NBVegita

It really is a joke. Just another joke from someone who has writers do all of his political humor. I wouldn't ever take a comedian seriously as a candidate, namely because all of their information is gathered for them for hours by teams of people and they just read que cards. And if you really watch thier shows, most of the information is biast and not terribly credible. At least politicians have to know something, if not much.

You still don't get my point. Simply because you agree with the views of ONE democrat, that does not make you a democrat. Just because you may agree with the views of a couple of democrats, that does not make you a democrat. If the majority of the views you agree with are upheld by a majority of democrats, that makes you a democrat. And surely voting for a president does not automatically allign you with his political party. Statistically there are more christian democrats than republicans. (in volume) What you're saying is that even though they may be registered democrats, that if they vote republican, they're actually more republican than democrats. Well I would use that same arguement for religion. If someone is baptized christian, but they never go to church, never pray, and don't believe in the bible, then they're not really Christian. Yet ironically: You just defended your statistic the same why you're denouncing me for defending mine.

If he did it all via sysop logs won't help. I would remove the staffer personally. He's abusing via sysop powers so that its "untracable", but soon he'd begin abusing under other facets. And honestly I wouldn't want anyone on my staff who would go behind my back to gain sysop access and then use it to abuse players, which in turn hurts the zone.

Trust me, you don't need a liquid cooling system.

Notice how almost every republican is distancing themselves from Bush. You Judge your entire concept of the republican party off of the strong conservative president, and administration we've had over the last 7 years. You judge the entire party poorly because of a few high ranking members. But of course if you don't try to denounce all republicans as being as bad as Bush, one might just make it into office, and no matter what their policies are, you can't have that now can you? Guiliani who was once a democrat, is known for having a strong liberal standing would make a perfect neo con? Weren't you just relating neo cons with strong conservatives? I guess I'm confused on how he would even be considered conservative, let alone your definition of a neo con. What do you base that off of? Just because there will be a little R after his name? So as soon as he gets in office, he would have to forget all of his stances and policies, simply because he's a republican and can't be anything but conservative? !@#$%^&* out of all of the pertenant political issues, his views on the Iraq war are the only views you could label conservative. I feel he makes a pretty strong moderate. Sever: Those statistics are taken from our us census. They are as accurate of a number as you will ever be able to get. What I find ironic is that for someone who holds such open views, the concept of voting for the best candidate, and not just voting for the party you're registered in is hard for you to grasp.

I'd expect something much more intelligent out of you sever. The statistics shown are based off of which party you are registered. And simply voting for say a republican president, does not make you republican. In the last local election, I voted for one republican. Yet I am a registered republican. Does that mean I'm secretly a democrat? No. It means during this election I agreed with the ideals of the democratic candidates. What some of you fail to realize is not everything, nor does everyone believe that things are black and white. Its this kind of extremeism: "If some of these democrats are "less democratic than others" and happened to vote republican, then that makes them republican." that is tearing our country apart. And just some background information on why if you have moderate views you will choose one party. If you are a registered independent, you don't get to vote in the primaries. So in the case of presidency, you get no say into who the candidates will be. Many people, including myself, would like to be registered independent, but are forced to pick a party so we can vote in primaries. First your entire scale is "exaggerated" and not slightly. If we even double the margin you posted previously, that 18%, your margin here was 60%. But none the less, minus voting in primaries, having a large population of a certain religion in a particular party does not help you on a large scale. Honestly, except the ability to vote in the primaries, what "power" do Christians hold over the republican party? http://www.galluppoll.com/ "Republicans are more enthusiastic about the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani to be their party's presidential nominee in 2008 than they are about any of the other leading Republican contenders. Giuliani continues to lead the pack when Republicans are asked whom they support for the nomination. He is also the candidate Republicans are most likely to say they would vote for enthusiastically in the general election should he win the nomination." A non religious moderate, who is both pro-choice and pro-gay rights, anti gun, is the candidate that the republicans support the most. And you were looking for that Christian, well Fred Thompson is a religious Christian, pro life, pro gun, and he wants each state to decide on gay marriage. He is for keeping soldiers in Iraq, doesn't believe the humnitarian aspect of global warming and has a strong stand on immigration. Except for not voting to ban gay rights, you'd be hard pressed to find a more conservative Christian. But !@#$%^&* whatever helps you sleep at night.

!@#$%^&* I'll build you one, minus the water cooling system, as you definately don't need it lol PM me with the specs you want.

