Battra92

It's cool. It's just better to have sources. I was second guessing myself as well since I hadn't thought about that debate in a while.

Had to double check my facts and in 2004 he said "Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business." He also went on to point out that the administration was opposed to judges modifying Constitutions (as was done in Massachusetts) and pointed out that the president sets the policy in the administration. Transcript of the debate Cheney again in 2009 responded to the issue and believed it was a state and not a Federal issue (something I firmly agree with him on) The thing I find interesting is that America has been regulating marriage since the Colonial days, though most noticeably after the Civil War and many people my age are just now realizing it. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts two gay people can get married but two cousins cannot. Migrate over to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the issue is reversed. I'm not advocating for cousin marriage here, just pointing out the obvious. It's always been a state issue and only now is it becoming a federal issue. I'm all for keeping it at the state level since governments will always regulate marriage. Personally I say eliminate all government recognition of marriage and leave it up to the churches and the consciences of the public.

Exactly! I've had CPUs come in that were bad as well as faulty power supplies and hard drives. I'd prefer DOA over failing at a later (probably the worst) time.

I'm sure you said the same thing eight years ago when VP Dick Cheney issued personal support for it during his debate with professional scuzball, John Edwards. Oh and Dick didn't have huge campaign donations from gay bundlers and Hollywood libs. Anyway, it's hard to take Obama seriously on this. Democrats are less than enthusiastic right now. Obama has had a failed presidency with no progress on the economy, enormous debts, excuses everywhere and his fake "War on Women" blew up in his face. It's all about the money here. No one just "evolves" their position this quickly. Seriously, anyone who takes this as anything other than cheap pandering for donations and to attempt to get the youth vote is just plain naive.

You mean competition brought prices down? Who'd have thought it?!

I really wish there was a Genesis controller for the PS3 but I'm thinking some form of fightpad would work well. ANYway, I picked up this on GOG as my original disc is long lost. Sadly there's no voice acting in the GOG version (unless I'm doing something wrong) which is kind of a bummer. Sadly, short of buying another copy of the original and building a real DOS box, there's not much I can do.

Either one of these: or if that's too scary sharp, one of these: I have a beard now so I don't really use either.

Yeah, buy cheap pay twice. It's what's called false economy and people not surprisingly do it all the time. We opt for cheap building supplies, cooking tools, cars, disposable pens, overpriced disposable or cartridge razors etc.

I'm not sure how much I'll use it but cast iron is fantastic stuff. I already have a good half dozen pieces already (not counting the enameled stuff) I'm not really a "green" person per se but I do believe in buying things that last and not replacing them every year or so (saves me some green as we say in the US ) and the pan I bought apparently dates back to the 40s. If you take care of cast iron and season it properly and don't feed it after midnight, you can pass it down to your kids and grandkids.

Well, my wife liked this look: http://forme-foryou.com/2009/10/ikea-hack.html

Bought some furniture for the house. We got two of these: We plan on staining them and painting the drawer fronts, most likely. I also picked up this at a Flea Market today. Not sure what I'll do with it but it's pretty rad!

I heard someone say once (I forget what talking head said this) but you can convince people in a good economy that it's bad but it's very hard to convince people in a bad economy that times are good. The major difference is that It's easy to point to isolated or anecdotal poverty as even in the best of times, there are poor people. The average man on the street will think he has it good because he's lucky but poor Joe down the street lost his job at Buggy Whip Inc so the economy must be in the shitter. In a bad economy most people know people who are either unemployed, underemployed or are constantly changing jobs.

I think after the kangaroo court that ensued, the US regretted not killing Saddam Hussein instead of capturing him.

More like regretting not taking a terrorist enemy when you have the chance. Yasser Arafat was no angel. Related ...

I like the Romney response that even Jimmy Carter would've ordered the strike. In the 60s a sniper had Yasser Arafat in his sights and all he needed was the go-ahead to pull the trigger. Arial Sharon decided against it and is said to have regretted it for the rest of his conscious life. Whether it would've worked out better in the end is anyone's guess but no leader wants to live with that regret forever.

I'd let you use my BJ's Wholesale Club membership if you were closer. You can buy diapers by the Metric ton there. @_@ A friend of my wife went the cloth route with her kid and my wife wants to do the same when we finally have brats. Anyway, I've been busy ... I wanted just the shears but it was cheaper to get them in green with a free paring knife. That will be good for slicing roast beasts up. and because my current Chef's knife is always covered in meat juice when I want to slice veggies or being used to slice veggies when I want to cut chickens in half, I got me one of these:

It would be nice if men were angels as Madison famously put it. I always err on the side of Liberty and let people more or less make their own decisions for their own lives as long as they aren't hurting other people.

And 41 people telling 59 what to do is better? Having a filibuster isn't 41% telling the 59 what to do. It's 41% stopping legislation going through without debate. The first two years of the Obama presidency (prior to Scott Brown) were essentially a Rubber Stamp congress with bills getting slammed through with calls of "we have to pass this legislation to know what's in it." This is not how government is supposed to function. The Senate by definition is supposed to stall legislation from being too hastily thrown through at the whim of the public. Senators are only elected every 6 years and at one time only a third of the senate is up for reelection. Also, there is an equal number of senators per state to avoid larger states like California, New York and Texas ignoring the interests of smaller states like Vermont and Idaho. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment Senators were not directly elected by the people but instead were selected by the state legislators. True Democracy is always tyranny. The founders of the United States knew this and put many safeguards into the system (checks and balances) to balance things out. If you read the United States Constitution the only limits in it (outside of the abolished Eighteenth Amendment and parts of the Fourteenth that specifically refer to members of the Confederate States of America) are those placed upon the government itself.

Perhaps it needs to change but the idea of elimination is ridiculous. Tyranny is 51 telling the 49 what to do. Quite frankly I think the country would be a lot better off if we required a super majority to pass most things.

Who owns a virtual monopoly on both student loans and the education system? Oh right, the government. Moron kids should direct their anger at the government that lied to them. Also, I'm all for keeping the filibuster. I think it's yet another check and balance built into the system.