here are old message board entries

---

prev <-> next

[2004-05-24 16:25:53] - Aaron: Er... lived. -Paul

[2004-05-24 16:25:44] - Aaron: I guess that applies to you too. -Paul

[2004-05-24 16:23:00] - Vinnie: You know anything about housing in the area where you live? -Paul

[2004-05-24 16:12:08] - bush has plausible deniability. he really thought he slipped on rain, because that's what his staff told him - vinnie

[2004-05-24 16:03:06] - In his defense it's the white house spokesman who came up with that excuse. But it's still unusual. What a worthless thing to lie about! - aaron

[2004-05-24 16:01:56] - Hehe.... Awww. That's mean. - aaron

[2004-05-24 16:00:55] - Kris: It's the CIA's fault. They assured him that they had intelligence indicating that it had rained. -Paul

[2004-05-24 15:57:37] - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/23/201822/996 nonexistant rain causes bush's bicycle fall? -kris

[2004-05-24 15:46:06] - Aaron: Yeah, it seems like if you're good enough, you hardly expend any energy at all. I know the way I play has to burn off some calories though. -Paul

[2004-05-24 15:44:53] - I'll bet there is some correlation, but the game can really take as much or as little energy as you want. - aaron

[2004-05-24 15:44:03] - paul: I don't know if I totally buy the weight loss thing though. I've known about 4 or 5 very overweight people who got into DDR and didn't seem to lose any weight at all. They just got more efficient with how they pressed the buttons. - aaron

[2004-05-24 15:41:12] - Aaron: I still occasionally see people in the mall who haven't seen a DDR before. -Paul

[2004-05-24 15:34:05] - paul: I saw that article. I was surprised DDR was still newsworthy. - aaron

[2004-05-24 15:27:17] - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/05/23/national1321EDT0482.DTL "He's pleased to point out, though, that his dancing skills have helped him get girls." Lies. -Paul

[2004-05-24 15:27:02] - I have no idea how it works either. -Paul

[2004-05-24 15:25:02] - That seems very difficult. I wonder if they raise the stroke limit. - aaron

[2004-05-24 15:22:57] - paul: i don't quite get how that works... - vinnie

[2004-05-24 15:18:29] - http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13105117,00.html There are blind golfers? -Paul

[2004-05-24 14:49:47] - http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2004/05/24/hscout519123.html male breast cancer on the rise? - aaron

[2004-05-24 14:24:17] - vinnie: At least then you'd be somewhat open if you cast it. This way you can just wait until the end of their turn, and if you've got 4 mana free... - aaron

[2004-05-24 14:24:15] - Vinnie: Or possibly if it only did 2 damage instead of 4. -Paul

[2004-05-24 14:21:03] - the fact that it's an instant is really what makes it so bad. it'd be harder to control the game with it as a sorcery - vinnie

[2004-05-24 14:19:45] - dave: it's pretty much a late game spell. basically you need to stall so that you can cast it twice in a turn and then you've won. that's why it's more a problem in limited than constructed - vinnie

[2004-05-24 14:19:12] - paul: That's what I was talking about. Cards like that where payment of life is usually a penalty - except now it's not. I lose four life, you lose four life, but you also lose two creatures - aaron

[2004-05-24 14:18:38] - yep, the brokenness possiblities are endless - vinnie

[2004-05-24 14:18:25] - vinnie: but isn't 3 mana sorta prohibitve? Doesn't seem like someone would be able to cast it more than twice a turn. Enormous card advantage though -dave

[2004-05-24 14:18:15] - has a double red requirement though, which is why you usually see people burning rather than casting it on themselves - vinnie

[2004-05-24 14:18:05] - Vinnie: Or maybe pair him up with a sparksmith... -Paul

[2004-05-24 14:17:32] - paul: yes. would be less mana than burning for 4, actually - vinnie

[2004-05-24 14:16:35] - Vinnie: Couldn't you even cast the spell on yourself to lose life? -Paul

[2004-05-24 14:16:20] - aaron: yeah - vinnie

[2004-05-24 14:15:48] - vinnie: They only come back to your hand immediately after they're cast, right? Counterspells stop them? - aaron