That is actually a perfect analogy, no matter what the numbers are. Your statements have looked like (broadly) Most Republicans are Christians, Most Christians are Republicans (which by the way is not true), so Republicans are the party of Jesus. No matter how you cut the pie the statistics are: 169 mil - voters, And !@#$%^&*uming that going along with our % Christian statistic: 135.2 mil are Christian voters. 55 mil - Republican 33% - 44.161 mil Christians 72 mil - Democrats 43% - 58.136 mil Christians 42 mil - Independent 24% - 32.448 mil Christians Most Democrats are Christians (57% roughly), and Most Christians are actually Democrats, so shouldn't we say that Democrats are the party of Jesus? You are so disillusioned to believe that just because they're religious that they're so disillusioned and naive.

For the price of even a $3500 computer, you could at year 1, buy a cheap $500 computer, and at year 4 spend another $500 for one that will be close to if not better than the $3500, and at 8, spend another $500 and have one much better than you imagined your $3500 computer could be. !@#$%^&* it only has a dual core unless you pay 5.5k. I've only paid over $1000 once for a computer and that will never happen again.

Just google toospoiled and phising. It's a total scam. One of my friends actually followed through with the process. Once they get your information for their application they just sell it away. I reitterate, Total scam.

We are not a socialist economy, suposedly, and quite frankly I'm tired of paying for other peoples mistakes. You can only use the "poor kids" argument for so long. There are tons of problems with our children. I support expanded funding on a limited level, to allow families who NEED the aid to recieve it. Not for families who decided to live above their means and put their way of life above their childrens health. I don't support people who are on private health care switching to the government aid just because they can. !@#$%^&* why don't we just have the government pay for everything? This way we can lose even more work ethic than we've already lost, and become an even larger international laughing stock. In my opinion, socialism promotes lethargy. When did work become one of the four letter words that is forbidden to say?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1025/p15s02-uspo.html "A Gallup poll earlier this month found white religious voters "equally as likely to say they will vote Democratic as Republican." And a Pew Research poll last week found just 57 percent of white Evangelicals planning to vote Republican, a drop from 68 percent in 2002 and 74 percent in 2004. Among white Catholics, the decline was even greater." So statistically... We have approximately 300,000,000 people in the United states. There are approximately 169,000,000 registered voters in the big 3 (democratic, republican and independent) parties. That means of the 300mil people in the US, only 56% of them are voters. We'll still assume for you that % of these voters are Christian. So that means 135,200,000 voters are Christians. Now 57% of them plan to vote for republicans, so that means we'll assume they're republicans, because that is what you have been implying. So that means 77,064,000 christians are republicans, yet that doesn't quite add up. Now if we go back to 2004 that would be 100,048,000 people would be republicans and or voting for republicans. Approximately 72,000,000 voters are democrats, and 42,000,000 are independent. So ironically, you're saying that statistically 77,064,000 christians are republicans, when there are only 52,000,000 republicans in the united states. At the 2004 rate, that means that even if the entire republican party, every last member, which of course it is not, was a christian, that there would still be 50,000,000 christian voters left over. Now using: "Sixty-six percent of Republicans report that religion is very important compared to 57 percent of Democrats." That would show that 66% of republicans, 34,320,000 republicans are christians. Now 57% of democrats, 41,040,000. Which means even with 42,000,000 independent all being christians, we fall short of our %. See how you can't use numbers and statistics for something like this? Ultimately I guess what I'm trying to point out, is even if you adjust that 9%, because of the pure volume of democrats, you will most likely have a larger majority of christian democrats than you will christian republicans. And that also shows that more democrats, in sheer volume, care about religion than do republicans.

That just proves that you can stereotype Christians as Republicans, not Republicans as Christians. "Sixty-six percent of Republicans report that religion is very important compared to 57 percent of Democrats." 9% isn't a huge gap. I guess that goes back to trying decide if it is logical to believe in god, or not to believe in god. To you, because you can't prove that there is a god, it's illogical to believe in god. While others believe that all of the unexplained phenomenon are enough to show evidence of god.

Then don't live in manhatten. There are hundreds of areas OUTSIDE of manhatten, or even out of NYC itself, with very reasonable rates but you might, omg not that, have to make a commute into the city...heaven forbid you join the millions of other people doing the same thing. If you're making 83k a year, under no cir!@#$%^&*stances should you own an apartment worth over 12 times your yearly income. That would be like a man making 30k a year and owning a house that was worth 400k. A friend of mine is now working down there. Originally they made him a job offer for 45k year for a low level position in a company down there. Because of all the "hype" on how expensive it is to live around nyc he was going to refuse the job. After I sat down with him, we found a nice suburb, out of the city, where his commute by train was only 30-45 minutes, depending of course on delays, where he had one of the nicest apartments the city had to offer, and yearly, estimating high, including rent, which covered utilities, transportation, food and household expenditures it was only going to cost him about 23k a year. We checked into it, and had he planned to be there for a while, he could have gotten a house for cheaper than he was paying for rent on his basically one person suite. If you can't afford to give your children health care, then maybe you need to rethink where you are living. Also I'd like to find the job(s), because obviously they wouldn't make a law for just one, where you make over 80k a year, but dont get benefits. !@#$%^&* even most full time retail/fast food/grocery clerks get medical benefits.

