has some interest by the public. Not to mention this had been a major topic during elections probably not only in the US. It may continue to be a voting issue during next years elections and I don't only consider presidential or of equal importance.
At 5/14/05 11:49 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: So what if they lost a shitload of people, they put Hitler on the run. And on your point of they only did something when their territory was invaded, you didnt lift a finger untill you got the shit beaten out of you at Pearl Harbour.
Well, we did lift a finger it was supplying Allied countries before we were involved in the war. Not only that, American Troops who believed in the war had opportunities for transfer to a British unit.
Also, thanks for making the death of hundreds of American soldiers seem like it was some kinda game. That was war, no one during war goes "hah, I beat the shit outta you in berlin". Grow up, we were a relatively neutral country attacked by the aggressive deceiving Japaneese.
America liberated France and prevented Britain from becoming occupied. We liberated countries while Russia sent troops to the front lines without rifles. =/
Also, it was American troops that negociated the surrender of German forces. Don't forget our efforts took Japan out of the war with relatively little casualities to Allied troops.
I don't think the war would've been won if America didn't become involved. The main cause was the attack on Pearl Harbor, before that not many citizens of America supported becoming involved in a second world war.
At 5/6/05 04:37 PM, Maus wrote:At 5/6/05 04:34 PM, Catsofthebase wrote: It is a good idea to educate and train them (could cut down on V.D's). But it also seems like they are encouraging an illegal activity.?
Prostitution is certainly legal in Nevada.
Not only is it training for STDs, it's also how to deal with violent johns/pimps, and in general, how to take care of yourself as a sex worker.
Prostitution is legal in certain parts of Nevada.
Also, I'm sure some of the current whores out there could just use a better education wether or not their activity is legal or not.
If I were into that kinda thing, I'd rather pay a graduated whore rather than... one who has nothing. hah.
At 5/7/05 09:56 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:At 5/6/05 04:10 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: I think part of the reason for having seminars like this is to teach people that not all sex workers are pimp-owned hookers turning tricks for crack. There are many different types of sex workers, and having advocacy groups for things like workers' rights, training, and testing is a good thing.But, is that not counter productive? Should be not simply be preventing prostitution...or trying to?
It's like giving classes on how to safely cook crack, isn't it?
I mean, people are gonna smoke crack, no matter what, right? We should teach them the proper amount, and brand of cut to use on their coke....along with teaching them how to handle dangerous/violent crackbuyers. We can also teach them the best ways to market their crack, and the best places to sell it. They'll be educated on the best equipment to use, while being kept up to date on the current drug economy of their chosen city.
I mean, it's in the name of safety, right? As long as people are safe, I can sleep better at night. Thank God I live in America, where people have their priorities in order.
Agreed.
People are gonna do drugs no matter what, if the government supported users by providing them safe alternatives and enviroments to use the drugs - thats a good thing.
Although, while people might have priorities here... everyone has different priorities.
Prostitution... another behavior that is in question in this forum. Another behavior in which the opponents of claim it is a sin. Many religious members often impose their beliefs on others, and as I understand Christianity believes in pacifism. Imposing ideals on others is certainly not the pacifistic approach.
Although common, political decisions and legislation shouldn't be affected by religion directly. Congress isn't allowed to make legislation establishing a religion. Congress isn't allowed to advance or inhibit one religion over another. These two imply political decisions shouldn't be touched by religion.
At 4/19/05 10:42 PM, Rooster349 wrote:At 4/19/05 07:50 PM, Sweat wrote: Is there any proof to this? Cause i dont believe. I mean i think its a choice to be gay, but i doubt it Your just born Gay!, i guess you can say that pedophiles are born Pedophiles.There's no proof of a gay gene. I just did a paper on it, which makes me an authority on the subject.
Just because you did a paper on this... doesn't make you an authority at all. Thats just an arrogant approach. Where is your evidence that supports this? From other people's words? So if you read up on something... you're an authority?
At 5/6/05 02:18 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:At 5/6/05 02:00 AM, CrispiNuggets wrote: So they rose to the top because they have deep seated napoleon complexes?Yeah, you ever heard of stuff like this before? Maybe not. You sound stupid. People who think they are inferrior make up for it by striving in places where they can boss other people around. And they will step all over peope to do this. Hell, I had a friend of mine who wanted to be asst. manager of this place I used to work at and I was first in line in for asst. manager, so he framed me for stealing cash, the little rat bastard. Its all right, I got fired, he got an ass whoopin by a couple of people, and hes a litle bitch. Yes, Napoleon complexes. Look it up.
Yes, napoleon complexes? So if I have a napoleon complex and I want to be a politician, I will rise to the top? Moron, read your own posts next time. Its not often you find someone who is ignorant to what they have said themselves.
You wrote:
I despise all politicans. They are almost all liars, cheats, stage show actors, scum of society risen to the top because, I am willin to bet, deep seated Napoleon complexes.
They are... scum of society risen to the top because... [they have] deep seated napoleon complexes. Thats what you said in other words. That or you need a grammar lesson. Or do they not teach grammar where you live?