[2004-05-24 14:15:09] - there's this really worthless counterspell that people started drafting and putting in their decks to stop these two cards. that 's how bad they are - vinnie

[2004-05-24 14:14:21] - you don't really need vampire bats or necro. it's easy enough to lose life - vinnie

[2004-05-24 14:12:45] - vinnie: yeah, it can do that. what I think is cool is taking dmg etc. because you have that card in hand -dave

[2004-05-24 14:12:39] - vinnie: Not to mention stupid combo potential. Cards like necro which set your life total to 0, or cards like vampire bats which let you pay life! - aaron

[2004-05-24 14:12:27] - oh, it's an instant too. it's like attack for 4, get pulsed. attack for 8, get pulsed twice. don't do anything, opponent burns down 4 life, get pulsed - vinnie

[2004-05-24 14:11:31] - vinnie: That's awful! - aaron

[2004-05-24 14:10:01] - the red one is worse though. 3 mana for 4 damage and you get it back if you have less life than the opponent after it resolves. I've played a game where I completely dominated the board but lost singlehandedly to that card - vinnie

[2004-05-24 14:09:08] - vinnie: I hear the red one wreaks havoc in the hands of a skillful player -dave

[2004-05-24 14:08:25] - 1WW, gain 4 life. If opponent has more life than you, return PotF to your hand -dave

[2004-05-24 14:08:24] - basically, 3 mana for 4 life and you get it back if you have less life than the opponent after it resolves. it makes draft and sealed very unfun - vinnie

[2004-05-24 14:07:16] - dave: Tell us what it does! - aaron

[2004-05-24 14:05:06] - incidentally, I loathe that card and the red one - vinnie

[2004-05-24 14:04:39] - in response. you're dead as soon as the damage hits - vinnie

[2004-05-24 14:04:29] - Dave: I have no idea what Pulse of Fields does, but my guess is that you have to do it in response. -Paul

[2004-05-24 14:03:11] - vinnie: like can you play PotF after he hits you, or do you have to do it in response? -dave

[2004-05-24 14:02:35] - vinnie: MTG question, if someone has more health than you and hits you for lethal dmg and you have Pulse of the Fields, can you play it so you get PotF back? -dave

[2004-05-24 13:53:21] - Dave: Oh, no. I agreed with them for the most part and definitely found them amusing. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:51:50] - a: yeah, I just called make *.cpp and had done with it. -dave

[2004-05-24 13:51:26] - Paul: You ddin't agree with / find amusing Cosby's statements? -dave

[2004-05-24 13:51:08] - dave:  did you ever get your makefile problem solved?  ~a

[2004-05-24 13:50:56] - Paul: mmmm, pound cake -dave

[2004-05-24 13:50:05] - Dave: That makes sense to me, I think conservatives are a lot more likely to "follow the rules" and do stuff the traditional way like getting an education and moving up the ladder, while liberals are out stealing pound cake. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:48:45] - Vinnie: It's difficult to say. I don't often hear sports players talk enough about politics to form an opinion. I just keep remembering Rasheed comparing the NBA to slavery somehow. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:45:35] - mig: ahh that's true. I hadn't thought of that -dave

[2004-05-24 13:45:14] - Paul: I know this could be taken the wrong way, but it seems like those who make it rich quick without having to go through financial intricacies may tend to have liberal views. Which makes some sense since conservatives support many laws that benefit those who deal with financial intricacies -dave

[2004-05-24 13:44:08] - but you've also got the nationalism indoctrination of sports.  Lots of athletes are openly religious and you have the national anthem played at just about every single sporting event. - mig

[2004-05-24 13:43:16] - Paul: yeah, the reason I thought they might not be conservative (even though rich) is because it seems like those who get rich in areas other than the pure financial have more liberal leanings. Like stockbrockers are conservative and movie stars are liberal -dave

[2004-05-24 13:42:22] - paul: I don't think free speech/censorship issue matters for sports people more than others. you might have a point with the minorities though - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:42:09] - goddamn, that's twice!

