patrick.net

I am 'successfully' trolling.
Look at the thread topic.
Look at what your discussing.
me +1, you 0.
Case Closed

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

and while your at it, prove that god has eyes.....

You do realize I'm a hard-core atheist, right? Or are you just trolling?

oh, and as an aside, a 'hard core atheist' does not invoke the name of 'god', even in metaphors.
Now the case is closed.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

and while your at it, prove that god has eyes.....

You do realize I'm a hard-core atheist, right? Or are you just trolling?

you sound like Bigsby...always piling on after the fact...

sbh says

Dan8267 says

You do realize I'm a hard-core atheist, right? Or are you just trolling?

We make up as much a 8-10% of the population.

SoftShell says

I am 'successfully' trolling.

Did you reach orgasm?

SoftShell says

me +1, you 0.

By your score count. It takes a lot more than you making a fool of yourself to get my goat.

sbh says

Dan8267 says

You do realize I'm a hard-core atheist, right? Or are you just trolling?

We make up as much a 8-10% of the population.

You talking atheists or trolls?

lostand confused says

For millenia, folks have been managing to raise kids just fine. Back then they had many kids, not just 1 or two and humanity survived. You take the one or two bad cases and make a law for everybody-what is it they say-The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

BACK THEN, you had a bunch of kids because most of them would die before getting old enough to be given a name. That's a fact. Every country that has sufficient medical care to reduce child mortality sees dropping birth rates. Mexico, Africa, every flipping one of the places that people used to point to as breeding factories for poor people, has birth rates now approaching replacement value not growth.

Another fact for you, every historical society finds some mechanism to look after their children. In a great many of them, it's by putting constraints on the men through religious, social, or civil law pressure. Women have had their own constraints that historically put the children first. There is no greater social crime for a woman, than to abandon her children.

Whatever self-centered island delusions you have, the rest of the universe has other ideas.

"A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more zygotes. This may be the purpose of the universe." - Heinlein

Vicente says

BACK THEN, you had a bunch of kids because most of them would die before
getting old enough to be given a name. That's a fact. Every country that has
sufficient medical care to reduce child mortality sees dropping birth rates.
Mexico, Africa, every flipping one of the places that people used to point to as
breeding factories for poor people, has birth rates now approaching replacement
value not growth.

Another fact for you, every historical society finds some mechanism to look
after their children. In a great many of them, it's by putting constraints on
the men through religious or social pressure.

Whatever self-centered island delusions you have, the rest of the universe
has other ideas.

Yes some kids died back then , but not as you make it out to be. My mom was born at home along with her 4 sisters. One did not make it to adulthood. Her uncle had 7 kids that made it to adulthood out of 9.

Men mostly took care of their kids, families, villages and countries. Men were always the first line of defense and gave their lives to protect their families and did most of the hard work-which was physical mostly. You have read too much feminist garbage literature and your mind has decided to accept that garbage as fact.

Kids don't need all this stuff. As a parent, you can make a million dollars a month and still want to live frugally and teach your kids how to live frugally, the meaning of money, work ethics and such. However the American and most western governments do not allow that and will take your money under threat of prison and give it to them -no questions asked. You cannot discipline them, you cannot teach them and you cannot question your children's mother if she is using that money to buy boob implants.

No wonder this country is so messed up-personal responsibility is all but gone and anyone who wants people to be responsible for their choices and teach their kids that, is branded selfish or misogynist or some such stupid feminist made up name.

lostand confused says

Yes some kids died back then , but not as you make it out to be. My mom was born at home along with her 4 sisters. One did not make it to adulthood. Her uncle had 7 kids that made it to adulthood out of 9.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

In Boston 1841-1854, 61% of poor children died before age 5.

My dad likes to visit old cemetaries sorting out family history, in the older ones it's very common to see a man flanked by 2 or even 3 wives, and small stones for children.

Vicente says

The plural of anecdote is not data.

In Boston 1841-1854, 61% of poor children died before age 5.

My dad likes to visit old cemetaries sorting out family history, in the older
ones it's very common to see a man flanked by 2 or even 3 wives, and small
stones for children.

Yes. but that has got nothing to do with forcing men to pay obscene amounts under threat of jail and having govt control of all families.

marcus says

My guess is that you are a product of our public school system, which is a proof that even back in the day, we could have done better.

Back in the 1960s the Liberals abandoned education system and pretty much everything else infavor of dropping out and doing their thing. Science Technology and Medicine was all part of the establishment system they hated. All of our advancements since didnt come from Libs .. no it was from those who believed in free enterprise and freedom.

