If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Hertz wrote:
"Jim Fisher" wrote in message ... "Cecil Chapman" wrote in message The gay population has become the new 'coloreds' - get over your bigotry. Live and let live. You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with sickening frequency Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I were black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't such a generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you. Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America. Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning, water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given, Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative government. Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to practice their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can vote. They can get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions in the media and corporate America. Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes. But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's just they way it is. To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my, and your, intelligence. Bull**** - why shouldn't they have a right to take advantage of "marriage?" Also, the gays/queers/fags have suffered brutally. They are still routinely victims of hate crimes. Now, here I am sounding like a liberal, but tht is not the case. I would never vote for the socialist, I mean democratic party, but for all love, why this unbending rule against "marriage" for queers? Perhaps that analogy is not quite right, but there is no excuse for the gubment to take moral stands and deny certain status to some citizens that are routinely granted to others? The government takes moral stands all of the time. A good share of our laws are based on morality. Things such as not killing your neighbors. Matt |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote:
Uh huh. Which polls are these? Are they compiled by the same ones compiling the exit polling data? This is a prime example of the ignorance of so many people. The exit polls on election day were actually amazingly accurate. What many people like you should learn before you start spouting off is what actually happened. Results from the exit polls was leaked before the polls were complete, i.e. around 3 or 4 pm, before the polls were closed. I heard a terrific explanation of this exit polling phenomenon at the airport today, from an old gray-head sitting in the terminal building... He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day -- all the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!" :-) That's a keeper! Matt |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Butler wrote:
He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day -- all the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!" The funny part is that is exactly right. Not entirely. I'm a working Republican and I voted at 7 AM on my way TO work. :-) Matt |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Duniho wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Polls are facts about statistics. I'd say just the opposite. Polls are statistics about facts. Statistics are always about facts. Polls are the facts about the statistics. No, a fact is an invariant. If you take a poll and then take another poll, you'll get a different result. That isn't factual, sorry. Yes, most of these polls have significant biases. Such as? Such as who they talk to, where they conduct the poll, what time they poll (as mentioned earlier, the working Republicans may not vote until after the welfare liberals are done), and many other factors. Matt |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
Earl Grieda wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... AES/newspost wrote: In article , "G.R. Patterson III" wrote: He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged to three shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned? He prattles about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban semi-automatics, knowing full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic. I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned, that includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to ban that, and we aren't talking anything armor-piercing here. Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that sort of thing? You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all the same as the generally accepted meanings today. Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of these terms. Earl G. That would be a reference, with three e's. Since you are too lazy to do your own research, here's a little to get you started: http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20001008edkelly5.asp http://www.nitewavesherrym.com/militia/militia.html Do you think you can handle "well regulated" on your own? Matt |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
Newps wrote:
Earl Grieda wrote: You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all the same as the generally accepted meanings today. Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of these terms. Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an organized army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part of a United States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US Army would basically have a coup and take over the country. Every able bodied adult male was considered to be the militia. Yes, it took me all of 5 seconds to find a boat load of references that explain this is great detail. Matt |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
Earl Grieda wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message ... Earl Grieda wrote: You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all the same as the generally accepted meanings today. Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of these terms. Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an organized army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part of a United States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US Army would basically have a coup and take over the country. Every able bodied adult male was considered to be the militia. I am not the one making the claim. It is the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove it, or state that it is his opinion. However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written. I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone then. Matt |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
G.R. Patterson III wrote:
Earl Grieda wrote: However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written. That would be whatever weaponry is used by a modern military force. George Patterson If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have been looking for it. Yes, Earl really should learn when to stop digging the hole he's in. Matt |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Greg Butler wrote: He said "OF COURSE the exit polls showed Kerry ahead early in the day -- all the Republicans work for a living, and couldn't vote till after 6 PM!" The funny part is that is exactly right. Not entirely. I'm a working Republican and I voted at 7 AM on my way TO work. :-) Obviously there are exceptions |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
No, a fact is an invariant. If you take a poll and then take another poll, you'll get a different result. That isn't factual, sorry. Actually a poll is a statement of fact: the people polled did in fact say what the poll says. The problem arises with how you extend the poll to represent the unpolled. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Leaving the community | David Brooks | Instrument Flight Rules | 556 | November 30th 04 08:08 PM |
aero-domains for anybody in the aviation community | secura | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 26th 04 07:37 PM |
Unruly Passengers | SelwayKid | Piloting | 88 | June 5th 04 08:35 AM |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
Big Kahunas | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 360 | December 20th 03 12:59 AM |