13,999 Forum Posts by "fli"
personally, if i ever had the misfortune to end up becoming intimate with a transexual, and i found out, i'd butcher them on the spot.
You have a horrible mentality! Yes, I don't think nobody like to be falsified, but do you think a bruised ego is enough to butcher somebody? I'm telling people, if you are in that type of situation and don't like it, walk away from it and never look back. That will prevent more problems from adding up. And if you don't care about the morality of this issue, just think about the law that will persecute you in trial.
At 4/14/04 04:32 AM, Battlemaster wrote: Oh I forgot... if there is anarchy, the strongest will survive therefore who ever is the strongest becomes the leader... everyone will follow that person, becoming a dictatorship, HELLO! WE JUST GOT A NEW GOVERNMENT! anarchy was just lost, either way buddy... a gov't will ALWAYS be around.
The logic doesn't follow through-- the strongest will survive? And then become leader... and then dictator? Anarchy is having no government, not about creating one. Perhaps you explain step by step, make it clearer. I'm catching your drift, but it isn't quite formed. Again, going back to my island thing... if you want a bannana, you get one. If you want to swim, then you swim. You do whatever you want. Although I can see more or less what you are trying to present: human nature's tendency to be naughty. So going back to my island example; if you want a coconut, then you get one. If you want to hurt someone, you hurt that person. You could do whatever you want. But if you want an establishment to be protected by someone else's tendency to be mean, then you can give up a part of that anarchy-freedom to get that freedom.
All humanity is born to anarchy, it is only humanity's decisions to keep or overthrow an establishment.
At 4/14/04 04:30 AM, Battlemaster wrote: Wow, are you kidding me? Society is all in the matter of order, if we have anarchy we have no order. No protection, no nothing, we are more advanced then that. Anarchy is terrible, bad idea buddy.
We don't need order unless we want it. What's so bad about it. Imagine yourself being on an island. Want a bannana, you go get one. You want to sleep, you go to sleep. If you want a fish, you go get a fish. Who needs a government, huh? For what? But if people want a government, and give a part of our anarchy-freedom (as written in the constitution) then let it be. Again, anarchy doesn't equate chaos, although I can understand fully how such a thing could be seen in such a way.
I believe that the reason the American government has lasted over 200 years is because people are allowed overthrow their government and return to the anarchy-freedom or form a different government.
I don't know, but, and not to mean anything by it because I have nothing against the man, but he has no chance. No exposure, I didn't even know he was still in it! The only two big names I hear around is Bush and Kerry. And sprinkle in other names, otherwise Mr. Sharpton hasn't worked hard enough to get enough exposure.
At 4/12/04 11:23 PM, whatispower wrote: i think that anarchy is true freedom why should we have to follow laws made by other person why should we let other people say what we can and cant do?
ANARCHY FOR ALL
Anarchy isn't a bad thing. It just means no government, although to a few people, it means chaos and mayhem... which isn't what anarchy isn't about. Two distinct different things...
John Locke, whom I would say is the forefather of American government, said in not in these exact terms but more or less... we have a right to have anarchy. People should do whatever what they want. But should there be a time when an institution is needed, it is because people are willing to give a part of their freedom for things what an instution could provide.
Anarchy is a wonderful concept, but it is something I wouldn't want. I've read "Lord of the Flies" too often to understand human nature foils such wonderful concepts.
At 4/13/04 09:32 PM, MadMax501 wrote: this may seem like a strange deferance, but although I have no problems with homosexuality, and am for gay marriage, I realized I am slightly apalled by transvestites
men are becoming women, and women are becoming men
are these people legally treated as the opposite sex (meaning can they marry someone as if they were a heterosexual couple?)
Now on a tangent...
the only thing that frightens me about this is the notion that one day I, or someone I know might have a partner we believe is a women/man when they were really born of the opposite sex!
With surgery, hormone pills etc. you might never know!
it doesn't seem like there's anything illegal about it, and I believe strongly autonomy, but I feel incredibly conflicted about this topic..gimme YOUR opinion
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" Hamlet's mother said to Ophelia... usually the people whom act most appalled to this idea are the ones who are most secretively attracted to this type of taboo...
