Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/15/06 06:27 AM, Ravariel wrote: While I am delighted you share my view that this is an excellent step (though I'm sure for differeing reasons), I am concerned about the "no government funding" part.

Why on earth wouldn't you support government funding of the best chance we have of curing some of the most harmful afflictions humans have? What, "I'm all for the treatment of alzheimers as long as I don't have to pay for it"? Or are you under the assumption that "free market economics" will naturally lead researchers to cures?

I find it funny how everyone criticizes the government for "hating science" but yet the government provides huge amounts of funding to projects that have yet to lead to any real result. My hate of government intervention in science is simple:

In the real world, science has a trial and error method. Scientist A says I believe frog feces will cure cancer. He does research and it fails. He then says "well, that was exceptionally stupid, let's try something else." He gets his funding due to preliminary research and past success/fail ratios. Enter the government. He can't get funding anywhere else (come on he thought frog feces was the answer), so he turns to them. And they tell him "Well, get a consensus and we'll fund you." So if he can get enough scientists to back him, even though he has little evidence on his side and a terrible history at this sort of thing. He gets funded. And since to abandon his research and try something else would admit he was wrong, and worry Congressional investors, he is unlikely to move on to new ideas. In the real world, risk is part of the game, but add Congress and risk is frowned on, they only want to back "sure things", when in Science there is no such animal. It destroys incentive. Look at the government funding for AIDS and cancer, they are no closer to a cure now than when they started.

At 3/14/06 10:37 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Does anyone want to know what the UAE port deal comes down to?

Democratic fear mongering. The same thing they have blasted Bush for they are also now doing. Forget the fact we cheeck 5% of the containers coming into the US, forget the fact no one cared about port security 3 months aga, forget the fact the border between the US and Mexico is as porous as it has ever been, forget the fact the border between the US and Canada is as porous as ever, forget the fact corporations owned by goverments already run ports in the USA, the purchase of ports by a MUSLIM COUNTRY trumps everything.

Fear mongering. Thats all this is.

LOL, And Fabolous wins my vote for post of the month. Yea, the whole idea of bitching about the UAE was to seem strong on defense since election time is coming up. The irony is, we would still be running security. And if UAE really wanted to screw us, it wouldn't be hard, as they could change cargo mid-trip, and never tell us.

At 3/15/06 03:24 AM, PharaohRamsesII wrote: Ah yes, because of one policy we are all of a sudden mini america.
Get fucked.

No, you were mini America before this policy! Just kidding.

Realistically, as you slam your own government, does it not strike you as odd that the UN passes a lot of resolutions aimed at Israel, but none aimed at Palestine? Come on.

At 3/14/06 09:17 PM, Begoner wrote:

Cool. Point?

A couple of posts backs, I said that "I also believe there should be guidelines that companies must follow so that they do not screw over humanity for a profit" and you said that "you dope, they don't want to screw us over." I was showing how they could screw us over long-term without affecting themselves.

You came up with a moronic hypothetical where a man was asked on his death bed if he would like a lot of money that he couldn't spend, (as he was about to die) if he would kill off all of humanity. That hypothetical, just put in that perspective is dumb enough, but the immediate questions that follow make it even lamer. Who in the name of Abrahams left testicle would offer up that money. Why would he accept (seeing as he couldn't spend it, and might have family he'd kill off)? How would he do it, seeing as he's damn near dead (and I assume the guy didn't bring the blow up world button with his huge sacks of money....too much weight ya know)?

I agree with Moral....that was a really dumb scenerio.

At 3/15/06 12:47 AM, red_skunk wrote: Menstrual blood yields stem cells
"Japanese researchers have harvested stem cells from human menstrual blood, a medical conference has heard.
...
They were able to obtain about 30 times more stem cells from menstrual blood than from bone marrow, Miyoshi says."

This is not terribly surprising, but still heartening. I knew that they could use blood and assorted miscellanea from the placenta after a woman had given birth, and the bone marrow thing was around, but pretty limited. This, this though. What possible excuses will people offer up now to stand in the way of progress?

via digg
Respond here too.

None. This story, from what I read doesn't bother me as a conservative and I doubt it'll bother many others. Stem cells, ignoring fetal ones, have been a source of experiment for awhile and have been faring pretty good, as opposed to fetal ones which have failed miserably. I still don't support the government funding it, but go science. Move those crazy legs, cure those diseases.

At 3/14/06 09:22 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: You badmouth the ACLU now, but if the tables are turned, they are going to to be the ones that ensure that you are protected and have a right of expression.

I'd like a link on the cross/cars fiasco, though. I hardly think displaying a little cross is near as important a right as, say, being able to marry, though.

The ACLU turns down cases all the time. Usually involving Christians who have their freedom of speech rights trampled on. But that's OK, because they're far from the only group who does pro-bono work. And that little cross is horribly important when it's on the seal. Because that seal is on every official government paper, flag, etc, and could cost millions to have all that stuff remade and reprinted. Plus you continue to ignore the basic idea that the govenment and it's people have the right to define marriage. And they did. It's called DOMA. No one has a basic right to marry. Stop pretending otherwise.

At 3/14/06 09:47 PM, furball1 wrote:

At 3/14/06 09:39 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/14/06 07:52 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
A man was arrested in France for mocking Islam.

I could care less who wins the debate you guys seems so entralled in, I don't like the ACLU myself that much but w/e, but may I see a source on that?

At least give a little more detail, I have turned up nothing on Google.

Scratch this, I can't find my original source. Sorry bout that.

At 3/14/06 09:52 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: I don't care what leaning the site claims to be, there are such things as
individual issues.

Yea, and those issues can AND SHOULD be ignored for the good of the whole.

I read up on it, and apparently the county flag was religiously biased. I don't see the problem in changing it. How on earth is that "freedom of expression of religion?"

The Roman goddess is symbolism for agriculture. A cross means one thing and one thing only.