So dont bother talking to others about how much liberals are pro-education. They turned their back on education years ago.

marcus says

Thomas you are one moronic wing nut, and a pitiful excuse for an American.

The truth stings... we havent forgotten the BS from decades past..

Vaticanus says

As far as public education being an investment, it sure is. And often it is a worthy investment, often it is a waste. When you see the growing ranks of unemployed and underemployed it is obvious that higher Ed has often become a gross misallocation of resources.

Its become meal ticket for the unions. higher taxes and legalizing gambling in CA was supposed to fix, everything... sorry ! not enough we need more ! yes, its a big sucking machines draining resources..

lostand confused says

Yes. but that has got nothing to do with forcing men to pay obscene amounts under threat of jail and having govt control of all families.

That's true. Just another tool of government intrusion and taking away personal liberty, but then again, if people decide to get officially married, then they really should know that this could be coming their way.

Vicente says

Children are society's priority, not your selfish useless self.

and from this the view the Tribe's view of deviant coupling can be found. And the value of reproduction, and the value of a strong normal family, are why taxation systems should support reproduction. Good point Vincent.

thomaswong.1986 says

Back in the 1960s the Liberals abandoned education system and pretty much everything else infavor of dropping out and doing their thing.

Good stuff. "I knew a hippie once....

Let me quote.

Vicente says

The plural of anecdote is not data.

thomaswong.1986 says

The truth stings... we havent forgotten the BS from decades past..

YEah yeah, I know,. There was also that one hippie who spit on a returning soldier.

You fail to comprehend two things. One - you can't generalize a couple individuals, or even thousands of 17 to 22 years olds to an entire half of the political spectrum.

But also, Dwight Eisenhower, an icon of conservativism in the days of the hippies, advocated and implemented policies that would make him a rogue communist in today's GOP.

So your emotional hangups about "my team versus your team" are totally irrelevant.

Bap33 says

Good point Vincent.

I saw that coming.

marcus says

Good stuff. "I knew a hippie once....

Let me quote

Once ?

edvard2 says

How difficult is it to understand the part of the constitution indicating the
separation of church and state?

the words I say are in the USConst are in there exactly as I said ... I have a right to bare arms.

the words you say are in the USConst are not in there - anywhere as you said ... that lingo aint there. Know what is?? "We hold these truths to be self evident, that WE are ENDOWED by our CREATOR with certian unalienable RIGHTS" ..... it takes some scuzzy ACLU type lawyers to not understand that simple stuff.

Bill of rights is easy to read and understand. Rights are there for all, placed by God. Marriage is far from a right. Not even close. You have no right to demand that a cake baker make you a cake ... unless you can play the race - or - sexual deviant card. Silly progressive liberals.

Tyrants use the SCOTUS to erode the soul of America.

thomaswong.1986 says

Once ?

Just making the point. Is your hatered of the boogeyman "liberals" totally tied to your feelings about hippies from 45 yers ago ?

You're more messed up than I imagined.

marcus says

Bap33 says

Good point Vincent.

I saw that coming.

well .... without more people the Tribe dies. In a way, your vocation came about due to the Tribe wanting to survive, and made education valuable ... much like procreation. Can you see what I'm saying?

marcus says

But also, Dwight Eisenhower, an icon of conservativism in the days of the hippies, advocated and implemented policies that would make him a rogue communist in today's GOP.

So your emotional hangups about "my team versus your team" are more than irrelevant.

Eisenhower's policies such as ? strange, i thought you libs were about forward and change.. not about going back.... you cant mean that a republican policies of the 1950s were all that forward thinking ?

marcus says

Just making the point. Is your hatered of the boogeyman "liberals" totally tied to your feelings about hippies from 45 yers ago ?

You're more messed up than I imagined.

Perhaps you should fast forward to California of the 1970s and decay that the drug culture of the left created.

Bap33 says

Marriage is far from a right. Not even close

Nitpicking. Who cares ?

The point is that gays deserve the benefits and rights that come with marriage under federal law, regarding taxation, inheritance, visitation rights in the hospital, being considered basically "family," and so on.

Where are you on civil unions that accomplish all of these ?

Because if you are okay with that, IT WILL become known as marriage, regardless of what the government says.

RE: Hippies - God + Drugs = DNC. The immoral dope smoking group is now in charge and that is why things are F-ed up, and also why their guilt makes them want to make dope legal ... that will really show their folks just how stupid they were to ground them when they busted them smoking dope. Silly Hippies.

Hippies + God + Drugs = Branch Dividians

thomaswong.1986 says

Eisenhower's policies such as ?