I don't care about trannies. I don't hang with them, and they don't hang out with me. I'm too boring, and too me they are way too flaming. But I understand their strife well enough of identity and belonging. The most tragic stories I've ever known were about trannies like Brandon Teena and Eddie "Gwen".
I got to know one very close for a month before we went our ways. She was a wonderful person, and actually looked, dressed, acted like a woman. Had the face just perfectly-- just really soft female features. Sculpted her body like Elizabeth Hurley... spent hours in the Gym. The only thing that gave her true identity away was that she had too broad of hands and feet. Otherwise she spoke and sounded just like any woman. Pretty little thing... the most wonderful person you could meet. But after 9-11, she was called on duty and I haven't talked to her ever since. But I hope she's okay, and although I do not agree on this war, I was amazed how she was so willing to serve and potentially die for her country that doesn't totally accept her identity.
You don't have to like trannies... just respect them, and if you aren't able then keep your distance. Nobody likes troubles.
At 4/13/04 09:51 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:At 4/13/04 09:24 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Im curious, since when do the rights of minorties get to be decided by a referendum? Therent wasnt one for letting women work or blacks vote, or did I just miss the memos?Good thing we don't live in a direct democracy.
Those blow.
Yes, I agree this statement. Although we have a democracy/ republic, I am very happy this isn't a direct democracy. During this gay marriage contraversy, I keep hearing, "let the people decide!" Well, for this issue, I don't want to let the people decide. Of course if people decided, the majority would not allow this to happen... First off, this is a civil rights issue. Imagine back then during the black civil rights? Blacks would still be "equal but seperate" No, this type of decision should go to the court system whom I've giving part of my freedom to have their protection.
At 4/13/04 12:00 PM, Jlop985 wrote: God exists irrespective of what happens with humanity.
But if there wasn't knowlege of God, how would anyone know he existed? And what about the older civilizations? They didn't have a concept of God like many people today. Did God exist for the ancient Greeks who believed in Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite?
At 4/13/04 03:47 PM, G00i3_7h3_3lf wrote:At 4/13/04 06:33 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: And is that a good thing? Not being able to have the person you love visit you?If they are crazy, yeah. Like on Law and Order, the crazy lezbo killed her ex in an attempt to get her daughter...
That's a TV show, right? Anyways, the point is that gays are being unfairly treated. If a gay person was not allowed to decide on the fate of his partner for a certain reason, or to visit, and other stuff then let that same reason be applied to EVERYONE.
I was talking to my friends, and I asked an intresting question. I think people would like to discuss this too...
What if everyone in this whole world had their minds erased and started new, and that every single thing about religion and god disappeared. No Bibles, no Korans, no nothing... We just started new again with no knowlege of God.
Would God exist?
You guys have it ALL WRONG: It's DOG, not GOD...
God is just a word to ecompass something that the mind cannot truly understand. For me, I don't really care. I live like an Existensialist.
I live. Then I die. And there isn't anything else after it, and if you choose to believe in something... good... but we're still a bag of bones towards the end.
I don't quite understand this question. But in the US, the president isn't all that powerful. The only power (supposedly) a president has is to sign or not to sign a few things into law, and etc. There are other powers, but I'm not too sure about them and rather have them not listed and be false. It has been a very long while since I've taken political science.
That is why Bush HATES congress, the Supreme Court, etc. I am ever so grateful to Checks and Balances...
if the family of the patient respected the relationship then they would consult the partner. if however they don't then they can refuse them permission to visit, of course there have been instances where married partners have been denied access to their partner by the partner's family.(according to anecdotal sources i have read)
I don't know what are the circumstances in which a hospital will deny a partner, but the fact remains: if you're not the legal gaurdian, then you have no decision. I wish I could remember the name of this woman, but when her lesbian partner became a vegetable, she spent 7 years (more or less I believe) to have the right to decide to have the hospital pull her off from life support. Even though both partners were "married", it was parents of the comatose woman that prevented the other living partner from making any decision.
the words "last will and testament" come to mind.