That's because you're an idiot. Why should the flag be changed because one or two people were offended. Of course it had crosses on it. The cross is part of its history. What the ACLU is demanding is that the county spend an ungodly amount of money to change the flag and the seal because a few people are too offended by a small cross on a large flag to sleep at night. It's freedom of expression of religion because while a tiny minority were offended by it, too small of a group for any reasonable person to care about, an overwhelming majority were fine with it, and were probably offended at having to pay for it to be changed, when that money could've gone to something important and needed, like education.

And you claimed that they were stopping people displaying crosses on their cars, or something stupid like that. Gods. It's insulting that you even suggest this going up against gay marriage bans.

And you still haven't addressed ANY of the stuff I posted. Good job. "The ACLU is a good thing, even if it does lots of bad things."

At 3/14/06 07:40 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Google for the "Log Cabin". Though how they were treated by the rest of the republicans may put you off a bit more.

They're actually treated very well by the Republicans. As opposed to if you're gay, black, female, etc, and announce to the liberals that you're a conservative. That's a shitstorm.

At 3/14/06 05:44 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: I find it amusing how neo-cons pick on V for Vendetta. They don't even seem to realise that the comic was written in the 80s and the movie was just putting it in more modern terms.

The article actually says the book was written in the 50s. Good call tho. Way to not know what you're talking about.

Also, the fact that neo-cons pick on people's free-speech so much is interesting. It makes me think the only reason they're for free speech is because they know they can free speech louder and harder than anyone else.

You're an idiot. They pick on the movie, which I guess could be construed as picking on his free speech, but from what I can see, he didn't say the guy didn't have the right to make the movie. As opposed to liberals who protest movies like "The Passion" and try to actually threaten companies who make those films. Everyone has the right to their opinion. And just because you don't like that person's opinion doesn't mean they don't have a right to espouse it. I find it ironic how someone proportedly defending free speech is, at the same time, denouncing it.

At 3/14/06 07:23 PM, Begoner wrote:

et's say that the CEO of a company had the choice of killing all of humanity when he/she died in exchange for 100 000 000 000 dollars. Would you trust a CEO to make the right decision?

And where would he get that money. And why would he care since he would be dead before he could kill humanity. Have a realistic hypothetical or don't bother.

At 3/14/06 07:13 PM, Begoner wrote: So you're basically saying "screw the poor kids"? If they can't afford to get an education, they should not be entitled to one? Some poor kids in public schools do succeed (do you have a source saying that most of them don't?), and they will be more successful if they have a high-school diploma instead of no school. School does not make the poor less successful.

Did I say that? No I didn't, so don't put words in my mouth. I said before public school, the quality of education was better, and it was cheaper. Damn near everyone could afford it. Graduation rate was high. Graduation rates in public schools are crap. I'm too lazy to look up the exact figures for the drop-out rate, but they're high. Most public school kids can't go on to college since their scores are so bad and the teachers don't care. The numbers are against you.

What will people who cannot find work and are dependent on welfare do? They do not have enough money to pay for the necessities of life. They will either resort to charity, which may not be all that much and is not guaranteed, find a job, which may be hard because they are not qualified or are handicapped, or resort to crime to get money and food. If welfare children already commit crime, then if they are off welfare, they will commit much more crime because they will get much less money.

No, they go out and get jobs. Which is exactly what happened a couple of years ago when Clinton signed restrictions on welfare into law. Employment went up. As for "welfare children commit crime, so without welfare they'll commit MORE crime" is dumb. It's not about money. It's about bad education, bad family situations, and dependency. If it was about money, then the welfare kids should commit LESS crime than normal one parent families off welfare, not more. Most of these kids join gangs and become career criminals. How would they commit MORE crime?

I agree that the minimum wage is against the interest of small businesses. However, I fail to see how it makes everybody make basically the same amount -- do you mean those who would otherwise make below a minimum wage? The minimum wage has many positive attributes:

No, you didn't read what I said. I said that people make (in a perfect world) essentially the same amount after minimum wage raises as they did before. They get more money, but so does everyone else, so the dollar is worth less. If you don't understand inflation/deflation don't debate this with me.

- reducing low-paid work, which may be unfair and exploitative.

Reduces low paid work, meaning while some people may make "more money", a lot of low paying jobs are lost. And since everybody expects to get raises, there is more unemployment up and down the board. Actually read something written by an economist.

- stimulating economic growth by increasing the purchasing power of workers.

But it doesn't. They get an extra quarter an hour or so, and gas goes up a nickle a gallon. They either are on the exact same level as they were before, or actually worse off.

- stimulating economic growth by discouraging labor-intensive industries, thereby encouraging more investment in capital and training.

Anything that hurts labor intensive industries hurts the economy. It does NOT encourage more investment. Poverty levels rise everytime minimum wage is raised.

- encouraging many of those who would normally take low-wage jobs to stay in (or return to) school and thus to accumulate human capital.

What? Another pulling it out of your ass.

Increases in the minimum wage in '88 in California and '92 in New Jersey, for example, did not lead to job loss but to an increase in pay.

No, they didn't. There was a mild spike in unemployment, and a rise in poverty levels.

The poor still pay less of their income on taxes than the rich do, no matter how good the accountants are. And the purpose of taxation is not to destroy wealth, but to redistribute it.

No, the purpose of taxation is to supply the government with necessary funding. It has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. Even if you believe in things like welfare, the government is simply taxing to pay for the system, not to punish the rich.

At 3/14/06 06:34 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: What do you mean "free speech rights"? Television is often moderated for hate speech, but the bottom hasn't fallen out of free speech like you neo-cons claim it will. APart from that, how are the "free speech" rights any different?

A man was arrested in France for mocking Islam. Sounds like less freedom of speech than we have here. Neo-con? You're an idiot. Just because I disagree with you, I'm a neo-con? Grow up.

Taxes might be higher but europe has a standard higher of living as a result of it.

Yea, that's what it is.

And considering we're doing just fine, how can you have too much?

