Royd

They've got the Swedish Bikini Team. Come on, man.

The only difference between me and a homeless person is that I have a home. My sig line isn't a fluke. The fact is that there is plenty of land and buildings for homeless people to take advantage if only they'd start thinking outside of the cardboard box. I could take $10 worth of seeds, go out on a ditch bank, or a clearing in the woods, plant them, and have enough food to last for a long time. Many, not all, of them have become victims inside their own heads. I recently tried an experiment. It tells me something about unintended consequences. I did a big job last spring. I finished puttting a house together that a contractor dropped the ball on. In June, when I was done, I had a pocket full of money, and since I didn't want Uncle Sam getting any deeper into my pocket, I decided to sit on my ass until I actually had to go back to work. The longer I sat, the more complacent, indifferent, and depressed I became. I needed to get back to work, but now,I was too depressed to do more than get out of bed, drink coffee and sit here doing stuff like this. There are a lot of people that you could give them every possible tool that they needed to get on their feet, and make their own way in life, but they think that, somehow, they are owed a free life upon this earth. Most have some lame excuse why they don't think it's their responsibility to care for themselves.

She is what I call an eternal beauty, with the voice of an angel.

It's all about punishing those who have more of whatever than you do. I'm sure that homeless people across this great land of opportunity, who haven't paid a dime in taxes, are sitting under their bridges and in their doorways, wringing their hands and having deep discussions about national debt. They probably are pissed that the price of Majik Markers has gone up 20% in the last few months.

I thought that one of the favorite liberal catch phrases is "Giving back." You wouldn't want anyone not to experience that joy, now, would you?

Hopefully, when that happens, we'll have two groups of people. Americans and illegal aliens.

That's funny. Statistically, I'm not even considered middle class, and I recognize it for what it is. It's all about punishing those who have more of whatever than you do, regardless of how they achieved their level of prosperity. Some people won't be happy until Bill Gates is dumpster diving.

I enjoy the food at Golden Corral. Generally, I eat there at least once a week. Normally, I have a plate of meat and veggies, and a plate of salad. Then, I'm full, and done. I have watched the prices shoot up from about $9 to $13 in about 4 months. The other day, something clicked in my brain, and I said to myself, "This is BS. I can't eat $13 dollars worth of food." They'll be lucky to get my money once a month. For the cost of one meal, I can feed myself at the house for four days.

That was before she got chunky and politcal.

if they did have morals, they wouldn't change them for the sake of convenience.

Yea, they're shipping all of the free oil home by the barrel load.

Jakee's argument is that unless someone else is suffering harm, what we determine as morality, is a waste of time. Incest, regardless of curcumstances, is still not accepted by society, unless you're a Jerry Springer fan. By the standard above, if two related adults produce no children, and no other family member exists to be repulsed, is there still something wrong with it? I think it is, and I've got some damn hot cousins. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My argument is that there are certain things, regardless of the ambivelance of people as a whole, over a period of time, always will be wrong. [ Absurdity alert.] Let's say you are going for a walk with your children, pass an empty lot, and see some man screwing a dog. You would probably rush your children off and call the police. He wasn't harming anyone. Over a period of time, after many people see the same thing, they just ignore it. Some might even think it might be enjoyable. After all, the man seems to enjoy it. The next thing you know, people are going to the pound to adopt a nice, young dog. Then, a small group of beastiality practitioners get together and start calling the masses bigots and haters. Soon, a bunch of liberals, who don't want to be seen in a bad light by the masses, jump on board and repeat the chant. Pretty soon, there are politicians pushing for a law. I could go on, but the point is, no matter how many people think that something is acceptable, just because no 'real' harm was done, it is still wrong. Always was, always will be.

Make us a list of what you think 'Poor People' should be entitled to. My wallet's open. Oh, wait. It's empty.

Jakee's argument is that unless someone else is suffering harm, what we determine as morality, is a waste of time. Incest, regardless of curcumstances, is still not accepted by society, unless you're a Jerry Springer fan. By the standard above, if two related adults produce no children, and no other family member exists to be repulsed, is there still something wrong with it? I think it is, and I've got some damn hot cousins.

Why do the Shriners have their name on the Burn hospital? Why does anyone promote themselves or their business? Why don't we all just remain nameless and faceless in our efforts to do a good deed?

Yea, but he took it with him when he left.

Git ur dun.

The problem is that those who enjoy living off of the system, validate themselves by transferring the mentality to their children.

So, if a father and daughter, or a brother and sister are the only remaining people in a family, and no one is around to object, then it's OK? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm talking about incest.

Cause I could use $300?

The problem here is that in today's secular society, if something that you know is wrong, but you really want to do it without guilt, you[speaking of secular society] will try to change the rules to fit the behavior. Thus, what has been wrong from the beginning of civilization, suddenly becomes acceptable, or at least, winked at. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not if it involves something that overly hurts another person. So, if a father and daughter, or a brother and sister are the only remaining people in a family, and no one is around to object, then it's OK? That's one of those things that will sort itself after time. Homosexuality cannot be propagated. We see that everyday in society. One generation of parents hated school and learning, and they end up projecting that attitude onto their children in order to validate their own attitude, even though it's wrong. If you ask them, they are being free thinkers.

Don't go all Eccllesiastes on us here.

Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By your hypothesis, through the thousands or hundreds of thousands of years that humans have existed, by the law of evolution, we should all be living in a virtual paradise by now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did we develop them, or are they the result of evolution? How is it that we have to be retaught with each generation? Sort of like basic math. The only time I have to teach my dog something is if I want to change his behavior. Otherwise, he does what dogs do.

It seems that it's only the tigers in the liberal zoos i.e. San Fransisco, who don't think that they have to obey the rules.

I would say that morality is not owned by religion but, it IS defined by it........for the most part. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The problem here is that in today's secular society, if something that you know is wrong, but you really want to do it without guilt, you[speaking of secular society] will try to change the rules to fit the behavior. Thus, what has been wrong from the beginning of civilization, suddenly becomes acceptable, or at least, winked at. Not to say that all ideas should remain the same forever. If they are truly wrong, they will eventually reveal themselves, without doubt. Thus, the eternal thread of righteousness reveals itself.