Phantom Stranger

Joined

• started 57 topics
• posted 1,554 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Phantom Stranger

• 
  26

  Poll for the men. Women feel free to comment.

  by FlyingHighNow in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  this poll is inspired by comments on maverick's spoiled women thread.

  are you currently married or coupled to/with a american/canadian/british/european/scandinavian who is also a white/caucasion woman?

  are you happily or unhappily married/coupled?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  • Are you currently married or coupled to/with a white/caucasion American/Canadian/British/European/Scandinavian woman? Yes
  • Are you happily or unhappily married/coupled? Happily
  • Why are you happy or unhappy in your marriage/couple? Not enough room here to cover that one.
  • If you are happy or unhappy in your marriage/relationship, does it have anything to do with the race, background or culture of your wife/partner? Or is it her as an individual that keeps your interest or doesn't keep it? Race not a factor. Not sure about culture. Background tough to separate from personality. I'll go with keeps my interest for 200, Alex.
  • If you are man who is divorced from a white/caucasion woman, do you date white/caucasion women now? Do you exclusively date women of other races? I am divorced (Ex is a good friend, always has been) and I asked out women of all races when I was single. I have gone out with one Korean woman (no second date - discovered she was devoutly Baptist), and have struck out with every single black, Japanese, Chinese, and Indian woman I've ever hit on.
  • If you date women of other races and cultures, do you do it because they are subservient? Fick, no. I hate that sh!t. KNow guys that like it, can't stand them either.
  • How many of you guys prefer an intelligent, confident, independent and loving woman of any culture to a subservient woman of any culture? Abso-ficking-lutely. She better be able to kick my ass.
  • Are there any non white men here prefer white women over other races and cultures of women? If so, please tell us why. I'm a poi dog, but I don't have a preference in that category.
• 
  35

  what's your favority JW reference from a movie or TV ?

  by itsallgoodnow in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  mine is from friday, the movie with ice cube, where a couple of jw ladies wake up ice cube's character's family one morning and there's some mouthing off, and you wouldn't believe the nasty words coming out of these sweet looking old "sisters".

  hilarious!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  The absolute, all-time best was the old Saturday Night Live Land Shark sketch... where there's a knock at the door - "who's there?" "Jehovah's Witness". Thinking it's the Land Shark, they jerk open the door, club Garrett Morris on the top of the head with a baseball bat, and he falls into the apartment - wearing a suit and carrying a bookbag with actual Watchtower and Awake magazines falling out of it all over the floor! Priceless!

  Always wondered which Bethel street-Witness they got the mags from...
• 
  2

  The Governator and civil disobedience

  by Phantom Stranger in

  1. social
  2. current

  i guess we can't break the law unless a good smoke is at stake...

  http://slate.msn.com/id/2096338/

  in a feb. 13 new york times piece, charlie leduff

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  I guess we can't break the law unless a good smoke is at stake...

  http://slate.msn.com/id/2096338/

  In a Feb. 13 New York Times piece, Charlie LeDuff related the following conversation between Schwarzenegger and James Cameron, who directed the first two Terminator movies:

  Mr. Cameron asked him how governing was going.

  "They're really shaken up up there," he said of Sacramento. "It's a trip. You should see it."

  He talked about the art of compromise, popularity polls, special interests, prison investigations and the atrium outside his Sacramento office, where he is able to smoke his Cuban cigars?20 feet from the entrance as state law requires.

  "A lot of business gets done there," he said. "Who doesn't like a good stogie?"

  In congratulating Schwarzenegger for scrupulously obeying California's anti-smoking law, LeDuff neglected to note that Schwarzenegger's apparent ownership of Cuban cigars violates the Cuban Assets Control Regulations issued in 1963 (under the Trading With the Enemy Act) by the governor's most famous in-law. The prohibition was subsequently reaffirmed by statute in 1996. You'll find the relevant laws and regulations here.
• 
  40

  California Supreme Court and Religious Freedom

  by Yerusalyim in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  monday the california supreme court ruled that private religious charities with employees must offer birth control along with their medical prescription benefits, even though doing so violates religious principle.

  comments on free exercise?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  This seems to have nothing to do with a church or with religion at all. Apparently a non-profit company doing business in California has to offer health benefits without withholding the benefits that the officers of the company don't sanction due to their religious beliefs.