Employment goes up because people are forced into terrible dead end minimum wage jobs. Welfare gives people a platform to seek out something better, and helps ensure the really shitty jobs are done by machine.

No, employment goes up because people have to work for a living. Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs, and they're hardly dead end. You have no understanding of economics. Welfare allows people to breed like rabbits and not work, forcing those who bust their asses off to support those who don't. There are SOME who use welfare to get back on their feet, but they are in the minority.

This is, of course, mostly an issue of selfishness. Until you've been in that position, you can't really understand as you don't have the ability to put yourself in other people's shoes. If I'm earning a 4 figure wage I don't care if a few dollars go to people less fortunate. In fact, if they didn't, I'd give money anyway. Making it a choice only means less people recieve the help they need.

Dude, you know nothing about me, so don't even presume to "preach to my position". I've lived in houses without electricity, been on food stamps, etc. I've never been homeless, but we've been DAMNED CLOSE. So I probably know a little more about it then you do. That's why I say there are SOME that use it as a stepping stone to get to bigger and better things. But there are a lot more that just use it as a source of income since they don't want to work. And when a landlord gets gov't funding for his house, he no longer cares, the housing goes to shit. Title IX householding is awful. Higher standard of living my ass. I'll stick to: welfare needs to be cut back like crazy.

What!? So because the state says something is okay, it is? Get a fucking brain and think for yourself.

The state, and by proxy the citizenry, has a right to decide what they accept as marriage. I am thinking for myself. As opposed to saying "gay marriages aren't recognized by the state, they have no rights" like some idiots.

At 3/14/06 06:37 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: You disgust me. The ACLU supports nothing the sort. You are a shitfaced little bigot who is now also a shitfaced little liar. You hate the ACLU because they make a lot of noise about people's rights that you don't care about. They challenge the status quo, and challenge your believes, so you use a ridiculous straw man against them.

Piss off fuckhead. The ACLU wholeheartedly supports NAMBLA and kiddie porn.

Here's some of their other lovely endevours:
http://www.aclu.org/..4537prs20060309.html

Basically they support protesters at funerals. Even though they claim that this is to protect gays, the very people who are targeted by this bill are those who stand out in front of military funerals slandering homosexuals.
http://www.aclu.org/..1289prs20000831.html

In defense of Nambla, the ACLU stated that even though on their site, NAMBLA had posted ways to make cheap chloroform, and counsiled pedophiles how to kidnap, rape and dispose of children without getting caught, that it was covered under freedom of speech, even though that info was used in the murder of a child.
http://www.aclu.org/..4421leg20060307.html

Here's the lovely little tidbit where they defend kiddie porn.
http://www.aclu.org/..0647prs20030307.html

And here's where they ask the House to drop the restrictions saying pedophiles cannot live within X number of miles of a school or playground.

Not these aren't some wacko "neo con" sites, but the ACLU's website. They're proud of all this. So, blow me. I'm right and either you have no clue what you're talking about, or you don't care.

That's another thing about neo-cons, so few of them are honest. We know why you dislike gay people, why you are against rights. You're socially conservative, that speaks for itself. At least be honest about it if you want to retain a shred of dignity.

I probably have more gay friends than you, and I've been stabbed defending one of them. See that's the problem with morons, they assume that everyone who disagrees with them has to be of a "certain sort". Again, I'm not a neo-con. I'm a common-sensical moderate. Just because you're too damned dumb to see the world as it is doesn't mean others are too. OH MY GOD, HE SAYS HE DOESN'T CARE WHETHER GAY MARRIAGE PASSES OR NOT, HE HATES GAY PEOPLE!!! It sounds like to me that YOU only support free speech as long as you agree with it.

At 3/14/06 06:46 PM, SteelSwilla wrote:

At 3/14/06 05:43 PM, The_Last_Cynic wrote:

At 3/14/06 05:38 PM, SteelSwilla wrote: Many nice things.

I was actually being sarcastic, but I can appreciate the positivity.

You really had me fooled with that. You should be an actor. watch out, Vin Diesel.

LOL, you're a little slow on the uptake. If at no other point, you shoulda knew he was full of crap when he said that meant he had no soul.

At 3/14/06 06:37 PM, Begoner wrote: Please explain to me how making people pay for education (I assume no company which wants to be profitable would let students enroll for free) would benefit the poor people who cannot afford it, then.

It's called charity. It exists everywhere.

What incentive does anybody have to not pollute? Cleaning up pollution will help not destroy the earth, but it would also cost money.

Because if you're seen as hurting the environment, people stop buying from you, and you lose even more money.

Please explain how welfare contributes to crime, then.

Look at welfare neighborhoods.

That's common sense -- yes, it will. Do you know that a 10% decrease in the minimun wage will decrease the average American's quality of life?

No it wouldn't. It would be called deflation. Each dollar would be worth more since people are now making less. Since raising minimum wage hurts quality of life, logic says lowering it would raise quality of life. And considering that minimum wage jobs are only entry level jobs, it would hurt no one, even if your backwards assumption WAS right. It would certainly help the elderly. Since you pulled that one from your ass, I guess I'm expecting too much from you.

In the modern day, there is no way to take on the US army if you are just a regular citizen. They have planes, tanks, helicopters, etc., while you have a puny gun. The state militias, however, should have all the same weapons that the Army has to stop a takeover of government and balance out the power. Freedom of speech is a more basic political right than the right to bear arms. In various communist countires, freedom of speech was banned but guns were not. Were the citizens with guns able to stand up to the government? No.

It was never possible for one individual to take on the Army, ever, so that's just a silly comparison. But in all communistic countries, guns were banned. I believe the quote was "Freedom of speech is more dangerous than guns. We don't allow them to have guns, why would we allow them to have speech." I'm sure I misquoted it somehow.

Good thing I'm not talking to a brick wall here.

It's mockery.

No, I want government control over certain basic things that each citizen should have, such as education. I also believe there should be guidelines that companies must follow so that they do not screw over humanity for a profit.