[2004-05-24 13:41:59] - vinnie: I don't think free speech/censorship issue matters for sports people more than others. you might have a point with the minorities though

[2004-05-24 13:41:03] - dave: moore's definitely not constructive. I see his successes as 1) being entertaining and 2) drawing attention to his pet causes if arguing them badly - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:40:03] - Vinnie: But they're also probably concerned with free speech and censorship and a lot of them are minorities. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:39:21] - Dave: Agreed. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:38:55] - vinnie: yeah, i wasn't sure though, because Hollywood is so liberal -dave

[2004-05-24 13:38:37] - Dave: I think sports players are relatively mixed as far as I know. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:38:32] - Paul: my definition of constructive would be to convince people from the other side to come over to your side, or see your point of view etc -dave

[2004-05-24 13:37:57] - i'd guess more conservative because of wealth - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:37:48] - Paul: That's exactly what I was trying to say. Seems like it's not so constructive just kinda worsens the situation (if you define worsen as getting more people upset) -dave

[2004-05-24 13:37:00] - are sportsplayers usually liberal or conservative? or mixed? -dave

[2004-05-24 13:36:51] - Dave: Well, I'm just basing this off a conversation I had with a coworker where he was reading some books about politics and they kept accusing the other side of being traitors and murderers and the like and we figured all that does is make one side happy and upsets the other side. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:36:36] - a: I notice them, I don't really care if others do. well, ok, I do - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:36:08] - "The Hoff will surprise people with his rap skills" the jokes write themselves - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:35:25] - vinnie:  we don't notice your typos.  ~a

[2004-05-24 13:35:15] - Travis: that is absolutely hilarious -dave

[2004-05-24 13:34:56] - ack! "film's"? I hate myself - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:34:21] - dave: I'd agree there. moore's film's aren't reasonable and calm. or necessarily logical - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:34:12] - Paul: Yeah I know, I'm not sure what I meant to say. I think it was just a general bemoaning of lopsided presentation. Of course I haven't seen it at all and am just basing off of Bowling for Columbine -dave

[2004-05-24 13:33:39] - http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_961345.html?menu=entertainment.music hasselfhoff rapping, so bad it might actually be funny - travis

[2004-05-24 13:33:21] - *jerking head back and forth* oh... or... on... - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:32:35] - vinnie: a "supported logically" position, then I think it's sad that people get swayed by such a lopsided presentation -dave

[2004-05-24 13:32:34] - Vinnie: O Face? -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:32:11] - Dave: I don't know if it has as much to do with the extreme viewpoint as much as how it's presented. You can present extreme views in a reasonable and calm manner, or you can present them by calling the other side minions of Satan. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:32:05] - vinnie: I agree that a small audience gets swayed. However, since I believe Moore doesn't do a good job of presenting a

[2004-05-24 13:31:53] - vinnie: o_O  ~a

[2004-05-24 13:31:12] - or = on. i'm confusing my o_ words today - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:30:58] - vinnie: but I know that both sides spout all sorts of extreme-viewpoint stuff, so I suppose it's just something to accept -dave

[2004-05-24 13:30:44] - dave: the people or either end don't have much to gain from the movie as far as a viewpoint goes. but there is a small audience that I think gets swayed by things like that - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:29:51] - travis: mmm, year round programming, sounds so good -dave

[2004-05-24 13:29:19] - travis: oh yeah, i meant to tell you about that. about 24 - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:29:14] - vinnie: I guess I was thinking that either people are going to already agree with Moore, or they are going to vehemently disagree. So it would just make everyone more polar. To me, this seems like a bad thing -dave

[2004-05-24 13:28:47] - vinnie: I've done that two or three times already! It's inexplicable - aaron

[2004-05-24 13:28:27] - okay, i'm gonna have to take back my fears about alias, fox is gonna start 24 and american idol in january, so with shows like that and the shield starting in january, it looks like we're just getting closer to year round programming - travis

[2004-05-24 13:28:14] - haha, aaron: not vinnie: - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:28:02] - vinnie: if you agreed with moore already, it may not spark a debate - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:27:04] - Dave: I second Vinnie's question. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:26:09] - dave: No matter who you agree with, at least it sparks debate. As long as it's not an outright fabrication, I think that kind of film is a good thing - aaron

