davjohns

I'm of two minds. I find I dislike the person who slurs the other candidate. I also suspect there is some truth to the slurs. That leaves me disliking both candidates. Since they are politicians, I was likely to end up there anyway. The negative ads just encourage the process. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I see your point, but at least religion is voluntary. If you don't like anything espoused by one religion, you can change, make up your own version or just opt out. Government doesn't give you that option with nearly the ease that religion does (now). I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I don't see anything in the article regarding the ultimate argument the Judge's based their decision on. It just says that they held the marriage law violated the state constitution's equal protection provision. I've never seen an equal protection provision that covered sexual preference. If this one does, they were right. If not, they went astray. I haven't looked up the state constitution to see what kind of leeway it gives for interpretation. Anyone looked at this? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Agreed Turtle. Matthew 6:24 - No man can serve two masters. The only bibilical prohibition to polygamy that I can find. Lol It does raise the question of whether a woman can have two husbands, though. Or a bunch of women / men have a same sex polygamous situation? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Thanks, round, green thing. You are always there for me that way. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Are we still speaking euphamistically? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

By the way...everyone who has chimed in so far sounds like a Libertarian to me. But that's just me. I am partial to that vein. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Thanks for the clarification, but where does the bible prohibit plural marriage? Abraham engaged in it. David was sure a fan. Saul was too. Jacob worked hard to marry two sisters. It wasn't until Rome imposed it's morals on the Jews that it went away. Paul espoused not getting married if you were widowed, but if you had to, he recommended the Roman preference for monogamous marriage. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Oh, yeah. You mean like virgins, right? I've heard of them. Don't last long around here, do they? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

While I don't disagree with you, I think you took a sudden turn from what I was asking. Thanks for the response, though. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm only going to refrain because I'm not fetishist. But someone is bound to PM you on that one if you are making a serious offer. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I don't see why any of them (including the President) need their own plane. I was in the DC airport a few weeks ago and ran into John McCain. He was heading for a Delta (cheap) flight. When and why did we develop a royal class? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Why do people have to turn an enjoyable passtime into a duty? Ruins it for me. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

When the heck did we start having perfectly innocent threads? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Fully agree on that point. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Alright. Apparently I have decided to return to this forum for some reason I do not understand... Here's my topic for discussion: I have no issue with gay marriage. I think it would cause some problems in definition of what a family is, but I don't want the government defining that for me anyhow. Insurance companies that have family plans will have to figure it out themselves. Benefits based on families seem wrong to me anyhow. If you get a discount for having a family and you have 66 kids, I have to take up the slack anyhow. Maybe you should be charged for what you use so you will control yourself. But there's this...if gay marriage is objectionable because it violates Christian ideals and we allow it...what about plural marriage? There is a huge biblical basis for it. We only did away with it because the early Catholic church followed the guidance of a Roman on the issue (Saul / Paul). He was espousing the Roman ideal, not the law given by God. God had no problem with plural marriage anywhere in the bible. David (Beloved of God) had hundreds of wives and concubines. So...if we legalize gay marriage (fine with me), do we give the nod to plural marriage (also not an issue with me). Personally, I'm not a fan of government sanctioning who you have a relationship with (marriage license, licensed clergy, etc.) and making you give up the right to end a relationship without government approval on how (divorce). I understand it was necessary once to keep men from abandoning women and such. And then, there's the whole question of whether that keeps women from being truly equal...maybe another thread. So how about it? If you have no problem with gay marriage, do you support plural marriage? Vice versa? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Roger. Vote them all out every election. The new group will be incompetent crooks. The competent crooks are killing us. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I am almost is complete agreement with you. I am only hesitant about legalizing drugs. I have no problem with legalizing all drugs. I don't care what people put in their bodies. I just have issues with paying for welfare, Social Security, health insurance, etc. for someone to do so. If they screw themselves up on drugs, I have to pay the price. I don't like that. Make them responsible for themselves and I think they should do whatever they like so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. While marijuana is low risk, a huge number of users don't hold down jobs and drag the rest of us down. Clear that up and I think they should smoke their little hearts out when not at work. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Courts do not get to make law. They do not get to judge the law against moral values, human rights, or any other extralegal standards. They have to judge it by the higher laws of the government which they are a part of. I know some of you will dispute this because you don't like it. It is still so. In fact, our early US Supreme Court would refuse to rule on certain matters because they were non-justiciable. Modern courts like to pretend nothing is non-justiciable and they are the ultimate arbiters and holders of wisdom. Those kinds of people scare me more than anything. If it helps any, I just renewed my license to practice law. I've studied this once or twice. It's not just my political/philosophical position. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Yesterday, the Italian Mafia ruled. Today, it's the Russian Mafia. I'm so happy. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Quote"The main issue has to do with a basic physics conundrum. In order to travel the great distance to Mars (about 35 million miles), a starship would need a tremendous amount of fuel. . . . . The more fuel you add, the more you need simply to move the ship's bulk, making it impossible to go one-way to Mars, much less roundtrip. " Well that's wrong. Do you have no problem with that? reply] Mmmm...not really. 1) "In order to travel the great distance to Mars (about 35 million miles)..." "Depending on where they are in their respective orbits, they can be anywhere from 36 million miles to over 250 million miles apart." Answers.com 2) "a starship would need a tremendous amount of fuel. . . . . The more fuel you add, the more you need simply to move the ship's bulk," Res Ipsa Loquitur 3) "making it impossible to go one-way to Mars, much less roundtrip." Obviously, something got quoted wrong or misspoken or taken out of context here since we have sent quite a few missions to Mars already. I give the source of that quote the benefit of the doubt and figure they were talking about a one-way manned trip (due to oxygen, food, etc. requirements) being out of the question for now. I don't know if that's true or not. I just think the statement is so clearly wrong that someone made a simple mistake. But then, I look for points in common; not points to argue about. Just me. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Commenting on your premise 'stupid knows no party' - I think if either party had a clear majority on brains, they would easily dominate the political landscape. The fact that we keep going from one to the other in our elections indicates that they are both chock full of idiots. We just keep swaying back and forth because hope springs eternal. We stay divided because one group of idiots at least agrees wtih some of our individual socioeconomic views. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

This was on about.com. Not vouching for it. "Transsexual athletes who have undergone a sex-change operation are now allowed to compete in the Olympic games. The International Olympic Committee stated in November 2003 that, “We will have no discrimination,” at the Olympics. " I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'll pop in on this one - I don't care what you want to put in your body. I don't want to finance my government telling you what to put in your body or trying to force you to do things the way the government wants regarding your body. Here's the rub - you have to take responsibility for your decisions. You have to do your drugs in a manner that doesn't harm anyone else. You have to support yourself and anyone else you take responsibility for or create. You have to stay off public assistance, public medical care and all else to keep from costing me money for your decision. People don't seem to realize that as long as we have welfare, social security, medicaid, HAP, etc. the government can direct our lives arbitrarily. If it provides our healthcare, it can surely require us to report for our mandatory exercise sessions run by them. It can tell us what to eat, how much to eat and what drugs we can take. And it doesn't have to make much sense. We gave up the right to make decisions when we gave up the responsibility for the consequences. Something to consider. Dropping back out now. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I recall some controversy a few years ago about a tranny runner. I think it was a guy who became a girl. They claimed a lifetime as a guy gave him greater muscle mass and an unfair advantage over the natural women. Might have been an Olympic issue. Not sure how they settled it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.