5,460 Forum Posts by "HighlyIllogical"
NAMBLA? They defend the legality of promoting it. As long as it's not occuring, it's legal to promote the idea.
At 5/2/06 05:35 PM, YankeeFli wrote:
Did I say that they didn't have rights, No.I just said that they weren't protected by all of our rights.
Many rights are reserved specifically for citizens: The right to vote and/or to own a firearm (subject to government restriction!)
Fli, you know how Republicans operate. They use a wedge issue, or bring up something that everyone knows about but is really irrelevant.
At 5/2/06 03:42 PM, JMHX wrote: No matter how he spells it, the fact that education is lackluster in the United States and isn't helped by being cut still stands.
You can thank the Republicans for that. Bush's proposed FY07 budget cuts the funding to the Department of Education.
The presence of the insurgency is factual. The lack of infrastructure is factual. Hell, they don't even have electricity in many areas!
Fellatio is defined as "oral stimulation of the penis." That's essentially 'oral sex,' except reproduction, at least to the best of my knowledge, won't take place.
Er, sorry. Sometimes they say "White (Non-Hispanic)" This implies that Hispanics are whites, but not for the purpose of the poll or test.
The point is:
Who ever said that the law was fair/just/moral?
Exactly. It IS constitutional to protest at a funeral. I oppose the message and the action, but it is LEGAL.
No such thing. It's either racism or it's not.
At 5/2/06 02:23 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote:
Well, better get those jokes in about a low Canadian dollar in while you still can. The way Canada's economy is progressing, soon we may be making fun of YOUR dollar :)
That's bad for all of us. No more cheap goods from Canada. Bad for us. That means less Canadian exports. Bad for you.
At 5/2/06 04:24 PM, BeFell wrote:
I need somebody to make my attempts to be a whack job right wing colomnist not suck grammatically while maintaining my voice.
That'll be hard to do. Right wing columnists are notable for their lack of clarity and their want for proper grammar.
Kidding.
At 5/2/06 05:17 PM, Elfer wrote:
Erm, I think the point he was trying to make is just that Hispanics are pretty much white people.
I've seen standardized tests, polls and the like that say Hispanic (non-white).
At 5/2/06 10:38 AM, JoS wrote: Did Clinton really lie under oath?
Yes. He admitted to having "sexual relations."
Sexual relations are not limited to penitrative sex.
At 5/2/06 04:21 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:
Okay, look: A person of standard intelligence and sufficient economic knowledge could acknowledge the worthiness in raising taxes during a boom to keep growth at bay and increase revenue.
I would do this as well, but you can reduce spending as well. That's good too.
The ACLU defends civil liberties, nothing more. There is NOTHING MORE American that civil liberties.
At 5/2/06 02:53 PM, Raptorman wrote:
It's not a translation. It is a wholesale alteration and not the national anthem.
How so? Show me the lyrics of their version.
No, I'm saying that where after WWII, Germany and Japan were less troublesome because there was still infrastructure, people who wanted to rebuild their nation and have democracy reign supreme...whereas in Iraq, there's little infrastructure and too many people who want Saddam or an Islamo-facist in power.
No one listens to France anyway (e.g "Oh puleeze monesieur hitler! Pulezze do not invade uz! We are but ze poor French.")
At 5/2/06 04:08 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:
If at any time you would rather raise taxes than cut spending, you are not an economic conservative.
Liberal as in the sense as free with finances...cutting spending is not liberal... By the way, a liberal (economically speaking) is "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets."
Leonard Nemoy + Pon Farr = Ka killed.
At 5/2/06 04:12 PM, mofomojo wrote:
Apologies; I meant to say an autocracy, which is more correct in this case with the Executive branch leeching onto the powers of Leglislative and Judicial.
Autocracy isn't very accurate either. I'd say that it's turning into a one party nation, that is, unless democrats have sweeping gains in the 07 and 08 elections.
At 5/2/06 04:11 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:
They better pick better reasons. Start talking about the per-capita increase in Iraq or the great potential the country has to be wealthy and strong.
Still, Iraq has lost many, many many of it's middle class, upper class and wealthy professionals that are so important to building a successful society. Additionally, what about the problem of oh, the insurgency?
Factually speaking, immigration is highly beneficial:
http://sorrel.humbol..ic/econ104/immigrat/
states "it is likely that immigrants impose a net burden on native taxpayers on the order of $16 billion annually...[and the]loss of native wages add another $44 billion for a total cost from immigration of $60 billion." However, the site goes on to say "the economy gains $44 billion is lower costs and/or prices from immigrant labor, and gains $7 billion more on top of that by generating more profits for employers. Thus the total benefits to immigration are on the order of $51 billion annually."
The loss is $9 billion. Job loss is primarily a myth. So, there has to be a solution. How about stop waste in the federal budget? $16 billion in taxpayer losses is not very significant on top of an $8+ trillion national debt.
Condi is raging conservative, not raging awesome.
At 5/2/06 04:05 PM, JMHX wrote:
* Yes, to all the libertarians, Judicial Review was decided by the Court,
I think it was in Marbury v. Madison, am I right?
I percieve myself as an economic conservative, for I'm in favor of free trade, scaled taxation (increases with income) and want to cut pork and the debt. Rather, Bush and his ilk are economic 'liberals': Spend and don't tax.
Lol. Quotes like that are why I need more room for my sig.
At 5/2/06 03:41 PM, JMHX wrote: The point I was trying to get at is that it is NEVER okay to bend and circumvent the structure of the Constitution. It is not a bargaining chip, something that can be twisted and ignored or selectively enforced.
It's a living document, however, and can get (a.) reinterpereted and (b.) amended to fit the times.
By the way, quick question. By economic conservative, you mean free trade?
