SSForum.net is back!
NBVegita
-
Posts
1906 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Events
Gallery
Articles
Everything posted by NBVegita
-
I do have to say I side with Sever completely. I will illeterate further later.
-
-
I've read similar things to this prior to this argument. But in this instance I take a stance similar to severs on religion. It's not that I deny that such a proposal exists(ed), I just can't personally believe the proposal with all of the "sources" unable to be named. It would even be a larger concern to me if it had been made more public, but with all of the enemies of the conservatives/republicans/bush administration, if this were in fact true, it would be cannon fodder for the democrats/liberals, SPECIALLY with the primaries and the presidential elections coming up. Of course all of the top democrats and republicans seem against diplomacy with Iran, so it might fall on deaf ears.
-
Statements like that astound me. Since the 79" hostage crisis, bombings, and lord knows how many events since then, we've been on bad terms with Iran. Clinton even enacted an economic embargo on them in 1995. m(http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1995/1195Bulletin/Iran_EconomicEmbargo.html)
-
As for sanitation, You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. And the church teaches abstinence mostly, so actually if more people listened to the church there would be less std's. !@#$%^&* when I was younger I was plenty promiscuous, and I have no love for the church, but even I can't blame std's on the church.
-
Actually I'm not at all religious. And second it does not take a genius to figure out that drugs are "bad". Arguing with a pothead on the internet is like throwing JDS in a circular room and telling him to piss in the corner.
-
Museums don't glorify slavery, nor was slavery a voluntary act. I can't believe some of the arguments people try to use lol As for Marijuana you will not see it legalized in this lifetime. The case is that the government has no reason to legalize it. For dozen's of reasons. There would be so many taxes on it that you would never be able to afford to buy it from the government, and the good stuff would still only be available from the dealers. So why would you spend 3 times as much to get less pot thats worse quality? In order for there to even be a strong legislative pull there would have to be an indisputable study that shows a MAJOR posistive impact to either health or economy, before it would even have a chance. And unfortunately unless we discover something miraculous about pot in the next decade or two, that would make you SOL. The only chance you'd have to see it in your lifetime is if we become a near dictatorship with an immensely liberal ruler. And you'll have a tough time trying to visit that museum that was nearly unanimously opposed and denied. And write your 4 page paper, I bet you can't even throw up a valid argument to my last two paragraph post about why I don't feel woodstock should have a museum. !@#$%^&* I went over to my parents last night and of course we talk politics, and both of them, who were there for the concert, think it's rediculous to have a museum for it. The worst part is that if you tried to find a bigger hippie in the 60's than my mom you'd have had to look pretty hard.
-
What you fail to mention is that the only reason why it became free is that the thousands of people who could not get in tore down the fences keeping them out. It was once they realized they could not stop all of those people is when it so benevolently became free. Also have you read some of rolling stone's 50 moments that changed rock and roll? I will assume not. Try to wiki that one too, or actually go beyond wiki. !@#$%^&* Madonna singing like a virgin, and eminem singing "my name is" made it. Not very impressive if you ask me. And for 500,000 people? cmon now. In the 90's over 3.5 million people turned out to see the stones. !@#$%^&* there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of concerts with bigger turnouts that woodstock had. And out of 32 bands, between half a dozen and a dozen bands, based on opinion, were great bands. And out of those bands half of them didn't even play a full set. I bet it was a great concert, if you didn't mind the drugs, but not worthy of a $1,000,000 tax funded museum.
-
The whole point is not if we need another museum, it's if we need a woodstock museum, which I don't believe we do. It has nothing to do with liking the music of the time, !@#$%^&* should there be a museum dedicated to WEMF? That is a yearly "woodstock" for the techno world, but no matter one concert, or even a series of concert, which in reality did nothing to advance the music world should not have its own museum.
-
I dare you to mention one musical marvel that occured at woodstock, minus such a huge compelation of bands playing. If you're going to make a museum about music, even of that era, do that, but woodstock was not singularly important to the music industry, and there are many other more noteworthy events that are far more deserving of a museum than woodstock. I mean !@#$%^&* woodstock was like anything other concert, it was started to simply make money. And if you think the list of musicians who played was impressive, which overall I do not think they as a whole had a terribly impressive lineup, in fact I bet you couldn't even name three bands, without using google, that played woodstock, you should see the list of bands who refused/cancelled woodstock.