But results show us that government education is less than substandard. It's crap.

You think that welfare is the cause of all the world's problems but see no problem with legalizing dangerous illegal narcotic substances will cause no problems whatsoever.

At 3/14/06 03:57 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 3/14/06 01:37 PM, BFG_Nine-Thousand wrote: Then what do you think about the Minuteman Project?

Mixed feelings. If it's their back yard, sure, they have that right. A civilian border patrol could be effective, but at the moment it's just vigilanteism and may get out of hand.

It's not vigilantism. They are just monitoring, not actually aprehending. Then they report to the government.....who tend to ignore them.

At 3/14/06 05:18 PM, Begoner wrote: Of course, the people who are screwed are those who don't have enough money to pay for a good education -- the rich are going to get a good education. Everybody deserves a chance to succeed, even the poor. Definately no to this one.

But the poor kids in public education aren't succeeding. Before public education, the majority of children still went to school and received a better education (for the time).

How would that solve anything?

As it is, the government is totally willing to step in and say, hey you need to do this, this and this, but heaven forbid they solve their own problems. Kinda like the UN.

Definitely not.

He's got a point. Welfare creates dependance on the government, and it increases single mother households. Welfare children are more likely than even their non-welfare supported single mother equivalents to commit crime.

I don't agree with the first one. A minimun wage ensures that people will have a decent standard of living at the cost of making companies somewhat less profitable. I value human rights over business freedom.

No it doesn't. You are dead wrong. If it worked perfectly, it would simply devalue the dollar, and everybody would make basically the same amount, tho it'd look like they had more. In the real world, unemployment jumps everytime the minimum wage is raised and it hurts small business. Gov't regulations tend to do the opposite of what they are supposed to as they strengthen big business while getting rid of the little guy.

Quite the opposite.

No, it is one of the most important of the ten.

Kind of, but not really. It just basically sets the bar and says when fetuses are entitled fully human rights -- not very much activism. Unfortunately, it could be a double-edged sword where conservative judges will ban gay marriage and the like. However, I don't see legalizing abortions as activism or unconstitutional because it simply sets a standard for the age at which a person aquires human rights and gives equal rights to women.

That is by definition, a power grab. It was not their call to make. They are to interpret laws, not make them. Whereas these guys were neither legislators or doctors, this should've been completely out of their jurisdiction. Conservative judges don't ban gay marriage, dummy, the laws do. Conservative judges just uphold the laws, because they tend to realize that, even if they disagree with the laws, it is not their job to overturn them, just interpret them. I love how people love judicial activism when they agree with it, but not with when they don't.

In my ideal society, there would be no taxation, but probably for very different reasons than you. I believe that it is a necessary destroyer of wealth.

What a stupid reason to have taxation, to destroy wealth. You do realize that taxation hurts the poor more than the rich right? Cause rich people have the good accountants who know how to get them massive deductions.

No.

Yes, it is, every single time.

Yeah.

Nope. Polygamy hurts women. And if you can ban polygamy, you can ban gay marriage.

I don't like the first one, but I'm fine with the other two.

Big surprise.

Yup -- let the viewers say what they want to see, not the government.

They have, that's why there's regulation. Cause the people told the government they wanted some. Silly.

At 3/14/06 05:21 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: I was exagerating I do admit. And like I said before I did, and still do, have many Republican views. But the way it was written + the context, showed a great deal of hostility. I don't see how adding in the fact of one of the Wachovski brothers being a transvestite could have any reason but trying to show them as freaks. But go ahead and correct me, you seem to be a Republican so I can assume you might read the weekly standard, it's in the MArch or April issue, read the article and tell me what you think of it.

Dude, the whole article is angry. You are using one man's beliefs to question an entire party which is kinda dumb. Whereas, in Hollywood, being a transsexual is a badge of honor, he seemed to slam it. I didn't see that part of the article, but come on. Republicans are, in general, anti-gay marriage, not anti-gay. You can do whoever you want (as long as theyre legal and consenting), and we don't care, but don't tell us we have to endorce it. THAT is the general Republican attitude. And a lot more of us just don't care period. Marry or not, hell if I care, I won't vote for or against you. It sounds to me like you're scared of being called homophobic, so you denounce it whenever you think you see it, no matter how lackluster the conncetion is.

At 3/14/06 05:31 PM, Begoner wrote: Do you even know what socialism is? What Democrats want is not at all a form of socialism, while what Republicans (in general, not Bush) want is not a form of fascism.

Um, YOU must not know what socialism is. Democrats very much want socialism. Socialism is the forced redistribution of welath through the government's intervention. This is done through social (from socialism) programs, such as welfare, state health care, etc. Also, the idea that the state, not the individual owns property (i.e. emminent domain) is very much socialist in nature. Ask ANY democratic pundit or politician if they believe in socialism, and the answer will be yes. Most of the platform is socialistic. You're a democrat and you don't understand your platform?

...you call yourself a “patriotic American,” but yet you display confederate flags to honor the people who rebelled against the USA

Who does that?

Only Republicans do.

Actually, as the history books show, the Confederate flag has its roots in the Democratic party. Southerners fly the Confederate flag, some Republicans, some Democrats. Your assertion is wrong.

You know what the ACLU is? A group of people who struggle to maintain the illusion of democracy in a country where right-wing righty righties mindlessly follow an extremist president who is hell-bent on trampling on the constitution and eradicating our civil liberties. Those righties also dismiss the ACLU as an organization which is weaking the US by dissenting to totalitarian policies that turn the country into police state and try to preserve everyone's quality of life. Screw them!

Actually the ACLU often refuses people who have honest cases such as the little girl who has to sue her school district to wear patriotically colored beads. They are a leech group that (looking at it nicely) looks to drain money out of the schools and government through dozens of frivilous lawsuits. Realistically, however, they are a subversive group that seeks to undermine the American way of life by supporting groups such as NAMBLA when they seek to rape little boys, or supporting non-US citizens to have trials in US courts, which they are not entitled to. If there's a serious issue, the ACLU always comes down on the wrong side. They support kiddie porn, want to take away parents rights to monitor their children, support NAMBLA, can't stand to see a cross, etc. There is nothing good about the ACLU.

