|
Post by greyelephant on May 24, 2007 13:57:27 GMT -5
What the HECK is going on with the gas prices!!!!! OMG they are talking like they could be up to $4.00 a gallon here in Indianapolis by this weekend!
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on May 30, 2007 20:06:07 GMT -5
I am about to talk about something that you guys will have no idea of what it is.
This superintendent, Tony, is really getting on my nerves! Why can't he update Build Pro? Why is he always talking like he knows everything? Why is it like he is talking out his a$$?
I feel a little better. I still want to punch him in the nose, though. ;D
|
|
Nick Vader
30 Point Captain
????#???? ???????????? ?
Posts: 327
|
Post by Nick Vader on Jun 1, 2007 15:50:12 GMT -5
Because of The Charter of the French language, I can't order attacktix from Toys 'R Us.ca!
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 1, 2007 15:54:52 GMT -5
Know-it-alls. Guys that can't be persuaded in any direction other than their view. Sometimes this is good, we call it principle. But sometimes it's not. I HATE those little pukes that tell you the sun is the moon and the moon is the sun despite it flying in the face of reality.
And Sales Meetings on WebeX. I hate those too. I like the idea of getting together on the Web and doing a meeting, but do I REALLY give a crud about the forecast and the p&l and new part numbers superceding the old ones....NUKE THEM ALL!
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 1, 2007 16:02:18 GMT -5
Yet another example of explosives solving everything...
Here's my rant that could re-open the worm can of "smoking".
Why is it that TV is always swamped with anti-smoking ads? Think about it a second. Smoking could cause you to die, sure. Should we know that smoking could kill you? Of course. Heck, I'm pretty sure there's a warning on the label (wouldn't know, never seen a pack up close). However, why we are treated to indoctrination after indoctrination of "Smoking is bad, smoking is stupid, don't smoke" commercials simply because it could kill us when there are other more pressing threats about things that could kill us? Knives, cars, terrorists, eating, drinking, Godzilla, Attacktix missile to the heart during open-heart surgery, all these things have a possibility of killing us at any moment of any day (except the last one) yet the only one that really gets its own commercial is smoking. Why is this?
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 1, 2007 16:11:31 GMT -5
Lobbyists. Personally, I like the commercials. I smoke, and tell my daughter that if she ever smokes, or tries to smoke, I will personally beat the little out of her. The commercials reinforce this. I think that by the time the generation comes of age that smoking will be pretty much a foreign affair. The real question is what tax will be raised to make up for the voluntary taxes I pay by smoking.
When are they going to start making "Don't have sex" commercials? That's my real prickly point. They'll tell you ALL DAY LONG not to smoke, but what about abstinence? Lots of lives are ruined, babies murdered in their wombs (oh, sorry...that's a choice, not Murder of their own living breathing babies or proto-babies), not to mention the AIDS, many VDs out there like Herpes and others...when will they start teaching the youth to be like Bob Vila and do-it-yourself if, to quote the Almond Joy commercials "Sometimes you feel like a nut"? Why is it that all forms of self-abuse are ideologically banned - drugs, gangs, smoking, underage drinking, but PREMARITAL SEX IS NOT!??!? AAAAARRRGGHHH. A generation of wh0res, MTV and Paris Hole-ton are making, yes.
|
|
phoenixflood
30 Point Warrior
????#???? ????????????????? ?
Posts: 541
|
Post by phoenixflood on Jun 1, 2007 16:54:26 GMT -5
They already have those commercials about abstinence. I guess it's just a city thing, as I live in around Baltimore and not Statewide.
But you are right, the moral consciousness of the US is a horrible situation. It is however, my belief, that it is up to the individual child to make their own choices; however, hopefully they make choices based on the knowledge they learned from their moral, parental educators. Notice I say hopefully. Many individuals do not model the correct moral behavior. As for not wanting your daughter not to smoke, is it moral to keep smoking and tell her not to? I can't say. I would say that the way we look at ourselves is a choice no matter what situation we are in. It is in that knowledge of ourselves that we can derive strength to help our youth. Are there other forces at work that shape how our children think, act and feel? Darn right! Is it our faults if a wrong choice is made? Partially, I'd say so, but it's not our lives. Does a wrong choice effect us? Hell yeah. The question is is how we can instill in our children the means to take responsibility for their choices.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 1, 2007 17:49:03 GMT -5
Eh, it's not that I disagree with the commercials, it just seems sort of silly to focus all that energy there when there are many others problems that could be addressed.