[2004-05-24 13:25:46] - dave: yeah, exactly. depends on your viewpoint - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:25:23] - beneficial in what way? - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:25:14] - Paul: I suppose if you agree with everything he says it would be good, since you would want more people to know about it -dave

[2004-05-24 13:24:25] - Paul: Or I suppose I mean films with such obviously extreme political viewpoints? -dave

[2004-05-24 13:23:52] - Paul: Yeah, I read that too.  Do you think such extremely political films are beneficial? -dave

[2004-05-24 13:14:12] - http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=159151 Moore film wins Cannes award. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:12:13] - aaron: that thread of thought kinda goes into the area of absolute truth -dave

[2004-05-24 13:10:44] - I don't even know anymore. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:10:09] - aaron: yeah, I can understand that. I didn't mean to sound elitist. -dave

[2004-05-24 13:09:33] - paul:  are you being sarcastic, man?  ~a

[2004-05-24 13:09:17] - aaron:  that sounds about right.  ~a

[2004-05-24 13:09:01] - a: Ah yes, so long ago... -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:08:56] - Paul: and I don't think it is so much adrian needing to defend his statement. I think it is just him misunderstanding what I was saying -dave

[2004-05-24 13:08:34] - dave: I think adrian just felt insulted because you were implying that non-religious people don't have means for differentiating between wrong and very wrong - aaron

[2004-05-24 13:08:18] - Dave: I understood what you were talking about. It's kinda like often have to differentiate between things they think are wrong and what should be illegal. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:08:11] - a: vaROOM! -dave

[2004-05-24 13:07:20] - paul:  [5-24-04 8:31:45a] - dave:  automatic 1.8L 130hp  ~a

[2004-05-24 13:06:58] - Paul: Yeah, I guess you can phrase it that way, tho I'm not sure I agree with everything you may be implying by that statement. In my own words, it would be bad because our country provides us with benefits, so it is bad to shirk the costs of those benefits. -dave

[2004-05-24 13:06:11] - a: You could try defending your statement instead of just giving up so easily. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:05:57] - of = or - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:05:44] - is the title like a puzzle of something? i'm trying to figure it out - vinnie

[2004-05-24 13:05:43] - a: the whole point is just that when I think of "immoral" things, I think of actions that violate religious beliefs -dave

[2004-05-24 13:05:32] - On a side note, I don't understand my coworkers. It's normally real hot in here and everyone complains and today it's actually a nice temperature and now everyone is complaining that it's too cold. -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:03:37] - Why doesn't adrian ever post to the message board? I can't remember the last time he posted here. -paul

[2004-05-24 13:03:26] - a: religiously immoral with respect to christian beliefs? I don't know. I honestly can't think of any Christian moral that says you shouldn't do something that puts someone's life in immediate danger. What about war? -dave

[2004-05-24 13:01:47] - a: yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that at all. I just meant to say that for people without religious beliefs, it all ends up falling under a single category of right vs. wrong, whereas those with beliefs can separate the right vs. wrong into "religious" and "other" categories -dave

[2004-05-24 13:01:44] - Dave: So basically what it all boils down to is that dodging the draft would be bad because we should be doing what the government tells us to do? (I'm not trying to be cute here, just wondering if that's what you mean at the base of it all). -Paul

[2004-05-24 13:01:15] - yeah, whatever.  forget i was ever here (adrian goes back to work)  ~a

[2004-05-24 13:00:41] - on a side note, don't "religious morals" tell you to prevent yourself from putting someone's life in immediate danger?  wouldn't speeding (under certain circumstances) be religiously immoral?  ~a

[2004-05-24 13:00:18] - a: Well that was an amazing leap there. -Paul

[2004-05-24 12:59:52] - a: i didn't understand dave's comment, but I don't think that's what he was implying - vinnie

[2004-05-24 12:59:03] - dave: that's a pretty low blow.  just because we don't have "religious morals" doesn't mean we don't have the same respect for human life.  ~a

[2004-05-24 12:56:15] - mig: for those who don't have religious morals, I can see how this wouldn't make much sense to differentiate -dave