There has been too many problems about this. Not all people make last wills, especially when people are young. I'm 22, and I don't have will. I think most people are like that. What if I was killed, and what would become of my partner's situation?Marrying my partner would prevent all sorts of problems such as property rights, etc... And even then last will and testament has its problems in situations involving gay couples, and towards the end, it creates problems and havoc that nobody should go through.
a little paperwork never hurt anyone.
I'm not talking "little" here. I'm talking about a VERY LONG time. And even when the time and effort have been put in, problems could still arise. It is unfair. I shouldn't be unfairly treated in anyway. Nor should anyone. Doing extra paperwork makes me a second class citizen. I shouldn't be treated any different from other folks.
worst excuse ever. "there are straight marriages with little to no value, so let's let gays worsen it."
i don't think anyone who values or respects marriage actually likes that those shows air, or that those sham marriages take place. however letting gays marry won't make anything better.
I haven't made an excuse. It was an outburst of emotion and indignity. I'm trying to juxatopose two distinct things to make a point:
"'Gay marriage devalues traditional marriage'" vs. "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire!"
"'Marriage a sacred!'" vs. "The Bachelorette"
My point: Marriage is being flaunted around like a whore by certain folks, and while there are those whom deserve it twicefold. My point wasn't that marriage has been degraded, and so let gays marry. I'm trying to say that those agruments are invalid.
At 4/12/04 06:58 PM, BeFell wrote:At 4/12/04 04:53 PM, spanishfli wrote:Let me say before hand that this is meant to the "extreme" Christian folks, not the regular okay Christians I have as friends. It is aimed to Mr. Falwell, and other rigid dumbasses...
Thank you for aknowledging that there is a difference between these two sects. There are definately a few thing I disagree with you about but not a bad poem.
I like you, reading your posts are quite intresting. Always leaves me something to say, or makes me think differently. Like wise, I don't agree with everything what you have to say. Thanks.
The fact is gay marriage is a necessary thing for gay couples to prevent tragedies and grief of being a loving couple and yet not any rights.
What if the person whom you loved was dying, and you couldn't see him in the hospital because you're not family or married to that person?
What if you had NO decision to the fate of your partner if that partner was in a comma or in vegetable state?
What if you couldn't get any inheritance because you weren't family or married? How you would like the State or your partners family to take EVERYTHING, leaving you NOTHING? Or spend years and years of trying to fix this problem?
How does going through a whole lot more paper work to be on your partner's issurance plan feel?
Gay marriage isn't about "de-valueing" traditional marriage. No, heterosexuals already do that by having the dozens of shows of people marrying for money to complete strangers. Damn that Darva Conger and that Joe Millionaire.
I am outraged that two complete strangers' marriage on a game-reality show on FOX is alright, yet allowing two lesbians whom have been together for 40 years is not alright. Marriage is wasted on idiots...
At 4/12/04 04:59 PM, Schaft wrote:At 4/12/04 04:53 PM, spanishfli wrote:What A queer
The lady doth protest too much, methinks...
I feel I'm always up against the "hardcore Christian", the ones that say I'm going to Hell for being a fag. The ones that want my rights to be reduced. The ones that say garbage such as that fags deserve to die. Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, Mr. Bush, etc... Well the last straw came. A Christian anti-abortionist group came on my community college and started say garbage. One of them kept saying names of murdered gay men and women and saying how they were being punished in Hell. Well I started a protest against them and had several people on my side. One "good Christian" punched me in the face. Another of them pushed down a girl down a flight of stairs. But towards the end campus police forced them off. But I'm still pissed. And so I made a poem. And I dedicate this to Mr. Bible Thumper... Let me say before hand that this is meant to the "extreme" Christian folks, not the regular okay Christians I have as friends. It is aimed to Mr. Falwell, and other rigid dumbasses...
<<This poem is to be read in two distinct voices>>
Bless Mr. Thumper! Your Bible is worn,
To God’s mercy and grace you have forsworn.
“’Our Great Lord acts in mysterious ways’,
“’Our Lord is our shepherd,’” That’s what you say.
Very rowdy is your “Hallelujah!”
Passionate is your love for old dogma.