As for what tax could eventually replace the smoking tax, air. By the time the amount of people smoking is down to a low level, there will most likely be a way to tax how much we breathe. Heck, they'd tax it even if there was still enough smokers to keep the cigarette tax. Only reason they haven't yet is they don't have the technology. Give it a few decades and you'll have to pay for every breath.
The reason abstinence isn't taught is multi-faceted. The media is run by the elites. The elites are generally leftist. "Free love" is generally a leftist trait. Therefore, anything against premarital sex is obviously not going to get a big audience with the people who run large networks (smaller ones like local channels, on the other hand, are generally less slanted). Abstinence also doesn't sell like sex does so there's a money part of it ("How are we going to get people to watch Desperate Housewives if we're telling people to NOT go around hooking up with everything that has a pulse?"). Finally, there is the issue that most people who want abstinence taught are considered "religious zealots" (not true) and obviously want to install a theocracy in America. How dare we in the media allow that to happen?!?! We mustn't run any commercials supporting anything related to those evil right-wing religious nuts.
Yeah, I have issues with leftist thought... sue me.
|
|
Ataru
40 Point Leader
????#???? ?
Posts: 1,017
|
Post by Ataru on Jun 1, 2007 17:53:50 GMT -5
You know, I read something about those smoking commericals... typical reaction smokers have, survey says, is to laugh and light a cigarrette.
Superfly, my guess is that TV station managers decide not to air those types of commercials because it's a subject that is felt inappropriate for children. But then there are those shows that actually promote adultery. The TV station manager decides he'll air that at a time when adults/older teenagers will likely be watching (and don't forget, slap a little PG-13 on the right hand corner to keep parents from letting six-year-olds watch it). And those adults and young adults, the manager figures, are people old enough to make right choices. NOT TRUE. No one is ever old enough to make all the right choices. We all make mistakes. I'm not saying we'll all fall into the clutches of adultery because we see it on TV, but many may see it as an acceptable lifestyle because they see that lifestyle being modeled out right in front of them. It's just a nasty, nasty business. Satan has pretty much had control of the TV, video game, and movie industry for too long. Personally, I want to give that industry back to God.
Oh yes, superfly, don't you mean terminating the fetus? I mean, after all, we don't want anyone to think that those... um... fetuses are actually CHILDREN, now, do we? Of course not. We just want to use terms like fetus to keep women thinking about choices, not that there's actually a BABY in her womb.</sarcasm>
Seriously, thanks superfly for using the correct terms. MURDER the UNBORN CHILD. That is what it is. The abortionists get so wrapped up making money and promoting "choices" that they call things by names that just don't sound so bad.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 1, 2007 18:08:04 GMT -5
You know what's really fun. Places like Planned Parenthood are all about giving people "choices" and the Democratic party sells itself as "the party of choice". Please. What a load of crock. Planned Parenthood has fought many battles to try and stop any legislation that forces abortion clinics to point out that there are other ways of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy (accept it, adoption) than abortion. Democrats like to cut down just what we can and can't choose via things like tariffs and the blocking of free trade, lack of school voucher programs, affirmative action, private social security accounts, all this and more NOT brought to you to CHOOSE by the good ol' Donkey party.
Heck, the '08 Democratic nominees don't even represent a choice. They're all the same except for one or two who are more extreme than others. At least with Republicans you have Giuliani who is righty on economics and government but lefty on social issues, McCain who is all over the place but mostly righty on economics and social but lefty on government, Gingrich who is pretty much a straight righty, and Romney who is a Mormon with mostly righty leanings in social and was a CEO. Democrats only present the options of left, more left, extreme left, and "falling off a cliff" left.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 1, 2007 18:22:17 GMT -5
1. Phoenixflood - yes, it's moral to smoke and tell my kid not to. Absolutely moral. Hypocritical, yes, but moral. I still like to have sex, and my wife appears to enjoy it (when she's awake), so by telling our kid not to have sex it is moral, yet still hypocritical...hope that made sense...in my little world it did.. ;D
2. Ataru - right on, Amen, all that. Here's the kicker - why is it if a girl decides to have an abortion at 3 months of pregnancy, it's NOT murder, but if I shoot her in the belly and kill her 'unborn child' then I am charged with one count first degree murder (plead to manslaughter) and one count first degree attempted murder (plead down to discharging a firearm in city limits and assault with intent to do great bodily injury)? How can one have it both ways? The focus is on the choice, and that disturbs me.