At 3/14/06 05:49 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: If Europe is so terrible, why aren't people getting online and bitching about it like they do with the U.S.? Because people know when to accept a half decent thing.

No, it's because people love to bitch about the big guy. Europe has much less in the line of free speeh rights and taxes are much higher, among other things, than here in the US.

Massive welfare programs? Oh great another "People dying in the street is good for the economy!" idiots. We have welfare programs. Sicne you don't seem to view poor and unfortunate people recieving a platform to work themselves up from as a "Positive" thing, no doubt due to your Alpha Male attitude on "work" or some other equally ridiculous notion, you'll never view this a a good thing.

When welfare is reduced in quanitity, employment goes up....hmmm fascinating. We have too much welfare here, and you have even more than us. Whereas a "platform to help people get on its feet" is nice, both systems have gone far beyond that. Limited welfare is good, unlimited is bad.

Social conservatism isn't hurting anyone!? It's practically the cause of all partisan behaviour, the cause of the lack of gay rights, and the reason affirmative action EXISTS in the first place.

Affirmative action came from conservatives. Don't criticize something you don't understand. As for the "cause of all partisan problems", that is one of the stupidest things I've heard said on this board. Dissenting opinions cause partisan problems. Assuming that everybody agreed on EVERYTHING social wize, then the parties would just go farther apart on other issues, such as law. To assert anything else is idiotic. Lack of gay rights? All the rights gays have were fought for by people on both sides of the aisle. And since the state has the right to define marriage, you have n point here.

But it's not. It's failing.

No it's not. We're still doing just fine thank you.

At 3/13/06 11:49 PM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: [ Miscegenation (including sub-race mixing) is shameful and destructive to each population as a whole; those who choose to do so are usually the most pathetic amongst their tribes. The problem with today is that our loss of culture has created an omnipotent consumerist media that encourages race-mixing for their own profit even though it is detrimental to society. ]

You really are an idiot. There is nothing shameful in race-mixing. There's something pretty fucking pathetic about condemning it tho. Race mixing is far from detrimental to society. Making people feel ashamed about it is ridiculous and done by worthless losers who wish to continue a culture of voluntary segregation. Considering there is no "black" or "white" culture, just national heritage, it's stupid to say that people who race-mix are destroying their culture. MLK Jr. was as important to the whites as he was teh the blacks. And people who encourage the blacks to keep their "cultural heritage" are always meaning the culture of gangs, drugs welfare, and poverty.

You frigging racist. I love how people love to condemn race-mixing when they themselves offer nothing at the table.

At 3/13/06 01:37 PM, gooze_bump wrote: Does'nt matter anyway the Dems, and Republicans in congress are call cut from the same cloth. Two sides of the same coin. I should know i lived in the middle of those bastards in Bethesda Maryland. They all go to "work" like 2 days a week, dont let the news and CSPAN fool you, after the cameras off they are all friends. Peace.

Dude, they hate each other. Hillary and Kerry would kill Bush if they could. They are bitter bitter enemies. Look at the Jack Abramoff scandal. It was like field day for the Democrats. Assure me all you want, but when Kerry and Bush faced off, there was obvious hatred.

At 3/13/06 04:11 PM, ReiperX wrote: Iraq's leader wasn't an extremeist muslim, Iran's is. Iraq's leader wasn't persuing nuclear weapons, Iran's leader just might be. This isn't enough to grant an invasion of Iran, but it is enough to actually keep an eye on him incase he does start persuing nuclear weapons so that we can stop him. President Bush has even admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq that his intel was faulty.

Iraq's dictator was a murderous tyrant who was becoming more and more unstable. Iran's is just a cruel tyrant who is still just volitile. We know for a fact Iraq was trying to get nukes, Iran's swears he just wants power plants. Iraq was under sanctions that they refused to follow and restrictions they broke. Iran is just flaunting power they may or may not have,
Oh, and by the way, what Bush actually said was "The intelligence we used to justify the invasion may have been faulty, but we were justified to invade nonetheless. We may not have found WMDs but that doesn't mean he didn't have them. We are still sure that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that we were right in invading to make sure he didn't use them."
He never said Saddam didn't have them, just that we didn't find them. As if that means anything. And he said the intel may have been faulty, not that it was.

So yes, our case for invading Iraq, WMDs or not, was sound. Iran's is similar, but weaker. I'm in the process of looking up those articles, but til then, here's some Larry Elder interviewing that Iraqi 2nd in Command. Here you go. Enjoy:

(Part 1) http://www.townhall...06/03/02/188299.html

(Part 2) http://www.townhall...06/03/09/189159.html

At 3/13/06 06:48 PM, Hermannator wrote: Man you have low expectations. Yeah Yale may be a tough school, but a C grade is nothing to be proud about. The next step down is a D, which pretty much means you don't pass. And he majored in business which is not a hard major, in my opinion. And how do you know if he did not cheat? That can be a possibility, since cheating is actually pretty common in college.

Well, hell then. I'm gonna call Gore, Clinton and Kerry morons. They could've cheated too. That's a silly standard to hold people too. Well, they COULD have cheated. Did they? Who knows? But you can't prove me wrong. The man is smart. And a C in Yale is better than an A at many universities. So I fail to see your point. Jimmy got an A in engineering at Community College, but Bob only got a C at ITT Tech. And Bob might've cheated to get that C.

I think it's unfair that Mackid is the only one to get laughed at while a bunch of other conservatives/anti-liberals ignorantly stereotypes liberals also but no one rips on them. Sure Mackid may be annoying and sometimes ignorant, but goddamn so are people like Morallibertarian who stereotypes liberals constantly. Then again, maybe he's kidding around or whatever, whereas Mackid tries to be serious. But if Morallibertarian's serious, then he deserves to shut up as much as Mackid. And from the looks of all the anti-liberal stereotypical posts, they sound serious and ignorant.