Now they haven't released the details of the health care plan, so I can't side with it one way or another. But here is where the republicans/conservatives asked questions, and didn't (apparently) like the answers. The original scope of the program was to help families who make too much money for medicaid, to get medical treatment. From what I've read, and this hasn't been disputed on the democratic side, that the bill would expand, so that families beyond that scope would be able to use this for medical !@#$%^&*istance. The Administrations (public) arguments have been that they've found loop holes that would allow illegal immigrants access to these funds, that undeserving families, not the poor deserving families would be able to take money and that it is a large step towards socialized health care in the U.S. (publicly) They support increasing funding over 5 yearsl. To counter the democrats run a "think of the poor kids" campaign, and say that it is improbable that illegal immigrants would be able to get access to it. "This bill would shift SCHIP away from its original purpose and turn it into a program that would cover children from some families of four earning almost $83,000 a year. In addition, under this bill, government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children. If this bill were enacted, one out of every three children moving onto government coverage would be moving from private coverage. The bill also does not fully fund all its new spending, obscuring the true cost of the bill's expansion of SCHIP, and it raises taxes on working Americans." Just an excerpt from the administration about it. Now if what the administration says is true, I support the veto fully. If it is not, then I don't support the veto. Plain and simple. But as stated prior, there is not enough information on this subject to make a decision, as anything we hear publicly about this is going to be bias. So we must wait until the details of the bill are presented to us before we can make a decision as to if this is right or wrong. What is ironic is you are in favor of questioning your government, yet you condemn the vetoing of this without even asking why he's vetoing it, or questioning the contents of the bill. Why are you criticizing Thunder for asking you, albeit in a joking/sarcastic manner, to rephrase a sentence that was terribly written, borderline incoherent and one that he simply did not understand? And I cannot remember exactly...but I'm 90% positive that the bill was originally proposed by Bill Walsh...who happens to be a republican.

I'll give you that, governments do control our rights. But if one government wishes to limit the rights we believe we should be granted, we can replace it with one, that at least temporarily will grant us the rights we want. Basically governments are designed to limit our rights. That is what laws are. Laws are neccesary as are governments. And if you open up a history book, we've got a pretty !@#$%^&* good government comparitively.

Oh it will happen huh? Well that is a strong certainty you are claiming. When our rights are infringed on, that is when we rebel, if it becomes too large of a problem, we create a revolution. People should never fear their governements, the governments should fear their people. Maybe that is why I'm not afraid of what our government might do, because I know exactly what I will do If that happens. I'd like any of you to point out where your "rights" have been infringed upon.

No we don't need to tilt to the right, but we don't need to tilt to the left either. Too much questioning results in nothing getting done. Case in point, the new congress questions your motives if you have to pardon yourself to take a !@#$%^&*, and nothing gets done...except for creating more groups designed to question more people. There are things that need to be questioned, like why congress is passing a 12 billion dollar water reform bill when only 6 billion is needed for the project, and there are 6 billion dollars alotted to states for private interest groups and personal reform project. (this includes both democratic and republican states) But not everything needs to be questioned. If you question everything, nothing gets accomplished. Now if you don't ask enough questions, too many things get accomplished, and sometimes not very good things. Ultimately the people have to fight to elect people we need not question all the time. Unfortunately with every politician having a corporate agenda, and their private interest groups, thats nearly impossible. And I do agree Sever, the right wing has been far too right, I just surly hope that we don't end up with the opposite ordeal either.

The fact remains that you can turn everything into a conspiracy. In fact there are lots of people who do that. You can spend your entire life believing that everyone is out to get you, and that nothing is what it seems. You can actually see doctors for that too. Or you can simply accept that you will NEVER know the absolute truth. If you want to spend your life toiling over something you will never have evidence to prove/disprove, and by the time you might have said evidence, it won't make much of a difference, fine by me. Case in point, I believe in UFO's and that the government is hiding their existence. But am I going to go try to prove that their are UFO's and that the government is hiding there existence? Not at all. First it would be nearly impossible, and chances are if I managed to find said information, I'd never survive with it. Some people might call that dumb or ignorant not to try and uncover the "truth". I say it's pretty smart. Trying to discover if there really are UFO's at roswell, or the "true conspiracy" behind JFK, are not worth risking, or dedicating my life to. Same thing with Osama, there is great evidence showing that he was behind 9/11, including "him" admitting it , and we know the majority of the terrorists were Saudi's. Is that absolute truth? Of course not, there is no such thing. Is that the strong probable truth, most definately. It's naive to deny a strong probable truth simply on the basis that there are no absolute truths. And I would prefer to stick with my government. To date I've not had a single of my cons!@#$%^&*utional rights infringed upon, and because of this government system I was able to come from a poor family and work my way out. Overall the American government has done a very good job for its citizens.