3. Grievous - here's the thing about the "party of choice" that REALLY irks me. They SAY they're about choice, but they do everything in their power to REMOVE our choices. Like trying to undermine a viable 3rd party candidate - why is it we can go to Baskin Robbins and have 31 chooices of flavor sundae, with 10 choices of toppings, but come time to elect the most powerful MAN in the world, we only get a choice between a Douche Bag and a Giant Turd Sandwich (see south park). They then go further by banning SMOKING in everywhere (which, last time I checked is a choice), they make Campaign Finance reform which abridges the first amendment of the Constitution, they try to pass these crap education bills that restrict vouchers, hamper homeschooling (I KNOW you know about this one), and force kids to go to failing schools run by crooked Teachers Union reps.
Pray that Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich run for office or no matter who we choose, we're scrooed.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 1, 2007 18:36:11 GMT -5
I agree with you on all counts here, superfly. Hypocrisy may not look good but it helps in some cases. Saying one can't say something bad about something just because they did it is basically saying that a recovering alcoholic can't go to the beer aisle of Wal-Mart and tell someone that the stuff can destroy their lives.
The hypocrisy of abortion, however, is not one of those "good cases". It's disgusting.
As for the "party of choice", you hit the nail right on the head. At least Republicans are honest when they state that they want to block certain things (like pornography or abortion). With the "party of choice" all you get is a bunch of double talk as they strip away as many choices as they can "for the good of all". Sure Repos are just as bad sometimes but I see Demis doing it more often. What a load of balogna...
|
|
Ataru
40 Point Leader
????#???? ?
Posts: 1,017
|
Post by Ataru on Jun 1, 2007 18:58:34 GMT -5
1. Phoenixflood - yes, it's moral to smoke and tell my kid not to. Absolutely moral. Hypocritical, yes, but moral. I still like to have sex, and my wife appears to enjoy it (when she's awake), so by telling our kid not to have sex it is moral, yet still hypocritical...hope that made sense...in my little world it did.. ;D Well... I wouldn't consider it hypocritical on the second count, because essentially you're teaching your kid only to have intercourse when married. Key word: premarital. That's when it's wrong. As for the smoking, I would consider it hypocritical to smoke and tell your child not to do so.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jun 1, 2007 19:28:37 GMT -5
Oh, it absolutely is hypocritical. No doubt, but the alternative is to tell her it's OK to smoke because daddy does. So, the lesser of 2 evils.
And Grievous, I'd FAR prefer hypocrisy regarding abortion to the alternative: If I had an abortion, then told others not to, at least in some way I'm repentant and trying to tell others not to make the same mistake. I have a big problem here because I do not agree at all with abortion, although I used to, and my wife used to be completely against it, but now she thinks it's a personal choice that she disagrees with, but thinks that the choice should be available.
My deal is this: If people wanted to be able to sue the government on a case-by-case basis to get an abortion, I MIGHT be able to stomach it better as at least SOMEONE is looking out for those that can't defend themselves. I think abortion on-demand (which sadly is easier to get than a bottle of beer) is sick and wrong. I can understand why people feel that it is the only option, especially the really young girls, but I always feel that erring on the side of life is better than the wholesale slaughter of millions of children. It's a far better thing to put children up for adoption.
The REALLY REALLY sick ones, though, are the ones that have the means to have a child, carry it to term, and even raise them, but decide to abort the child because they don't want to change their appearance...get fat, stretch marks....that is so disgusting that people like that should be taken out to a barn and shot, several times in non-vital areas, and allowed to bleed to death.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on Jun 1, 2007 21:11:02 GMT -5
You misunderstood me. I meant the hypocrisy you mentioned a bit back, a woman can "abort" her "fetus" with no repercussions but a random person would murder her unborn baby, it'd be murder. Going from having an abortion to telling people not to have one is fine by me (which ever was the abortion side from Roe vs. Wade did this). Other than that, I agree completely. Well, except the last part may be massively extreme but I agree on the concept, not the execution .
|
|