5,794 Forum Posts by "IllustriousPotentate"
At 4/12/04 01:43 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: I think I figured out a way to save on postage if your mailing a letter within the same geographical region (city or area). Put your address as the to address and the return as the actual destination. Now if it needs to get there soon dont do this, or if your paying a bill or soemthing other official. But if its its a letter to your friend go for it, you dont have to buy stupid stamps. BUt not to your gf you cheap bastard.
I've done this many times, and some people have sent stuff to me this way. It's kinda funny; the mail comes to you labeled "Post Office does not deliver mail without postage". In fact, I've noticed on some envelopes that come with my bills that the agency has their address in both places for this reason.
Usually, it's best to mail something this way by dropping it in a public mailbox rather than your own.
At 4/12/04 02:22 PM, RotesStinktier wrote:
What the topic poster said, to my knowledge, when he said 'the Christian calender', was not the whole 365 day calender. Since that's not a wholly Christian notion.
Oh, I know. I was just joking.
At 4/12/04 02:01 PM, DarkVoid wrote: So you are saying majority wins?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying it's more practical to close when a majority of the workplace would not be present to work, as most Christians would stay out to observe Easter.
At 4/12/04 01:47 PM, RotesStinktier wrote: Unemployment isn't too high, and the degree that raising the min. wage would affect it is slight, unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise.
Raising the min. wage in and of itself doesn't cause massive inflation, huge spikes in unemployment, etc. That's a fallacy. It depends on the overall economic climate.
True, unemployment wouldn't soar. However, even the slightest of unemployment increases is a step in the opposite direction from where most Americans want to go. Moreover, the outsourcing that many are so concerned about would only increase and proliferate with a minimum wage increase.
At 4/12/04 01:44 PM, DarkVoid wrote:
How could you say that!? Do you know the pains and the time it would take do redo the whole entire Canadian calander?
Hmm... that's funny. I thought all calendars now had 12 months and 365 days on them (366 in leap years).
Seriously, though. Allowing government employees off on Christmas allows the workers to celebrate their religious beliefs, but the government itself does not officially recognize the religious significance of the holiday.
People with other religions are allowed to take religious holidays, like Jews taking off Yom Kippur or something. It is the same with Christians and Easter, only it makes more sense to close down completely than to try to operate with only 15% or so of the staff.
In matters of religious relations, it is important to distinguish whether "Canada" in the context of your argument is refering to the people of Canada or the government of Canada.
If you are refering to the government of Canada, then yes, your teacher is correct. The government should treat all belief systems equally, as it is not the government's job nor is it necessary for the government to judge religious beliefs.
However, if you are refering to the people of Canada, then no. An individual should not be considered close-minded or racist if they do not accept other's religion as being the same or as valid as theirs, nor should they be forced to do so.
Moreover, minimum wage raises do nothing to combat outsourcing.
Y'all do realize that raising the minimum wage would cause even more unemployment, don'tcha? It's simple economics, really.
At 4/12/04 09:59 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:
Not even that. They dont count as a party unless they have some actual political power... whch, unfortunately, they dont.:
The libertarian party is slowly growing in membership and clout, especially in local and state politics.
My former take on liberalism and conservatism is that
Liberals= high social spending, limited gov't enforcement of "morality".
Conservatives = low social spending, more gov't enforcement of "morality".
Unfortunately, both Democrats and Republicans have seceded from their respective bastions into a contest of who can have the federal government do more pandering and spending and enforcement of "morality". Bush is giving away prescriptions. Kerry wants to give away more, give away health care in general.
It's no longer who has the better of two opposing views on an issue, it's about who can get the most government influence into that issue.
Oh, and on the tax cuts thing--they are good, but not in conjunction with massive spending increases. Bush is quite the dolt for that one.
God, what ever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?"
Kerry himself is not a traitor (but he is a major asshole). Those that have accused him of being a traitor because of his war protests are incorrect. However, he has associated with a traitor in the form of one Jane Fonda. While that does not make him a traitor, it does reflect very negatively on his character.
The hubcap thief's lawsuit is an urban legend.
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
Granted, that's not to say there aren't any outrageous lawsuits out there, but you should support your claim with actual lawsuits.
Just because there are a few (many?) people out there that file these crazy lawsuits, etc, like fatties vs. McDonalds, doesn't mean that the rights of those who are legitimately damaged should be fringed upon.
