Jump to content

marmar63

Members
  • Posts

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by marmar63

  1. now DIS man know how to make 'im a po-boy, yah. ;) got a place in Slidell, LA that makes sandwiches about like you described. Minus the rabbit food on mine, of course, but tasty nonetheless. btw Darkstar, you could sit n' describe how to paint a nice, scabbed-over, pus-filled wound to me n' I wouldn't lose my appetite. Nice try though ;)
  2. Wow, you know how to ruin perfectly good roast beef, man. put it on frenchbread or a hoagie, a lil mayo, and a cup of au jus on the side. DAT'S high livin'.
  3. Have to disagree with ya on this point, Cade. cause personally I think purple or green are right out.
  4. I will see what I can do, but I don't have access to her computer. Sure ya do; if you use MSN Messenger, there's a remote assistance feature. she can ask you for assistance, and you can look at her desktop from there.... but wait. her internet isn't working when this problem is in place. NEEEEVERMIIIIIIND. :-D Just have her hit printscreen then dump it into a word doc or MSPaint window, and save it. once she gets the system back online she can send it. ;)
  5. Geez man. the most I can accomplish standing around in the kitchen is a sammich. You turn out gorgeous minis.
  6. Enchantra, if that doesn't correct the issue, pls get us some verbatim error msgs or screenshots.
  7. Certainly you don't think that checking out one book is going to put you on a no fly list. Checking out a flagged book may give way to further scrutinizing of other aspects of your life, for certain, but it's not going to land you in a dark room with a bright light in your eyes. Of course if you have evidence of just this sort of thing happening, do share. :) The context you were using, was that you were redirecting a statement from another user not wanting to support an administration that believes in a larger government that is more involved in the lives of the people (that person meaning Democrat). You used the examples of Pro Choice, which the current administration is against (and thereby implementing itself in a private decision), and the Patriot Act, which gives the government rights to make overt actions without the standard course of law (and thereby giving itself greater access into the lives of people). As you can see, I'm fully aware of the context in which your statements were used. My statement was that they were oversimplified in the making of your point. Here's why. It is the duty of the government to enforce its laws, and protect its constituency. One of the laws is that against murder; that is to say, the willful killing of another human being. The core difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-life" is the belief as to what makes something a human life. Pro-Life states that it is a human life from the time of conception, pro-choice states that it is not life until it can sustain itself outside the womb. To a pro-life administration, the unborn child is in as much of a position for its life to be protected, as a child that is outside the womb. Therefore, to insinuate that a pro-life administration which wants pro-life legislation is trying to interfere with your personal choice is an oversimplification of their intentions and goals. By the same token, to say that the intention of the Patriot Act is to interfere with the personal lives of people is also an oversimplification. I'll use a quote from another user: This is totally incorrect. The idea of a "freedom" is that you are able and allowed to do something without fear of punishment or reprisal. You are not free to commit a crime; if you do so, you do so at the risk of punishment. You are not free to infiltrate the country for nefarious reasons; you do so at the risk of capture and punishment. Simply because you are "able" to do something, does not mean that you are “free” to do it. You can't have ANY sort of society without risk or danger. It is, however, the duty of the government to work towards protecting its constituency, and minimizing the danger to it. The Patriot act put in place certain abilities for the government to work towards this goal. Its purpose isn’t to limit the freedoms of Americans, but to set up an additional line of defense against internal attackers. So, in response to your insinuation that the current administration is trying to make itself a greater force in the lives of the American people, based on the examples you provided, I disagree, from the position that both of those things are done, from their point of view, to defend the human lives, and the lives of Americans.
  8. Dat's a beautiful thing. ;) Got an airbrush n' compressor on my christmas list.
  9. Isn't this the one that's based on "The Shadow over Innsmouth"? Heard really mixed reviews of it, from delightlfully cheese to downright awful.
  10. So when mold lines show up after priming, do you remove them, then prime it again, or do you remove the line, strip and then totally reprime?
  11. You know the sequel is rumoured to start filming March 05....
  12. LOOOOOOOOOOOOVED it. The zombies... "Don't call 'em that!!!"
  13. Sorry... Mis-spoke. Meant "Senate" not "Congress". :) Since the speaker of the house is the most senior member of the controlling party (am I remembering my Civics lesson right?) then we'd still be left with one of the big two as that powerful person.