In defense of ML, he's usually right tho. He may get aggravated and lump everybody together, but his points are usually right on, and he hits some valid criticism.

I give Mackid more respect then I used to, but he stil lgets on my nerves sometimes. He just says the same things over and over even if he can be proved wrong. And that gets on my nerves. At least TRY to vary your strategy when people shoot you down. Change it up a little. Begoner too. For example:

At 3/13/06 07:23 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 3/13/06 07:17 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: No, it makes you an idiot.

It makes him both. The two tend to go hand-in-hand.

It makes him right! Guess what. The state has a right to define marriage. Cousins married? Nah, we won't recognize that. Polygamy, nope. Gay marriage, the people get to choose. You like it? Great. Vote for it. If it gets voted in, fine. If not, the people have spoken. Since we get to define what we view as marriage...either way: we're right.

By the way, Republicans not only tend to be intelligent, but compassionate and very nice people. Hell, even the Democrats are starting to admit it.

At 3/13/06 05:37 PM, Begoner wrote: These questions were taken from here:

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?

That's a hard one. Even being against it, I'd have to say no. Most girls who get them are terrified, and are usually pressured into it.

2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?

Of course not. He has no realistic say in it.

3) How about her friends who know?

Even more ridiculous. What can they do?

4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?

They should certainly go to jail.

5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder?

Well, if she can abort it, it'd be stupid to charge her with murder for smoking. If it could be directly related to smoking (which would be almost impossible), she should be punished I guess, assuming abortion becomes illegal.

6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?

The husband ones are weird as, under current law, he has no real say so either way. And if it becomes illegal, it'd still be on her. I mean, it's still not like he can do anything much.

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?

Has that ever even happened? If so, same as above.

8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged?

Same as above.

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?

No, that's dumb. Stuff happens. It's unfortunate. But do we charge parents with that if their kid has a heart attack?

10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable?

See above.

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?

No. No more than gun manufacturers should be responsible for their products being used illegally.

12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder?

We don't hold them responsible if there's a problem and a hospital goes out, accidently killing a patient, as far as I know.

13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse?

I honestly don't know.

14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?

Of course not. It would've died with her most likely. And we have no right to tell her "piss off, have the kid and die."

15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?

No. He has to give her the info. It's her call. It's called triage. Someone's going to die either way.

16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?

They can sue doctors for negligence. Why not?

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?

WOOOOO, that's tough.

18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?

If you're paying some kind of storage fee, I'm sure it's a right off somehow.

19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?

Once it's born, forcefully removed from the house.

20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death?

There should be some punishment.

If you answered "no" to any of these questions, then you may well hate abortion with all your heart, but you don't really believe that the fetus (which, by definition in the South Dakota law is created at fertilization) is equal to a human being. Otherwise, you can't honestly say that abortion is murder.

That's dumb too. Of course you can say no. Reasonable people would say no to a number of them. Either under current law or if it became illegal, there were several that made little to no sense. 11, 12, 14 and 15 were no-brainers. And saying no to all of them doesn't mean that I don't believe the fetus is a human being.

At 3/13/06 01:07 PM, gooze_bump wrote: its funny how you guys still bitch about kerry and clinton even though they actually hold very little power considering the republicans control all 3 branches of the Government, for the past 6 yrs. But go ahead anway and blame all your problems on those who dont hold power.

Wait, I must've missed something. Nope, nope Kerry is still a senator. He holds 1% of the Senate vote. He is still quite influencial in the Democratic party. And the Democrats, while in the minority, still hold enough of a vote to make a substancial difference.

At 3/12/06 08:34 PM, Alamus wrote: 1.Abortion should be legal and up to the woman or the two individuals in question of the growing person without persecution from government or religion or other citizens.

Logically, if it is a woman's body, why should the "other individual involved" have a choice in whether she gets an abortion or not?

Abortion should always be a choice, but with set options and rules.

If it's to be free of "persecution", why should there be rules?

2.In cases where abortion is used as a birthcontrol
EXAMPLE: The woman in question has had multiple abortions to keep from having a child and still not properly taking precautions by using condoms, spermicide, the pill (or any other contraceptives)or a man has lied to his partner for using a condom and claiming to be safe

And? It's her choice which should be free from governmental interference...oh wait you used the word "persecution".

He or She should have their tubes tied after the age of 16 (this age because this is the youngest age the most teens are having children also because once they reach this age they should know better about sexual activity). It is wrong to have abortion again and again just to save oneself from the responisbility or just becoming pregant again and again for lack of responsibility. And when her tubes are tied she will not have to worry about becoming pregnant and can have all the sexual activity she wants.

That's idiotic. So she has the choice on getting an abortion, but not on whether or not she gets sterilized. Assinine!

3. Within the 1st trimester the embrio is much like a parasite, and has no distinguishing features from other embrio's, those being chickens, ducks, monkies, ect. If abortion, (of a woman who has had a run of bad luck from a condom breaking, leakage, or a failed contraceptive) must take place than it should be caught early in this stage where the life lost is only potential life.

Actually, it's not a parasite. Read above. And it does have distinguishing features in the first trimester. You're absolutely wrong.

4. No fetus's beyond the 2nd trimester should be aborted UNLESS there are medical reasons that the woman could not survive. Again this is her choice if she wishes to have the child live and not herself. OR this was a baby made from rape, where the option of adoption should be strongly avised, and if abortion does occur then the fetus should atleast be used in the medical field for stem cell research. That way a life lost can help in a life saved.

5. Any abortion in the 3rd trimester is out of the question. At this point the baby can (if forced too and with use of technology) live outside of the mothers womb, therefore can feel sensation even from inside the womb. The world has been expierienced from a cramped quarters,and is a person. IF the child is unwanted adoption should be the only option at this point.