Oh, and we should have every right to carry sub-automatic (and maybe even automatic) guns.
At 4/8/04 08:05 AM, Fiend_Lore wrote: uh...i dont think i exactly get what you were trying to say. i dont want people banned who dont deserve it, thats the whole point. i want the banning to be fair.
Oh, I know. If you look closely at my post, you'll realize that I basically just described the US tax system. I was just segueing your point into another point.
You're right. It's descrimination, of course. I propose that Tom Fulp set up a group of mods whose sole job is to ban those with a lot of posts from making more, and redistribute a few of the posts made by these people to those who have a lack of posts. After all, it's not their fault they don't have any posts.
</sarcasm>
Good point. When it first started out, a representative was supposed to represent roughly 60,000 people. However, if we tried to maintain that, we would have well over 4,000 representatives in the House! Quite impractical really, but we could definitely increase the number of representatives.
Kudos for the correct number of Senators and Representatives. Most people this side of the pond probably don't even know that.
At 4/8/04 12:55 AM, RoteStinktier wrote:
You're self-centered.... Howard.;
I guess I am, but he could have gleaned my personal information from somewhere or something. But posting that would be contrary to BBS rules, which would be bannable, but why would he say I said to vote that maniac out, and besides, everyone's reaction is to respond to their name until it is confirmed that the name is of another person...
Ah, screw it. I'm self-centered. Big deal.
At 4/8/04 12:57 AM, Bob_Dylan wrote: really the assumption is that people who dont vote for someone probably arent for them and thus against them.
But that's a poor assumption. Many people don't go to the polls because of laziness and/or inconviencence. If people didn't want to vote for the office of president, they can still cast a ballot and vote for the various other offices and issues on election day, and just leave the president section blank.
At 4/8/04 12:40 AM, Bob_Dylan wrote: osama...or suitcase bombs...in mecca.
Yes. If we are to operate under the pretense that all holy sites are sanctuaries and exempt from U.S. military action despite any hostile fire or activity coming from within, we would be totally screwed if a terrorist organization were to headquarter themselves there, or place weapons there. The terrorists would be safe on two fronts:
1. Any American attack on Mecca would surely bring a wrath of anti-Americanism and attacks on America.
2. Americans' apprehension of attacking a holy city would provide them safety and seclusion, and provide a stable base of operations for terrorist attacks.
I'm not saying Osama's in Mecca or that there are weapons in Mecca. But if there are, we can't really do anything about it.
Again, if you had actually took time to read the post and comprehend it, you would have understood
At 4/8/04 12:27 AM, Bob_Dylan wrote:
first things first dont flame with a blantant lack of understanding and reading comprehension.:
Practice what you preach.
:I was simply pointing out the fact that not many americans vote, so how can someone recieve a true majority of the voters on their side, it seems most dont care. :
Those that don't cast ballots are not voters. Just because they are registered and able to vote doesn't mean that they do, nor should they be grouped into the same category as those that do.
:I dont care about the electors. Thats not important when its an analogy drawn compared first to a situation occuring abroad where there are no electors.:
Your analogy is shaky. You're comparing a minority of those that were registered to vote to a minority of those that did actually vote.
Furthermore, electors would have a significant impact on third parties in elections, an impact that is far too big to ignore. With a popular vote election, it would be possible for a party to win national office despite finishing second in every single state. With electors, however, such a feat is impossible.
Worst Case Scenario time here:
What happens if Osama or suitcase bombs show up in Mecca? What do we do now?
Risk alienating and infuriating millions of Muslims, even in the US
--or--
Let Osama or the suitcase bombs go, and hope they don't get used here?
Call me self-centered, but at first glance I thought he was refering to myself.
At 4/8/04 12:10 AM, southernrockblows wrote: yeah but they recieved a greater number of votes compared to the others, id like to point out virtually no presidents have had the majority of the population able to vote, vote for them.
Cite actual facts, please.
First, U.S. presidents aren't elected by popular vote, but by the vote of electors. In only one race did the electors vote without a majority.
Second, even if the popular vote mattered, the majority of presidents received a majority of the popular vote, not "virtually no[ne]."
I agree. I find it very frustrating that I have only two realistic choices for president:
Bush, whom I agree with on the war on terror and tax cuts, but whose domestic policy is just pure crap, and
Kerry, whom I disagree with on the appeasement of terror and hikes and whose domestic policy is also pure crap, and who is also an arrogant bastard.