[2004-05-24 12:54:47] - Paul: yes, in some senses, it is the same -dave

[2004-05-24 12:54:27] - mig: yeah, I suppose it is an argument in semantics to a certain extent. But for me personally, it has to do with whether something is wrong based on my own Christian morals, or whether something is wrong based on other metrics -dave

[2004-05-24 12:53:55] - Dave: But in some sense, it's wrong on the same level. Not immoral, but irresponsible. Right? -Paul

[2004-05-24 12:52:46] - paul: I would say draft dodging is worse than speeding but this is arbitrary -dave

[2004-05-24 12:52:14] - paul: (shrug) in some senses it isn't, but in other senses it is. Everyone seems to rank laws on "importance" to some extent. Like most people don't have problems with jay-walking or speeding, but most have problems with embezzlement or kidnapping -dave

[2004-05-24 12:48:25] - Mig: Those are what I'm best at. -Paul

[2004-05-24 12:47:47] - i guess it's just me, but it seems to me to be just an argument of semantics. - mig

[2004-05-24 12:46:57] - Dave: So, let me get this straight, is breaking the law in terms of dodging the draft any different from breaking a law against, say, speeding? -Paul

[2004-05-24 12:46:39] - aaron: so I don't know if I think it is immoral or not but I think it is wrong from a different perspective -dave

[2004-05-24 12:45:26] - aaron: actually, my opinion on draft dodging just comes from my sense of responsibilty to country, nothing to do with morals -dave

[2004-05-24 12:44:40] - out of curiosity, the phrase, "I'll be there for moral support" - it seems to me more connected with being there for "morale" and not "morals." Am I wrong on this? -dave

[2004-05-24 12:43:50] - dave: So coincedentally you view "draft dodging" as immoral, but it has nothing to do with the fact there are laws against it - aaron

[2004-05-24 12:43:43] - paul: If you don't derive your morals from some sort of religion, then they are whatever you make up for yourself -dave

[2004-05-24 12:42:27] - paul: So I suppose someone could have morals that precisly coincide with the laws of the nation -dave

[2004-05-24 12:42:00] - paul: I think by definition, morality is following a set of "moral laws" that are derived from something (hopefully) -dave

[2004-05-24 12:41:06] - paul: has nothing to do with morality (in a certain sense) -dave

[2004-05-24 12:40:20] - paul: so when breaking a law, you should just be prepared to deal with the legal consequences of it -dave

[2004-05-24 12:39:49] - Paul: I think morality is separate from the laws of a nation (other than the moral generality that you should follow the laws of whatever land you live in) -dave

[2004-05-24 12:37:17] - that is some odd logic. - mig

[2004-05-24 12:37:15] - Aaron: Ah, ok. -Paul

[2004-05-24 12:36:45] - Paul: I don't think that's what he was saying directly. I was just extending the logic another level further - aaron

[2004-05-24 12:35:46] - Aaron: Yeah, is that what Dave is saying? -Paul

[2004-05-24 12:32:08] - Paul: Breaking the rules is moral, as long as you accept the punishment for trying to break them - aaron

[2004-05-24 12:29:37] - Dave: So not as much following the law is important, as following the rules (ie, breaking the law and accepting your punishment)? -Paul

[2004-05-24 12:20:09] - Paul: I dunno. I would tend to think avoiding it would be bad, but not joining the army and taking your jail time or whatever would be better -dave

[2004-05-24 12:15:49] - Dave: So is avoiding the draft morally wrong? -Paul

[2004-05-24 12:15:31] - aaron: exactly -dave

[2004-05-24 12:15:24] - Aaron: Ah, ok. Gotcha. -Paul

[2004-05-24 12:15:18] - Paul: Just because I think you can break a law doesn't mean there aren't separate moral laws that should be followed -dave

[2004-05-24 12:14:10] - paul: Well in that case it's not breaking the law that's immoral... it's the murder itself - aaron

[2004-05-24 12:13:31] - Dave: So it would be ok to murder somebody as long as you are willing to accept life in prison? -Paul

[2004-05-24 12:09:54] - mig: yeah I don't. Break all the laws you want, as long as you're going to take the consequences -dave