I don't think he was complementing you. You're a dumbass.He wasnt complementing me you fuckin retard. I guess they dont teach sarcasm at your special ed classes.
And I guess at your end they teach how to imply sarcasm in text... great education. Wait... education... public schools... politicians... what do they have in common? If there were no politicians you'd have no education. Too bad you choose to bite the hand that feeds you. If you hate politicians so much, go live in a cave as a hermit, or better yet... leave civilization outright.
At 5/6/05 01:56 AM, CrispiNuggets wrote: The idea of a meeting... where we can throw questions at the politicians... and they answer... kinda sounds like a media conference.Hmm. That would be a good idea but Im pretty sure I can name a President right off the top of my mind who holds nil to none of these. Can you also guess who I am referring to?
Completely irrelevent if the President chooses to speak to the media or not. Thats a single example of a political forum.
There seems to be a misconception about the impeachment powers. The house of representatives has the power to impeach a federal officer. For an impeachment resolution to be considered constitutional, it must pass majority or 2/3rds vote (i forget which) and the resolution is passed down to the senate. They run their "court" which is legislated already as they are able to create their own rules and regulations.
What can they impeach on? That is actually for congress to decide. If everyone suddenly decided to impeach the president they could. A more controversial topic is what senate must or must not do after they recieve the impeachment resolutions. The Constitution says the house impeaches and the senate trials, but it doesn't say the senate must trial. This could be a concern one day in the future, as most of everything becomes.
The impeachment powers are meant to be congress' check on the executive branch and has only been used a handful of times. Generally its been used on federal judges etc.
At 5/6/05 01:44 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:At 5/6/05 01:33 AM, Chupalo wrote:Lol you have no IDEA how much I strive.At 5/6/05 01:29 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Fuck reforming the whole system, lets kill the whole lot and make a good old spectale of it.The perfect retort from someone in the politics forum.
Screw politicans.
But seriously, man. I despise all politicans. They are almost all liars, cheats, stage show actors, scum of society risen to the top because, I am willin to bet, deep seated Napoleon complexes.
So they rose to the top because they have deep seated napoleon complexes? I don't think he was complementing you. You're a dumbass.
At 5/6/05 01:03 AM, Chupalo wrote: The British system of government is very adversarial. If my American compatriots have ever watched C-SPAN late at night, I'm sure you've stumbled upon a session of British Parlaiment wherein the opposing party can throw any number or variety of questions at the opposing party (particularly the Prime Minister). Would this be an improvement over the American system, wherein politicians are made relatively invulnerable? Should American hold real townhall meetings that we could throw whatever questions we pleased at our leaders? Would this improve, distabilize, or have no affect on the current American system of governing?
What are you talking about? Democracy in nature is adversarial. Britain doesn't have a government that is any more adversarial than the US. Politicians are not invulnerable. The only protections a politician has is immunity to certain laws while doing their job. This is done to protect politicians as they debate over politics and laws. You don't want a system of democracy if everyone is afraid to speak in fear of saying something wrong. This protection doesn't extend outside of the political forum, which is Congress. And furthermore, only members of congress have this limited protection.
Real town meetings? What sense is there to have a meeting on a national scale? Thats why we're a representative democracy, we communicate with our representatives and they do their job. If they don't, we can vote them out.
The idea of a meeting... where we can throw questions at the politicians... and they answer... kinda sounds like a media conference.
At 5/3/05 09:10 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: 2/3 of all teenage pregnancies end in abortion.
atleast they don't end in suicide
At 5/4/05 06:25 PM, byrd798 wrote: they say George Washington was a truthful politition
but wasn't the cherry tree story a lie
how does that look for the lying politions
they also say he lost his teeth due to his drug habits.
At 4/19/05 07:50 PM, Sweat wrote: Is there any proof to this? Cause i dont believe. I mean i think its a choice to be gay, but i doubt it Your just born Gay!, i guess you can say that pedophiles are born Pedophiles.
*ignoring the rest of the thread to restate my stance*
Is there any proof that people are born gay? Simply answered there is no verification. Are there experiments that conclude people are born gay? No. Is there evidence or studies that support this? Perhaps. The human genome is massive and mapping it out is not nearly completed. There may be some supportive evidence but not conclusive.
Is it a choice? Some may argue everything is a chained event just being played out and have a disbelief in free will. Assuming there is such a thing as free will, how much free will do we have? Are we bound to internal instincts? Or can we ignore them? Either way, is it choice?
If sexual orientation is an internal instinct, it may be safe to say that you do not have a choice. However, I believe it is possible to hear/do/talk about/feel something for so long or so many times it becomes almost internally ingrained into you as normal. This normalcy is not akin to familiarity but permanency, as in it feels almost instincts. If sexual orientation is perhaps not an internal instinct, rather learned through interaction, then it is mostly safe to say that it is choice to an extent. Although, some may argue that even if you do learn through interaction, it is perhaps by chance and not choice a person decides to be one orientation over another. I believe it is way too possible for behavioral adjustments and sexual orientation, in my opinion, is no different from even bathing.