So, I'm essentially voting for a person with I agree with only a couple out of a hundred topics over a person that I disagree with altogether.
I could vote for the Libertarian candidate, but that would be taking a vote away from Bush and allowing Kerry a better chance. Therein lies the problem, I believe. People are afraid to vote third-party in the fear that the second-best, more viable candidate would lose to the worst case scenario. A lot more Dems would probably vote Green if they suspected Kerry would win or lose in a landslide.
Ah, I think I've finally figured it out.
Everybody is employed, they just don't have jobs.
At 4/7/04 10:16 PM, _Thanatopsis_ wrote: its hard to stop terorist acts bush had the cole, before 9/11 and then there was the madrid booming so bush hasnt suceeded eather but atleast after the initial world trade center atack when the trade center was down for repairs the econimy didnt take a fall and start receding becasue the US's largest stock and comodities trading center was down for repairs. bush did nothing to prevent the econemy from going further down the drain because the US's largest stock and comodietys center was perminently out of commision, he did nothing initialy, nothing to try and minimise the damage.:
:The Cole deed was during the Clinton administration, not Bush's. And it's not President Bush's job to protect Spain from terrorism, now is it?
Look, I'm not trying to blame Clinton for terrorism. Nor am I trying to say Bush has did all he could to quell terrorism. Both could have did more to prevent terrorism. Both could have done worse.
However, I am against two points people have made.
1. Bush hasn't did anything to combat terrorism.
2. Clinton did more than Bush to combat terrorism.
Both did a lot to stop and/or prevent terrorism.
If you want to assign blame to anyone, blame it on the American public. When the public doesn't care about terrorism, less is done about it. Obviously, right now, people care about the "economy" and "jobs", so that's what leaders focus on.
Before 9/11, most Americans had a notion of invincibility left over from WWII, and were not focused on terrorism. Ergo, neither were the leaders.
At 4/7/04 10:14 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:
Really - who cares what he thinks? He voted for Bush in '00!:
I don't care what he said in '00, either.
It bugs me when couch-potato losers and bon-bon eating housewives vote for whoever their favorite celebrity plans to vote for, be it Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Worker's World or Socialist or American Rule-of-Law or whatever. Just because they are celebrities doesn't mean they know anything about politics. Now, if celebrities can back up their statements with actual logic rather than namecalling, fine. But I'd like to slap some sense into anyone who thinks, "Sheryl Crow's against Bush, so I guess I should be too..."
Who gives a crap about what Howard Stern says?
At 4/7/04 09:48 PM, _Thanatopsis_ wrote:
but the 4 perpitraters were captured, clintion was still trying to get osama to peacefully stop what he was doing through trying to set up a discusion with osama so that Al Quaida (sp) would end rather than killing him which would just validate al Quaida (sp) geting more people to join them, you pick which you want.
WTF?? Try to get into a discussion with Osama to try to make him end Al-Qaida?!?
"Hey Mr. Terrorist Person...could you do us a favor and lay off the attacks?"
You've got to be kidding. How is it possible to retain an air of rationality and try to initiate a discussion with someone who has declared a jihad against you?
Osama was already rich. He had no need to negotiate. He wanted, wants, and will want Americans dead.
im sorry i would rather have my prez trying to cordnate a way to recover quickly rather than making a publicity stunt to garner public support.
Only problem, Clinton didn't really do anything to stop further acts of terrorism. See '95, '96, '98, '99.
At 4/7/04 09:28 PM, _Thanatopsis_ wrote: Things accomplished under Clinton re terrorists:
Perps of 1993 WTC bombing caught and punished.
Perps of 1996 Khobar Towars bombing caught and punished.
Perps of 1998 Embassy bombings caught and punished.
Last time I checked the chief backer of these attacks, Osama bin Laden, was still on the loose. In fact, Clinton was even offered Osama bin Laden. Did he accept? No.
Ordered Taliban money frozen.
Ordered bin Laden money frozen.
That was George W., not Clinton.
im just wondering what bush really did and i find that his arguement that no one else has dealt with terorism as well as Bush ( implying that bush did a good job against terorism.)
Clinton didn't care. Notice that he never even visited the WTC after the 1993 bombing there.