[2004-05-24 12:06:56] - Mig: Well, that's what I thought. That's why I asked if he thought that we should always obey the law. But it sounds like he doesn't necessarily believe that. -Paul

[2004-05-24 12:02:57] - paul:  i think the fundamental dissagreement with dave is that disobeying the government's will (breaking a law) is an immoral act of itself, whereas we don't believe that it is. - mig

[2004-05-24 11:57:10] - Dave: And if you don't then you can just eat somewhere else! -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:56:45] - Dave: Enjoy your lunch. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:56:13] - lunchtime, ciao for now -dave

[2004-05-24 11:55:30] - Paul: Well, generally you should follow laws. But I am entirely for people who want to break a law to make a statement, as long as they are willing to take the consequences -dave

[2004-05-24 11:54:43] - Paul: weren't we already on opposite sides in that past debate? Srry, tho I will support you morally, go Paul go! -dave

[2004-05-24 11:54:33] - Dave: So what kind of laws shouldn't be followed? -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:53:59] - Dave: Darn, I was hoping I had an ally in another debate. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:53:13] - paul: debunked the misconception about me always thinking the law should be followed. Just to clarify -dave

[2004-05-24 11:51:54] - Paul: Ok, I'll rephrase, by being a US citizen and having the ability to vote, we are responsible -dave

[2004-05-24 11:51:29] - Paul: well I'm glad to have debunked that misconception for you -dave

[2004-05-24 11:51:25] - Dave: Oh, OH! So by voting we become more responsible for what the government does than, say, a non-voter? -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:51:07] - Paul: whether we agree with the specific issue at hand etc -dave

[2004-05-24 11:50:53] - Dave: I only asked because it seems to me that you're more of the mindset that a person should always follow the law, no matter what. Whereas I don't agree. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:50:46] - Paul: yeah, this comes to our difference in opinions on citizenship etc. I think by being a US citizen and voting etc, we are ultimately responsible for what our country does,whether we agree to it or not -dave

[2004-05-24 11:50:11] - Dave: Probably jail time. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:49:29] - Paul: hmmm good point. I think it's fine for people to break a law, as long as they are willing to deal with the consequences. So sure, you can not join up when you're selected, as long as you take whatever the legal consequences are. What are they anyways? -dave

[2004-05-24 11:48:22] - Dave: Except I don't see it as passing any sort of responsibility. What war did I vote for? -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:47:49] - Dave: Quick question, do you think that people should always follow a law, no matter how unjust? -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:47:36] - Paul: Yeah, I'm not trying to say anything about Bush, or Clinton -dave

[2004-05-24 11:46:54] - Mig: Yeah, and then you can throw Kellen Winslow Jr on the list too, for laughs. -paul

[2004-05-24 11:46:46] - Paul: but you would be hypocritical in passing  on that responsibility, since you abhor it so much in our politicians -dave

[2004-05-24 11:46:12] - Dave: And I'm trying not to bring anything up about Bush's less than sterling record regarding the draft when he was young. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:46:09] - and most of who have convenient excuses for not enlisting in the military when they could have. - mig

[2004-05-24 11:45:33] - Paul: I guess let me try to state it. I think that if a draft is instituted that anyone who is chosen should join the military. This has no direct relation to the rightness of the war, or the draft itself -dave

[2004-05-24 11:45:26] - Dave: I know, I just introduced my own point that if we are in fact passing on personal responsibility, it's only because we're doing exactly what our leaders are doing. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:45:13] - paul:  not just politicans, you also have the chickenhawk talking heads and columnists calling for blood but not willling to risk spilling their own blood. - mig

[2004-05-24 11:44:43] - Dave: Effectively, we probably do have about the same affect. I only said I had less of a hand in it because they could theoretically pester their parents to vote against the war. Either way, it's at least JUST as fair IMHO. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:44:30] - Paul: Yes, I agree entirely with you that sometimes politicians don't count the costs well enough. But that is not related to the point I'm trying to make -dave

[2004-05-24 11:43:33] - Paul: well, both the kids and us have equal hands in making the decision, theoretically none, except electing those politicians -dave