Taxes and investment in infrastructure are enough.

marcus says

Where are you on civil unions that accomplish all of these ?

read my value of procreation to the tribe, and then respond, and I'll frorm a response.

Sorry, I guess it was too difficult a question.

no, really, I responded above and ahead of your question

meaning, I answered it already and I think you will agree ... since your vocation is anchored in the same Tribe survival system

Bap33 says

Hippies - God + Drugs = DNC.

IT is fascinating how much you have in common with the Taliban, that is with regard to the evil of western values.

Bap33 says

meaning, I answered it already

Okay, but I'm not going to search for it, and I guess you don't know how to put a link on your comment to it.

I do like their views on morality and modest public behavior. I dislike their entire system being based on lies, fear, hate, and zero individualism. I like individualism.

Bap33 says

marcus says

Bap33 says

Good point Vincent.

I saw that coming.

well .... without more people the Tribe dies. In a way, your vocation came about due to the Tribe wanting to survive, and made education valuable ... much like procreation. Can you see what I'm saying?

re-post

You mean this ?

Bap33 says

and from this the view the Tribe's view of deviant coupling can be found. And the value of reproduction, and the value of a strong normal family, are why taxation systems should support reproduction. Good point Vincent.

time-out, wife is calling me to watch some home repair show with her .... adios, good evening.

I'll check back later on marcus.

Tolerating 1o percent or whatever the percentage is to live out their gay life style with toleration hardly limits the tribe.

There are over 7 trillion people on the planet, expected to level out at around 10 billion.

By the way, it could be said that there are natural reasons for the population leveling out at about 10 trillion. The need for it to level out in the aggregate is obvious. The way that it plays out on the small community level is maybe not so obvious.

People are having less children than they used to. Especially in poor countres.

(note: Correction 7 billion not trillion.)

so, your position is to tollerate something that is not healthy for the tribe? We agree.

I mistook your position to be "view as equal and normal", not "just tollerate, the rest of us can make up the difference". Tolleration is the least that the rest of us can do when we are talking about what two (or more) adults do to reach sexual gratification. As long as no minors, or mentally challenged people are part of it, I don't see it as a big deal .... mainly because I dont see it, and shouldn't see it, and dont wanna see it, and I can change the channel if a TV show has it. See, I am not all weird about it. Tollerance works when we are talking about male/male sodomites. Until their activity is found to be a burdan on the Tribe ... then, the tribe must protect itself. So far, other than some AIDS costs, and the general spread of that diseasem I dont know of a major threat from the sodomites, so tolleration is warranted.

We tollerate in our free America. That's what we do. It's the progressive liberal left that has an issue with tollerance.

Tolerance has somewhat of a range to it.

For some, tolerance of gays might mean that they are pretty judgemental about it being deviant and not so healthy, but they say it's a free country, live and let live etc.

To others tolerance means that they have way less of an issue with it. Those of us with gay friends or family surprisingly do find these people to be normal and don't even think much (if at all) about what they do sexually in the privacy of their homes.

How often do you find yourself thinking or caring about the sex habits of your friends ? Not much if you're normal. Guess what, if you are in an urban area working in a diverse environment, you may end up having gay acquaintences, and it's not that you think it's normal, its just that you're likely not to even think about it much, once you get over the novelty of it.

It's not unlike race differences. If you had never been around people of other races, then it's kind of a big deal to have a friend of another race. But if you're in a diverse environment your whole life, then it's just people. YOu are aware of the ethnic differences but people are pretty much the same. You're less likely to see them as particularly different, in ways that matter (or in ways that have to do with their race).

marcus says

Tolerating 1o percent or whatever the percentage is to live out their gay life style with toleration hardly limits the tribe.

There are over 7 trillion people on the planet, expected to level out at around 10 billion.

By the way, it could be said that there are natural reasons for the population leveling out at about 10 trillion. The need for it to level out in the aggregate is obvious. The way that it plays out on the small community level is maybe not so obvious.

People are having less children than they used to. Especially in poor countres.

7 billion people call earth home. To get to seven trillion we'd have to have a lot less homosexual sex and a WHOLE lot more good old fashioned 10-15 person families. Ladies, get ready to give those uteruses a workout! Marcus is only off by a factor of 10, don't let him down and make him look the fool again.

"7 billion people call earth home"

You're correct, 7 billion not 7 trillion. Off by a factor of a thousand, makes me sound like Mish or indigenous, with their problems dealing with large numbers and proportions.

People been killing one another since the dawn of man, most of it ain't got nothing to do with religion. Stalin, Hitler, Alexander, Khan were willing to kill to grow and "perfect" their empires. Try demonizing the demons and leave your average religious folk out of it.