liberalism is just as bad as conservatism. On a broad scale, a too conservative country doesn't change enough, and a too liberal country changes too much. You need a balance of the two.

Astro you are way off kilter. Part of being a good American is yes questioning your governments actions when warranted. Part of being a bad American is questioning every action just because you can. Most of what is stunting anything happening in our government is A) committment to corporate lobyists, and misquestioning the wrong things. Ooops the librals fail too. Bush had the majority vote of both liberals and conservatives going into Iraq. And what wonderful immigration policies have the liberals come out with in the past decade? As of now the liberals are no better than the conservatives.

Yes there are plenty of times of officers abusing their policies, but that is why we are human. Case in point, I'd much rather protect our officers than protect our criminals. Call me crazy. As for the rest of your post, you really come off as one of those stalwart conspiracy theorists who believes we can't believe a word any part of our government says because its all lies. Could that be true? Sure, as sever says, none of us know any actual truths. Is it probable that there is a lot of information we'll never know, sure. Is it likely that our government is as radical as you say, not really. You all bash our own government throughout the ages, and you know what, I think they've overall done a !@#$%^&* of a job for us Americans.

I hate the emo/goth kids who do the same thing. I never said that they couldn't do it, nor did I say they didn't have the right to, I just said that I hate people who do. That goes for heterosexuals who go out of their way to prove they're heterosexual. lol, I mean just lol. And I see his point when it comes to gays using a christian ceremony. I mean !@#$%^&* its been pushed so hard that we are not allowed to have a christmas tree in a decent amount of public places, because that might offend non christians, but its ok to hold a ceremony mocked after the christian ceremony, which implicitly denies the action going on? If you're going to defend a public display mocking one religion, we should be allowed to publically mock every religion without consequence. But as you see that is the wonderful double standard in our country. If a white christian heterosexual male, did something to mock a gay, a woman, an ethnicity or religion, that would be an instant hate crime, and completely untolerable. But if you are any of the forementioned you can do what ever you want because its in your "civil rights" to do so. It's all bull!@#$%^&*.

Now for thunder, I do agree with some of what you said. I hate when gays flaunt being gay. Listen, I don't walk around the street with my chest puffed out, talking in a deep baratone voice, boasting "ME EAT RED MEAT! ME LIKE WOMEN!" (radical stereotype I know ). So I don't want you walking around the street wearing a bilboard that you're gay. If you're gay, be gay, but like everyone else, keep your sexual orientation to your self. I don't care if you're straight or gay, when you meet someone you shouldn't be able to tell. I've known guys who talked and acted just fine. Then they "came out of the closet". Within 6 months to a year, their voices were substaintially higher, they dressed radically different, and became increasingly flamboyant. I have a problem with that. Since when does taking it up the !@#$%^&* effect your vocal cords? So with that said, I agree with: Sometimes people try to hard for attention.

Hey I never said I agree with my mothers stance, that is why I posted that I have long debated it with her, so don't ask me to defend it. But further, she feels a man and a woman produce a much healthier environment for a child to grow up in. Also, naturally a man and a woman can have children. Even if a gay couple adopts, and a heterosexual couple adopts, she feels that its cruel to the child to have to grow up ashamed/embar!@#$%^&*ed/ridiculed because of his or her parents. And for that defence she does have backing that there are thousands of reports showing that having a strong mother and father figure, living with the child, is greatly beneficial to the childs growth and development. That is her reasoning, don't ask me to defend it. Astro, thunder was right about one thing, you do tend to think in black and white, with no grey areas. Even if I'm mostly "liberal" on social policies, I can still believe in some "conservative" social policies. That is what makes us all different. And going back to the Christian/athiest view point, a good amount of christians in the U.S. aren't of the bible belt type. You wouldn't even know if you met one on the street. Not all Christians automatically go along with the bible. I mean there are thousands of instances where an athiest and christian will think alike on the same subject, simply because that is what they both believe in. And as a society our morals coincide with that of most religions. I.E. its not acceptable to rape, steal, murder, commit lechery, adultry ect, ect.