Still in her body, which, as you argued earlier, should be her choice, free from "persecution".

6. To help lower the risk of abortions, more health insurances should have hormonal contraceptives on their coverage. It is not right that viagra is covered by health insurance, while hormonal contraceptives are not. That way if a woman's body is able to handle a hormonal contraceptive (which is still not 100% safe) she has an easier time getting it.

So let's regulate more people. Who shouldn't have a right to decide what they cover or not. Insurance is supposed to be for emergencies, and not cover things you can buy for a couple bucks over teh counter.

7. Sexual education should be pushed more in our schools! Despite a childs or parents religion. (Would anyone believe on how I have met women who have had children, didn't know they had 3 holes in between their legs?)

Screw that. You don't have a right to tell parents how to raise their kids.

And that is how I feel about this topic, so I hope it makes sense.

It really doesn't.

That's good an all, trying to wait for marrige, but if your a boy and think about making this comment when you yourself are not going to wait for marrige and want to have sex, then who the hell are you going to have sex with? Your dog?

And if some of us ARE waiting for marriage? You have no clue who you're talking to here. There's about 1000 people who come to these boards. Surely someone's waiting.

SO yeah, that's what I gotta say about that.

Yea, and your argument falls apart. With NONE of my own opinions. Either it should be regulated or it shouldn't. If it's her right as you suggest, you have no right to tell her that she can only get it during the first month. Find an actual stance and take it. Don't be like "I'm pro choice" but cater to pro-lifers, or vice versa.

At 3/12/06 09:42 PM, mjairlax wrote:

Batting an eye means not caring basically. As for "not being able to afford it", why is that a good reason for abortion? Should that be a good reason for killing you kid too?

Lets assume that a fetus is a living being what does it say about the women who abort you because you couldn't afford it?

Um, I'll assume you mean what does it say about the woman who aborted because she couldn't afford it.

It says that she ended a human life. Most likely she was under enormous pressure from her family, friends, or lover to do so. But she still ended a life.

At 3/12/06 09:11 PM, Ravariel wrote: I was unaware that increased border security was a "left" ideal. Seems to me to be a pretty partisan-less issue. Every government, be it Rep or Dem spends "more". And by "more" I mean "differently". Reps spend it on military and businesses, Dems spend it on Environment and social issues. Again, neither left nor right. And I'm interested why the war is a "left" issue... because of the Human Rights Violations that they tacked on to their stumps about why we went there after WMDs and terrorism were shown to be false?

He's weak as sin on border security. Offering to give illegal aliens visas that would in effect, make them temporary US citizens with the option to become perminent ones. He has called the Minutemen (who watch the border nd report illegal crossings) terrorists. And then there's teh Dubai ports deal. Liberal= weak on border security. Bush= weak on border security. As for spending. Liberal= tax and spend. Conservative= cut both. Bush= cut taxes raise spending.

Neither WMDs nor terrorism were proven to be false. We know for a fact that Saddam sponsored terrorism. He's very proud of it. And we have a military general who says Saddam evaced the WMDs, which, from a realistic non-retarded (i.e partisan) stance, makes more sense than believing he never had any.

And you must be one of those naive highschoolers who thinks that minorities really DO have equal opportunities for jobs. White man A Walks into interview with exact same qualifications as Black Man B, down to their suit... Man A will land more jobs than man B. If you believe different, you need more black friends. Affirmative action only happens in college, not beyond, and "EOE" is only there to mollify groups like the NAACP.

Affirmative action does NOT only happen in colleges. If you believe that, you listen too much to your racist black friends. Jobs are required to have so many: blacks, women, and other minorities. Anyone who says different simply doesn't know what they're talking about. If a black man and white man go for the same job, same qualifications, same everything, the black guy will most likely get the job, because the company has a slot to fill. We have black CEOs, black executives. Blacks are succeeding on every level. You're either horrible misinformed or pruposefully oblivious. Sounds like the latter.

Lol. Please stop talking about science. It's obvious you haven't studied it past the highschool level. But here, I'll give youthe benefit of the doubt...

Yea, I have. Moving on.

At 3/11/06 12:25 PM, Begoner wrote:

OK, you're quoting BeGoner. Strike 1.

scientific stuff, eliminated to increase word count

OK, first, he did create Amino Acids. That he did do. And it was theorized that DNA and RNA could be made from that. However:

http://www.chem.duke..obiology/miller.html

Here's a sample:

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall.

If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been offered as alternative sites for the origin of life.

Enjoy.

At 3/13/06 06:02 AM, ReiperX wrote: Most democrats aren't saying pull out now. They are saying start making definate plans to start bringing the troops home on a timeline with specific events that need to be done in order to bring them home.

Which, in a war, is still stupid. And yes, there is a large contingent of liberals that want the war over now. Rep Murtha is a prominent name, and for a group leader, Cindy Sheehan.

ITs a different scenario. Iraq's military was still crippled, they weren't a legitimate threat to anyone. They had no nuclear weapons, they were not pursuing nuclear weapons. They were not persuing biological or chemical weapons nor did they have any. Iran on the other hand is persueing them, the leaders are muslim extremists, and while at the moment they are not a real threat to anyone, they soon could be. An all out invasion isn't warrented in my opinion, but some military action just might be. But with the current situation in Iraq it might be a little hard to pull it off due to exhaustion and the pure dollar amount it would take to do anything to Iran at this moment.

They had bio and chemical weapons. We've found anthrax, serin gas, etc. Your point is dead wrong. And they sure as hell were pursuing them. The whole world knew it. That's why when we gave our info to the UN, their answer was quite unexpected "Yea, we knew that. We have that info too." Hell, as it is we have an Iraqi general telling us now that we just gave Saddam too much time to evac his WMDs, which was my main criticism from moment one. We've found evidence that he was in talks with China to pursue nukes.
As for Iran, according to them, they just want nuclear technology for power plants and the like. The comparison is dead on. The situation is damn near identical. Hell, if anything, our case is slimmer against Iran.