Merrily of Jesus’ word you do preach,
Of God and good faith you promise to teach.
Peace, love, hope, faith; these you vow to abide,
On the Crucifix, Jesus savior died!
Such beautiful teachings: God loves his herd—
Except for that young man, Matthew Shepard.
“God deliver us!” You’ve cried in your pews.
“Save us from sin! Except for Hitler’s Jews.”
Mr. Thumper you’re a good and nice man,
But it’s not nice to piss on the Koran!
God bless your weary soul for howling “War!”
“Spatter blood for peace! That what I cry for!”
You say, “We fight in Iraq for freedom!”
But here, we got a witch-hunt like old Salem.
Peace to everyone, all humanity
That is the good Christian philosophy.
Jesus is our salvation! That was the word!
Achieve enough good and you’ll be martyred.
Do God’s will, and you will go to heaven.
Yeah, that's what *they* thought on Nine Eleven.
Strap a bomb, get seventy pure virgins!
In the name of God piles up the coffins.
Good Thumper, you really know how to pray
Too bad only a few things you’ll obey...
And your martyrs: St. Michael Griffin
Who art in The Florida State Prison
Good St. John Salvi, and blessed St. James Kopp,
For the doctor he killed, not one teardrop.
Least we forget that moral St. Paul Hill;
He knew all except this: ‘Thou shall not kill.’
God forbids sinful folly of the skin
Except priests and boys, in Holiday Inn
Thanks for sending God’s word in Mexico…
But no thanks, for making kiddy porno--
You know, with that one cute thirteen year old
On her tities you dropped your big cum load!
The one that got the sinful abortion:
In her pussy went dad’s drill from Craftsman!
Aye, noble Christians like Reverend Fred Phelps
For Hell bound gays he believed are foul whelps
And his groups’ hearts are in the right places,
They believe all fags should be pushing up daisies
Who cares for Fred C. Martinez Jr.,
Their moral hearts pities for her killer.
And what about lovely Miss Eddie “Gwen”.
For her they cried, “burn, fag, burn!,” and “Amen.”
What do you think of Sir Brandon Teena
God’s fine that he was raped on his Honda?
You say God love you, God loves me and all--
Just don’t say this: “Woman’s choice”-- after all
Yes Mr. Thumper, I have seen my ways!
I finally repent my sinful days.
But, Mr. Thumper, what does this part mean
For this little piece seems to be unseen.
So please, call me soon on the telephone;
‘…he who is without sin cast the first stone.’
At 4/11/04 04:48 PM, Jlop985 wrote: Is that so, spanishfli? This only confirms my suspicions of Bush's ulterior motives in these wars.
I am 100% sure that if you dig into old news archives you will find something about the oil pipes. It was on the news, but it was hushed hush so not many people didn't even pay attention. And for the meuseums, it was bigger news and you may remember it.
Frankly I never liked the Christians or any Christian religions (especially that Fawell guy) But I won't go into details... and my opinion on that teacher: I'm not against her opinon.
But I LOVE my Christmas and Easter break... except that in California, it's called Spring and Winter break.
Hell I wouldn't care about celebrating Indian holidays. If it means more time off during the year, well the better for me.
At 4/12/04 03:43 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:At 4/12/04 03:31 PM, The_King_of_Wolves wrote: It's more like if I use my freedom of speech to slander Sally and print "Sally is a whore" every day in the paper then my freedom of speech can be limited. To put it simplyWell, it's not a freedom of speech matter. That's then a matter of harassment and slander.
Very right. Protected speech has its limatations. Slander isn't protected. Libel, Heckler's veto, "fighting words" or obscenity (although the very last one isn't as clear cut and a whole different contraversy). And nobody hasn't the real right to march down a street and start doing yelling whatever they want (as some people assume.) Places has juristrictions (I think that's the word) and people have to fill up papers. The other day when I was at my community college, a bunch of bible thumping anti-abortion Christians assembled on campus. For "good Christians" they sure knew how to hurt people... saw one of them pushing a girl down the stairs on purpose. Anyways they didn't fill the proper papers to do their speech on campus and at the end they were forced off the campus (as they grumbled that their right of free speech has been violated...)