Is there another possible reason concluding that homosexuals may be born gay? I've already mentioned that it may be internal instinct, which would likely be controlled by our genes, which would support homosexuals being born gay. The latent trait theory may explain another possible result in the same favor. The latent trait theory reasons that perhaps homosexuality is found in the genes. However, you're not born gay... you become gay. Your trait to be gay may be found in your genes however may remain inactive until an event in your life activates it. Perhaps your first time doing something. Latent trait theory explains that to other behaviors. If this is true, would you be considered gay from birth? I think not. More or less that falls under learned behavior the best.
If sexual orientation are born that way, perhaps pedophiles are in fact born that way too. They are both behaviors thus they likely come from the same basis. This does not imply pedophilia should be allowed or sexual orientation should be regulated.
You need to review yourself. You're passionately blind.
So when it comes to abortion, every baby has a soul and a destination in life pre-ordained by some other worldy force?
When it comes to gay marriage.... we refer to the dictionary? Come on... Gay marriages have existed as long as straight marriages. Look into some cultures like the greeks and prior civilizations that we have records on.
At 5/3/05 01:50 PM, Proteas wrote: THEN IT WAS NOT MURDER IT WAS SELF DEFENSE AND YOU SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO PRISON TIME OR THE DEATH PENALTY. If you are found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, you should be given a light jail sentence.
When a criminal pleads self defense and the verdict reflects that, there is no penalty.
Involuntary manslaughter deals with murder due to negligence. Some idiot might run a red light and get into a car accident and kill 3 people and he would then be charged with 3 counts of involuntary manslaughter.
At 5/3/05 09:10 PM, Catsofthebase wrote:At 5/3/05 08:07 PM, fli wrote:Perhaps the professor has overlooked the fact that minorities have higher degrees of poverty. And there is a high correlation between poverty and crime.Exactly...
Poverty striken areas are a good criminal habitat. People in that area are then exposed to drugs, gangs, etc, etc. It isnt that they are inclined to commit crimes as much as they are swayed to it by their situations or peer pressure.
I agree, poverty does have a toll on crime rates. This "theory" if you would wanna call it that, is just one of many. Its a small branch off of social learning theory- which was totally rejected when applied to other interests.
People in need of food and cannot achieve food by socially acceptable means will find alternate means to achieve this. Expand this idea to not only involving food, but money and even success. If someone commits a light crime to achieve something and does achieve that, the likely hood of him/her doing that again increase. The likely hood of committing higher crimes increases too.
I take this for example:
A dog stands still and is not rewarded.
A dog sits at the ring of a bell and is rewarded.
Each time the bell rings over a period of time, the dog is rewarded if he sits.
This is an example of conditioning. A short example. Humans behave often the same way. The example is very simple, nothing in real life is that simple.
At 5/3/05 06:59 PM, red_skunk wrote: When you start looking at the factors, no crime is "voluntary." Nothing is voluntary. Every single act you make was influenced by something else. In that sense, sure.
But pinning crime on cultural diversity is messed up. This professor doesn't sound very intelligent.
I didn't agree with many points he said. He is ultra-conservative. There is sense to crime having a link to cultural diversity. How strong is that link? Many factors to take into account.
There is a line of though that implies that society and the enviroment causes more criminal activity than what would be considered "voluntary" criminal activity. In terms of violent crime, I do not agree. However, the effects of society and the enviroment on crime rates is evident. Dense areas have higher crime rates. Areas with more cultural diversity have higher crime rates.
One of my criminal justice professors used to say the same line over and over,
"Show me cultural diversity and I'll show you crime."
At 5/3/05 02:59 PM, fli wrote: Just stop patronizing me. It's one thing to argue a point, and another to say, "I'm smart. Your dumb. End argument. You passionate fagel, you."
Am I the one who is patronizing you? Did I initially grab your posts and cut them into pieces and call them a "flip flopper"? I explain my stance and you say I have no stance. I explain my reasoning and you say I have no reasoning. How am I the one patronizing when I am explaining and trying to find other sources, meanwhile all you have to say is:
"I felt this way my whole life!"
"How dare you compare pedophilia with homosexuality!"
"Stop making me feel bad about myself by 'subtly' insulting my intelligence."
At 5/3/05 05:50 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:At 5/3/05 05:38 PM, CrispiNuggets wrote: JusticeofSarcasm,I did read his response, I also read how he tried to get a ban from Maus. I read all of the conversations, would you like me to reply to every one? I was replying to you, fli already knows what I would tell him. Your input to this matter is un-informed, obviously, but thanks for trying.
Don't jump in now without reading the last threads atleast. You're telling me to not tell him to get laid while he told me to take a laxative. You're input is un-informed, obviously.
You jumped into a controversy that is mostly on a personal level, now shut up. It became personal once Fli made it personal with his direct personal attacks. Whether or not I "passively aggressively" (or whatever) told him hes a "flaming homosexual" (his words), I never made direct personal attacks until he did. Which by the way I never implied shit about thinking homosexuality is wrong in any way.