  14. Well, from the sounds of it, you'd have to have at least 10% of the votes to be able to get a seat, if it's implemented properly. If you're talking about 37,000 people voting, that's 3700 votes. Even if the person is a fonzenoon, there's enough constituency behind him who want said fonzenoon in office, that they deserve the representation.
  15. I'm seconding Boondock Saints. Here's my big question though... with so many great movies on next to you, will you be able to tear yourself away from the TV screen to paint?
  16. That's a pretty good idea...will try that. be nice if there was a way to polarize the mini, and pull toner-like material to it to see the lines... would be a neat way to prime, too. :)
  17. This is most certainly a system that makes more sense than the one we have now. Thing is, would it really help to leave Congress and the Presidency the way it is now? I do admit that there would be little way for those two to effectively use PR, but it would still leave us with the current system, with only two parties. I could see, however, how it could get the names of some representatives out better... the question is, when was the last time a member of the House, as opposed to a Senator, was elected?
  18. I second it. PAVE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!
  19. Bah. Why stay on topic? I've always heard that the mark of an intelligent conversation is how it wanders across topics.
  20. Well I"m glad ya do anyway ;) Here's a pretty good question for all viewing... It always seems like the evil nasty moldlines show up best after they've been primed (at least it seems that way; always notice more after you've cleaned and primed). Has anybody come up with an idea or a way to try to reproduce that effect, without having to effectually prime, then fix, then reprime the mini?
  21. *sigh* Jester why do you even BOTHER posting anymore... you should know by know we're all going to rant n' rave at how gorgeous your work is I hope I can one day garner a quarter of the abilities that your talent allows you. :)
  22. I applaud your reason for choosing Libertarian; however, the current state of things is, the two major parties don't really seem to care. As long as they get enough votes to win, they're happy with the way things are. If we could get -more- people recognizing their power, and vote them out, we'd do a LOT better.
  23. It's Congress that holds the pursestrings... the most the President can do is sign the paperwork, or veto it. Sure, he can push an initiative, but it takes Congress and the House to make those things happen. Speaking of the House, you mentioned earlier having a proportionate representation... what exactly do you mean? Can you explain, or link me to something that does? The question is, which politician is going to actually call for such a thing to happen? I don't really see it happening with ANY of them. While I see the reasoning behind the choice of these two examples, they seem to be very oversimplified to make the point you're trying to make. To an anti-abortion person, the idea of abortion, carried to the extreme, means a parent would have the choice of whether or not to kill their infant if they no longer want them. Also, the way laws are currently written, they simply don't make the same application across the board. A woman can go have a pregnancy aborted, and it's OK; but if a pregnant woman is shot in the abdoment, killing the child, but the mother lives, the gunman is still guilty of murder. If it's not a life if it's aborted, why is it a life if it's shot? The Patriot act was put in place during a period when all Americans were very paranoid and worried about if the boogeyman was going to get them. Also the fact that someone reads a book on a suspect list doesn't guarantee that they're not going to be allowed to get on an airplane, it just means that if they've read tons of books on bioweapons and nuclear weapons theory and the like, that someone is aware of it. There is no expectation of privacy in a public library. :) This is funny, to me. "Conservatives" tend to be stereotyped as the extremely religious; the same extremely religious, who try to have books and music banned for its content, which they consider is "Eeee-vill". How many of us heard about D&D being Satan's game? The stereotype also encompasses the wealthy businessmen. Are you saying you don't think they have huge creditcard bills as well? They're making interest payments, just like our government is.
  24. Well, at the time it was written, the Constitution was just what was needed. It addressed all the issues that were raised during the time of rebellion against England. I do agree, however, that changes are necessary to it, and I think those changes should be spelled out. Currently, the "left wing" likes to change the Constitution by interpretation, which to my reckoning leads to more problems than it solves. Things start getting pulled out of lawyer's asses and held up as law by the Supreme Court which aren't spelled out in the Constitution (Right to Privacy, for example). Now, don't get me wrong. I think that some of those rights are perfectly valid. But I think they should be spelled out in the Constitution, so that there's no doubt, and take the power away from the trial lawyers.
  25. All look great n' I see the reasons you picked them. :) Thanks!!
×
×
  • Create New...