Well I mean, it depends.....what kinda measurements are we talking here?

At 3/12/06 06:31 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote:

They have already refused peace talks with Israel.

They have just recently taken office I doubt they will be eager to discuss with Israel right away.

Whole international criticism thing. Hamas wanted more of Israel. The world said "give it to them, make peace", so Israel called for talks. Hamas said there was nothing to discuss. The land was theirs, and they wanted it.

Israel may listen a little but International critisicm doesnt sway Israeli plans anyway.They seem to turn a blind eye about their Barrier which cut into Palestinian land.How can Palestinians cooperate when they are stuck with this problem?You have to solve the barrier problem,remove soldiers from Palestinian territory.I doubt militants will be firing rockets into Israel anymore because this time hamas actually controls the militants and can tell them to stop something the corrupt PA couldnt do.

they want more land?Well not right away anyways.They have to make efforts too.

The PLO had control of the militants too. Didn't stop them from attacking Israel. Here's something you probably didn't know. Israel has been DENIED their rightful spot on the UN councils. They are pretty much at the mercy of the World. Giving over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were at the prodding of the world. Israel listens quite a bit to the world, and capitulates quite a bit to their demands. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.

At 3/13/06 12:14 PM, RandallSchauffer wrote: You might be a Democrat if...

I'm a conservative, but yea.... I'm actually gonna call you on some of this:

Obvious: You believe that Mr Clinton deserves all the credit for an economic boom that began eight years before he took office, and Mr Bush deserves all the blame for the economic downturn that began a year before he took office.

You do realize we were in a recession during Bush Sr.'s presidency right?

Alternative: You believe that President Clinton deserves the credit for reducing the welfare rolls and putting people back to work, even though he vetoed these reforms twice and only signed it on the third try under heavy pressure.

Well, he does deserve some. He did finally sign it. And, just because I'm a logical being, I'm sure they didn't submit the exact same bill three times. I'm sure it changed somewhat.

You believe that if a company closes down a factory to move production to a country with cheaper labor, this will have a devastating affect on the economy, is grossly unfair to the oppressed workers, etc. But if the government forces a factory to close down because it produces barely-measurable amounts of pollution, the workers will find other jobs and, hey, they'll be grateful, because they want clean air and water too.

Last I checked, they just imposed harsher regulation that cost SOME jobs.

1. You believe that it makes perfect sense to spend ten times as much on AIDS research per infected person as on any other disease that receives federal funding, even though the spread of AIDS could be virtually ended at zero cost tomorrow if people simply stopped engaging in promiscuous homosexual acts, while almost every other disease is spread by factors over which human beings have little or no control.
2. You believe that the proper response to AIDS -- a disease which is spread by homosexual acts, which are known to be dangerous and which many people believe to be unsavory or even immoral -- is to spend millions of tax dollars searching for a cure while defending the dangerous behaviors that spread it as a fundamental human right. You also believe that lung cancer -- a disease which is spread by smoking, which is known to be dangerous and which many people believe to be unsavory or even immoral -- is to discourage if not outright ban the dangerous acts, and denounce anyone who protests this an infringement on their rights.

That's BS and you know it. Straight people get AIDS too, not just gays. People have gotten AIDS from blood transfusions, consentual sex with a partner/spouse who has cheated on them, rape, birth and from sickos who prick people with infected needles. You make it sound like everyone who has it deserves it, and that's just crap. Conversely how about heart disease, which can be caused by overeating and abusing your body? Should we stop trying to find a cure for hapless people because some are reckless?

You believe that government bureaucrats must be entrusted with deciding what constitutes great art, for of course the common people simply have no idea of what art is and what is worth supporting. The simple proof of this is that when the common people support art with their own money, they overwhelmingly support art that strives to show skill and beauty. But of course the sophisticated people in the art world know that the purpose of real art must be to "challenge the mores of middle-class society", that is, to deliberately insult and offend the people whose money you are taking to produce it.

Yea, while I mostly agree, this also hurt PBS, which gets public funding.

3. You believe that if a tyrannical government -- like, say, the government of communist China -- makes campaign contributions to a candidate for president -- let's call this hypothetical person "Bill Clinton" -- and after being elected this president overrules his national security advisors and sells all sorts of military technology to the tyrants, and turns a blind eye when they are caught trying to steal yet more military technology, that this is okay and nothing to worry about.

Both sides overlook corruption when it suits them. Let's not pretend otherwise.

At 3/12/06 10:02 PM, evilstrawberry wrote: Many would say that bombing inoccent people is an act of terrorism, both sides are doing that, so both sides are terrorists, just using different weapons.

Most would say DELIBERATELY targeting innocent civilians is terrorism. Since we tried not to (but in war it happens) during the liberation, it doesn't count. Oh and by the way, all the bombs going off now, that's the insurgents.

At 3/13/06 11:59 AM, gooze_bump wrote: hey all those fellow liberals, is'nt it weird how Cons. always question ure patriotism any time u try to give ure point of view? Its a nice Karl Rovian tactic where now most liberals must precede the statement with "imn not anti-american." Do you ever hear any conservatives say that after they spill their dribble? Its a self-defeatist attitude that they try to instill in you. Even though what u have to say is just as "American." Well im telling you dont do it be proud of what u have to say dont make them feel like ure opinion is any less american than they are. Cherrio

Those who will sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. Benjamin Franklin
Quote the man right or don't bother.

I called you on your idiocy in another thread. You are quite frankly, a moron. Reasonable people don't add "I'm not anti-American but" to their sentences. Only idiots who actually ARE unamerican. They say things like "I'm not unamerican, but we really deserved 9/11." or "I'm not unamerican, but I support our troops getting shot."

After decades of conservatives having to respond to endless charges of racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc, now you get a small taste of it. SUCKS DON'T IT? Piss off. Go away and don't come back til you get some bass in your voice.