So free speech isn't about saying whatever you want.
At 4/11/04 06:10 PM, BeFell wrote: Please refer to my signature for an important difference.
Oh my... my... my... Aren't you the mini Falwell.
At 4/11/04 02:41 PM, CrassClock wrote: What was Bush doing at the time?
He was at his ranch, riding a few horses, swimming, I don't know... I do wish I could have that type of vacation.
At 3/17/04 09:57 PM, Locke666 wrote: I have been looking around lately and have seen quite a few anti bush things on the internet but I cant quite understand why. Bush is a great president, during his term he has done nothing but fight for freedom in the world. During a time of great tragedy he has pulled our country through and freed millions of people in Iraq. You should all be greatful for what he's done for us, not go around bush bashing!
I don't believe Bush has bad intentions, but he f*cks up a lot. I don't know his true motive in invading Iraq, but I suspect that it is greed, and he is using the mask of patriotism. And it seems to me that the memo that was disclassified supports the idea that Bush wasn't a freedom fighter in the start-- only after 9-11.
When my friend Christian was searching for Bin Ladin, he was deeply confused. He was happy he had done a good thing, but at the same time, he felt upset that our government had not so good intentions. He was there to see the laying of oil pipes in Aphganistan, which makes him suspect that the government wanted money. He says he is voting out for Bush. His experiance has left him bitter and confused.
Christian was most upset that museums in Iraq were being looted and stolen of its most PRICELESS works of art and history, yet we had soilders fixing up burning oil rigs. But none to protect museums. It seems to me my government is intrested in making a pretty penny and then hide behind a mask of patriotism.
We are imposing our government in their country. That's not freedom fighting. Granted that the stuff right there is horrible, and what Saddam had done was terrible, there were other countries that had the same sh*it going on. Already we've begun eyeing Iran...
I am with my friend Christian, I'm not voting for Bush this year.
People are always throwing these terms around. "Liberal whores..." "conservative pig..." this and that... I've always identified myself more liberal, or at least my mind set is more liberal. But then I got to thinking, what is liberal and what is conservative. And so this is what I've put together, but please add on...
Liberal: Mostly Democrat, wants well being of society as a whole, more seperate sense of politics and religion. Wants taxes.
Conservative: Mostly Republican, believes in benefiting individuals whom work hard, sense of politics more closer to religious thinking. Doesn't want taxes.
By my own definitions, I believe that I'm a liberal. I don't like taxes, but I know they're neccessary. And I just can't understand a Rupublican's POV on taxes: they keep lowering it (Like my Ahnold the Gobernator) yet three public schools has been shut down. On Gay Marriage: I've haven't heard any good arguments against it that aren't religious based, and so I support it. On abortion: I hate it, but it is not my decision to butt in a woman's decision. So what do you think, I'm liberal? Like to hear definitions of liberal and conservative.
At 4/11/04 03:35 AM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Why is it whenever a business or other target that also happens to be Jewish or Muslim gets attacked, vandalized etc or when a person is attacked it is considered a hate crime. I dont mean burning crosses or swastikas, say two white youths attack a muslim kid, its automatically seen s as a hate crime. Could it just not be that they dont like him cause he did something to them? Or when a minority gets in trouble, sometimes they will use the "he did it cause he was racist" speech. Does it bother anyone else?
Yes, I've seen that way... but you have to see it: two white kids, attacking a Muslim kid. Of course it is going to be seen as a hate crime, despite the circumstances that lead the attack of the Muslim kid. Especially around these times...
At 4/10/04 02:58 AM, Capricious_Zephyr wrote: Do people in America have too many rights nowadays? It is possible to carry semiautomatic weapons around on the street. Last year, a man was stealing hubcaps from his neighbor's car. Little did he know, the neighbor was in the car and about to reverse out of the driveway. The car ended up running over the guy's hands. He sued and won something like $75,000 for pain, suffering, and medical bills. There are lots of cases like this, like the fat people suing McDonalds. Come on!!
These are not rights... there has never been a thing like "right to sue"... These is lawyer stuff...