-
It's just a matter of how young people are in the U.S. and upbringing. A lot of kids/teens/young adults just don't watch the news. I think the parents definately have something to do with it, or at least one of them. There are too many convenient details, and I mean cmon why would you leave your young daughter alone, no matter how close you were to her, in a foreign country? If I had to bet, I'd say she's no longer taking breaths.
-
There is a huge difference to a museum about something important in history, vs a museum for one of the biggest legal drug orgies in the history of america.
-
Both of my parents were at woodstock. Basically there were a lot of drugs, a lot of sex, my mom can't even tell you half of the bands that played because she can't remember. Not something we really need a museum for.
-
More bombs. At least those are useful.
-
lol as was I.
-
Greece, Rome, a lot of civilizations pre-Christianity. Then Christianity told us it was wrong.
-
What I don't like about it is that Clinton is pushing this so hard because the gentleman who would own/run the museum is one of her biggest donators.
-
It's a terrible ploy at trying to immitate "Man of the Year". He knows !@#$%^&* would freeze over first.
-
The reason why its a joke is because by the standards set by both the democratic and republican party, you cannot be supporting a party outside of the one you're running in. Running as both a democrat and republican completely contradicts itself. You can't just up and decide to run for president, in order to run in either the democratic or republican primaries, you must have their approval. He should have run independent if he didn't want an affiliation.
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...seum/#more-2588 I can only laugh at the fact that hillary and schumer are trying this at all. discuss.
-
I agree astro, I believe ideally we are all born "bi sexual". It is our upbringing that forces us to one side or the other. Case in point in ancient cultures is was not unheard of, and sometimes common place for two men to engage in sexual activity. Now there is such a taboo over it, and we're told from a young age, no matter how "open" your parents are, that for the most part being gay is bad. And I would disagree that it is a "gene" that makes you gay, I do believe that it is upbringing, and a matter of how strong your mind/will is. As with polix's friend, some people would have gone the complete opposite. Instead of giving into the idea that the female body is bad, he would have gone the opposite way and ended up adoring the females, because of his lack of interaction at a young age. The idea that seeing men was a "safe" action is what possibly made him more keen to sleep with them. Also a fear of rejection also comes into play here. I could go on for hours, as back in college in a few of my psych classes we spent a lot of time on this issue, but ultimately I don't believe a gene is involved when it comes to sexuality.
-
They have political views like all of us, but basically they are media bred comedians. Just the sheer fact that he wants to run for both parties simultaneously is rediculous enough.
-
"In the case of the WTC Towers, NIST has established that the failures initiated in the floors affected by the aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fires resulted in the collapses of the towers. This conslusion is supported by large body of visual evidence collected by NIST. Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution." I'm just wondering if people ever actually read those 6 pages reports, or if I'm the only one.
-
At least most politicians are lawers or have some experience in law and governing.
-
Being you had posted stating that % of america is christian, that is what I was using the baptism argument against. I think you've got our political system all backwards. A presidential candidate does not represent all of the ideals of a particular party. Every political figure represents his or her party, that is obvious. But simply being a high ranking official does not mean you embody your party. Case in point, most republicans tend to lean towards being conservative. Guilani is not Conservative. So him being elected would mean that the republican party as a whole is no longer conservative? Of course not. One moderate, no matter the posistion, does not take a party of mostly liberal or conservative members and transform it into a moderate party. Some people will elect someone if they say think they have the best chance to beat a democrat even if they don't agree with a lot of their ideals. Or in the 2004 election, the democrats who voted for Bush did so because Kerry, although the strongest democratic candidate, was not a strong candidate. I don't see how voting for a republican, because the democratic candidate is weak, cons!@#$%^&*utes you being a republican. It cons!@#$%^&*utes you as being smart. There are some people who are not blinded by party lines and realize that you can support a candidate of one party without alligning yourself to the ideals of the entire party. Statistically, there are 38% more registered democrats than republicans in the united states. That is a fact. You may disagree that they're "actual democrats" but that is just speculation. As to the fact that more people are likely to register democrat than republican, vs independent, I would say that is, just from looking at the statistics, a true statement. But keep in mind people don't just flip a coin trying to decide which party to register for. They register as democrats for a reason.