[2004-05-24 11:42:49] - Dave: The point is that these politicians are waging these wars without any feeling for the true cost of it. When Bush forces his two daughters to join up and get sent on dangerous missions in Iraq, then I'll consider it more fair. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:42:44] - mig: Ein Fuhrer eh? -dave

[2004-05-24 11:41:47] - Dave: The same way it's fair to draft me, who had even less of a hand in making the decision. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:41:09] - Mig: Ah, comparisons to nazis. The ultimate cop-out. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:40:55] - Paul: well, they should be subjected to the draft as well. I don't know about making them first though. How is that fair to the kids, they don't have any personal hand in making the decisions either -dave

[2004-05-24 11:40:47] - Dave: I don't mind washing my own dishes, but I take exception to when somebody dumps their dirty dishes on me and orders me to wash them or else. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:39:56] - dave:  that's your choice, but last tidave:  so basically, we should all just submit to what Ein Fuhrer decides to do, regardless of how heinously immoral or blatantly unconstitutional it is? - mig

[2004-05-24 11:39:48] - Paul: Kinda like washing dishes, you should wash your own, and I think it's irresponsible to just pile them up and expect / make others wash yours for you ^_^ -dave

[2004-05-24 11:39:48] - Dave: If we're going for personal responsibility, shouldn't we be putting the politicians who voted for the war first on the draft list then? Followed by their sons and daughters and family members? -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:39:01] - Paul: Yeah I know, that's why I said Mexico -dave

[2004-05-24 11:38:48] - Dave: Well, you can't run to Canada anymore. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:38:25] - Paul: yeah you can look at it that way. Like I've already said, I'm all for lobbying to stop wars, or prevent wars that we shouldn't fight -dave

[2004-05-24 11:36:58] - Paul: no, I'm saying we pass personal reponsibility too much. If our country needs us to join the army, I'm not going to run to mexico or wherever to try to dodge that responsibility -dave

[2004-05-24 11:36:57] - Dave: Another way to look at it is that the draft is only instituted when the cost of the war outpaces it's support. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:35:41] - paul: and I guess where I was coming from, is that if the draft WAS instituted, it would be because the US needs more people to go. So yeah, I'll not tell someone else they have to go instead of me just because I don't want to. -dave

[2004-05-24 11:35:01] - Dave: It's wrong to not want to go kill people who never hurt you in an unconstitutional war that you don't agree with? -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:34:17] - Dave: I'm so confused now. We shouldn't force others to go to war... and that's an argument FOR a draft!? -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:34:16] - mig: If you don't like it, argue with someone else - aaron

[2004-05-24 11:33:57] - Paul: ok, yeah I agree, I personally wouldn't like the draft either because I wouldn't want to go fight a war. So yes I don't want it instituted. But I do feel that too many people just push the responsibility on others because they don't want it, and I think that's wrong -dave

[2004-05-24 11:33:49] - Dave: Heh, ok. I was just saying that whenever we debate, you always end up telling me to move and I was just wondering why I always had to move. Why can't you move and I'll just stay here? -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:32:09] - Paul: I'm all for trying to get our country to not fight wars it shouldn't. I just think it's we shouldn't force others to go just because we don't want to -dave

[2004-05-24 11:32:08] - Dave: We're getting stuck in the same cycle again. My point isn't that I can move somewhere else. My point is that I don't like something and I would like it to be changed (or, in this case, I guess NOT changed). -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:31:24] - dave: no, I still see your point, but you complained earlier that "it's irresponsible to say that other people should fight/die for our country and not us". i personally have ambivalent feelings against the draft - vinnie

[2004-05-24 11:31:22] - hmpf.  if you don't like it move somewhere.  the ultimate cop-out argument. - mig

[2004-05-24 11:31:18] - paul: I never said I wanted a draft, of course I wouldn't want to go fight in a war. I'm just saying that if it is required of me, then I will do it - and I think all US citizens should be willing to as well. -dave