I live on a military base. People who sneak onto the base and chain themselves to something are simply tolerated or thrown out. Don't want to arrest them for their expression of free speech!
Again this is not a right... this subject is about discipline. People can cry out expression of free speech, but it truly isn't.
What do you think?? Too many rights??
I believe that there isn't too many rights. I would rather have individual abuse them then the government take my rights from me, especially my civil rights because I'm part of a minority. All of the examples you've presented weren't about rights. But I can't catch your drift. People who drive believe they have a right to drive... people assume they have a right of everything nowadays. But the fact is that there isn't anything in the Constitution, or at least I'm very sure, that people could sue as a right. The people you've present are just a bunch of pathetic people whom are looking for cheap and easy money.
I love reading the news, but I am amazed how different are American news compared with the ones in Mexico, Germany, England, etc. When an American is reporting on an American incident, especially when it is not a proud story, the story's "blow" is softened quite a bit. But in these Mexican, German, and English papers, they report them how it is.
For example, soccer. Before I go on, let me say that I don't know soccer and don't watch it, so I can't tell the American soccer players' name. Onward... Several weeks ago, yahoo! news reported how evil Mexican were for cheering on for Osoma when American soccer players came to visit to play. I could remember how the news potrayed them as poor but proud Americans, suffering the flings of misfortune. But they failed to report that these same Americans pee'd on the Mexican flag (I'm not too sure about this, it has been a while) in disrespect, hence pissed off Mexicans were crying "Osama, Osama, Osama!" to vent out their frustration and anger.
I think American journalism is great, but I always read papers out of the country to understand the whole scope. And I came to this conclusion: don't take what you read too lightly, especially if it is about the United States. You may not get the whole story...
I have a strong opinion about this... It's unfair Clear Channel has rendered to him.
What's most scary is that Howard wasn't censored because of his fart jokes, or big boob contests, or anything else... it was because he was talking about Bush in an unflattering way. I listen to Howard Stern and god help me, I will vote out Bush if I can't hear him in the mornings.
I thought this was a very intresting picture. Breast Milk and Coca-Cola... It's sad I think. The people are becoming diabetic. Althought the painting is quite beautiful, it is quite sad. One day I think I'll visit there, live there and record stuff with my camcorder.
At 9/9/01 08:37 AM, Wormtail wrote:At 7/21/01 02:08 PM, Hashshashin wrote: I was reading a book about the Islamic Holy Book, the Quran. There was a section called 'The Scientific Message'. I want there straight away and was amazed by what I read.Also Quran says something about Egypt Phaoroas.Thats strange too.
There was some stuff straight out of the Quran, translated to english, and here are some of them:
'And We made from water every living thing. Will they not belive?'
'Allah* has created every animal from water; some creep on their bellies, some walk on two legs and some on four. Allah creates what He wills, for truly He has power over all things'
*the Islamic name for God
These two parts combined seem to tell something about eveloution. Every animal from water... werent the first organisims from the sea? 'some walk on two legs and some on four' Is this about when creatures starting using their legs?
Something that might even supposrt the idea of the big bang:
'Do not unbelivers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation before We clove them asunder? ...And it is He Who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, all swim along, each in its own set orbit'
Heavens and earth as one unit of creation? each on its own set orbit? The Quran was written by an uneducted Arab (chosen by God as his prophet, and an angel taught him how to read) about 1,400 years ago? And the Quran has NEVER been changed, ancient versions are exactly the same as the modern ones.
Muslims belive that the Quran is written with the words of God, it is a sin to change them.
It is highly possible that God exists, because im sure no arab 1,400 years ago could have thought about the idea of a big bang, or that the Earth was in an orbit! Not so long ago that the Earth was proved to travel around the Sun.
This is also directed to Christians, does the Bible reffer to any modern scientific stuff? Is Islam the real religion?
Oh, the other day somebody even suggested that the Aztecs may had known about evolution. Each "sun" on the Aztec calender represents entities that lived on earth before humans, according to the mythology. First were fish, then monkey, then something else, and something else, and the fifth sun was humans. My friend was dead set that the Aztecs knew something about Evolution, but all the world have similar myths.