[2004-05-24 11:29:33] - Dave: Well, it was halfway serious I guess. If you want a draft why don't you go and find yourself a country with one? -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:29:26] - paul: but that's exactly the issue of what I'm trying to say. It's not forced because you have the choice to be a part of the US or not. To not be a part, you move somewhere else -dave

[2004-05-24 11:28:46] - Dave: Except I don't have the choice. All these wonderful "benefits" are forced upon me in exactly the same way I'm forced to pay for them. -paul

[2004-05-24 11:28:23] - Paul: So I will assume smiley face comments are sarcastic -dave

[2004-05-24 11:28:03] - Paul: ok, I can't separate your sarcastic comments from your real ones ^_^ -dave

[2004-05-24 11:27:35] - vinnie: for example, if my little sister did something to piss off someone, and they got ballistic, I would still stand up for my sister even if I thought she incorrectly pissed him off -dave

[2004-05-24 11:27:23] - Dave: Why is it always ME that supposed to leave the country? Why don't you leave the country for a change? -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:26:54] - vinnie: ok, but to me the issue of whether wars are fought, or what enemies we fight is separate from our willingness to fight them -dave

[2004-05-24 11:26:14] - Paul: well, it's like being part of any society, you can't / shouldn't be able to get the benefits of it without adhering to the laws yourself -dave

[2004-05-24 11:26:07] - dave: i would think most of the people that object to fighting in a war object to everyone fighting in it, not just themselves - vinnie

[2004-05-24 11:25:19] - Paul: yeah I know, but you can't get the good without the bad in my opinion. If you think the bad is too much greater than the good, then go somewhere else. Besides, I think the issue of the draft should be separate in many senses from the issue of what wars our govt decides to fight -dave

[2004-05-24 11:23:49] - Dave: Service guarantees citizenship? -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:23:10] - Dave: All I'm saying is that I don't think I should be forced to go to some foreign land and kill people who never hurt me just because the government I live under decided it didn't like Saddam Hussein. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:21:51] - paul: irregardless of our countries' flaws, we still should be willing to serve our country for what it DOES give us. If you're not willing to, then I honestly don't think that person should have the right to be a US citizen -dave

[2004-05-24 11:20:42] - paul: ok whatever, I know you think you should be able to live here without paying any dues for what our country gives us, but I personally think it's irresponsible to say that other people should fight/die for our country and not us -dave

[2004-05-24 11:17:25] - I don't really what's really all that bad about jail. I mean, it could definitely put a kink in any plans you have at the time, but shouldn't we be willing to serve time if our country wants us to? -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:13:43] - vinnie: I'll bet there will be way more women in a military draft than in any magic draft - aaron

[2004-05-24 11:13:33] - dave:  nope, they doefintely don't have enough troops to run an empire right now. - mig

[2004-05-24 11:13:14] - I don't really see what's really all that bad about the draft. I mean, it could definitely put a kink in any plans you have at the time, but shouldn't we be willing to serve our country if it needs us? -dave

[2004-05-24 11:12:40] - I hope they don't hate draft. -Paul

[2004-05-24 11:12:08] - mig: I wonder if they really dont' have enough volunteers to have a big enough army? -dave

[2004-05-24 11:12:02] - we're all "unplayable" - vinnie

[2004-05-24 11:11:45] - aaron: hahaha - vinnie

[2004-05-24 11:11:17] - vinnie: Rest assured if that draft is instated, I don't think we'll be "first picks" - aaron

[2004-05-24 11:11:16] - vinnie: ahh ok, makes much more sense, I guess it just looked like two bubles, each with 1 in there. -dave

[2004-05-24 11:10:35] - Good luck trying to reinstate the draft.  if they thought the protests during vietnam were bad .... - mig

[2004-05-24 11:10:33] - vinnie: - aaron

[2004-05-24 11:08:47] - although if the US draft is reinstated, that would be the wackiest - vinnie

[2004-05-24 11:07:29] - triple 5D is the wackiest draft I've ever had, btw - vinnie

[2004-05-24 11:07:02] - dave: it's CC of 11, not 2 - vinnie

[2004-05-24 11:04:16] - aaron: tho they do talk about the twins' past run-ins with the law - but I find that understandable for any news outlet - they like the sensational -dave

prev <-> next