  Is everybody clear that the Catholic Church was not involved in this ruling? A non-profit corporation operating in California was judged to have to play by the same rules as all the other corporations.

  My new bumper sticker: Tax Religion.
• 
  101

  Bush Bash, Anti-gay marrige.

  by SC_Guy in

  1. social
  2. current

  .

  i think bush is trying to screw this country one more time before he's voted out of office....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Poor shamus...looking for an argument anywhere :)

  Yeru, I would say that "societal argument" is a null term. Your beliefs fuel your opinion on what's best for society.

  Polygamy has been rejected by this society on religious grounds - but there are no biological imperatives working against the adoption of polygamy in the future...but there are economic and demographic reasons that polygamy is unlikely to be on an agenda anytime soon. But it was in the bible... it could only "work" in a society or subculture where women are not valued highly. The questions Yeru raises about divorce can be easily addressed in any contract - plural marriage could make sense in the future, but there seems to be no impetus for it in our culture today except from foreigners and Mormon-secessionist cults who soak the US for welfare (see economic argument above). Polygamy existed as a survival tool for genes back when survival was the key question for all societies. Now that success is the key question, our thousands of years of conditioning and acculturation aren't applicable as often.

  Incest is obviously a biological event that should be avoided for biological reasons. Pedophilia is abuse of a minor and needs no discussion. (Those who compare homosexuality and pedophilia seem to be unclear on when someone involved is being harmed and when no one is being harmed.)
• 
  41

  Constitutional Amendment : Slippery Slope

  by patio34 in

  1. social
  2. current

  this was too good to leave on the bush/gay marriage thread so i'm starting a new topic on it: .

  the following was sent to me recently: .

  as certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a constitutional amendment codifying all marriages entirely on biblical principles.. after all, god wouldn't want us to "pick and choose" which of the scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Dragged this outta the archives...notice the date:)

  Holy Matrimony What's really undermining the sanctity of marriage? By Dahlia Lithwick
  Posted Thursday, Nov. 20, 2003, at 3:29 PM PT
  
  Within nanoseconds of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's declaration that gay marriage is protected by the Constitution came predictions of the end of life as we know it: The president, speaking from London, warned: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle."

  "The time is now. If you don't do something about this, then you cannot in 20 years?when you see the American public disintegrating and you see our enemies overtaking us because we have no moral will?you remember that you did nothing," said Sandy Rios, president of the Concerned Women for America, to her 1 million radio listeners. "We must amend the Constitution if we are to stop a tyrannical judiciary from redefining marriage to the point of extinction," Focus on the Family urged in a statement on Tuesday.

  Extinction, no less. The institution of marriage?the one that survived Henry VIII, Lorena Bobbitt, Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson?is suddenly going to become extinct?

  Do you want to know what's destroying the sanctity of marriage? Phone messages like the ones we'd get at my old divorce firm in Reno, Nev., left on Saturday mornings and picked up on Monday: "Beeep. Hi? My name is Misty and I think I maybe got married last night. Could someone call me back and tell me if I could get an annulment? I'm at Circus Circus? Room?honey what room is this?oh yeah. Room 407. Thank you. Beeep."

  It just doesn't get much more sacred than that.

  Here's my modest request: If you're going to be a crusader for the sanctity of marriage?if you really believe gay marriage will have some vast corrosive, viral impact on marriage as a whole?here's a brief list of other laws and policies far more dangerous to the institution. Go after these first, then pass your constitutional amendment.

  1. Divorce
  Somewhere between 43 percent and 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. If you believe gay marriage is single-handedly eroding a sacred and ancient institution, you cannot possibly be pro-divorce. That means any legislation passed in recent decades making divorce more readily available?from no-fault statutes to the decline of adultery prosecutions?should also be subject to bans, popular referendum, and constitutional amendment.

  2. Circus Circus
  In general, if there is blood in your body and you are over 18, you can get married, so long as you're not in love with your cousin. (Although even that's OK in some states). You can be married to someone you met at the breakfast buffet. Knowing her last name is optional. And you can be married by someone who was McOrdained on the Internet. So before you lobby to ban gay marriage, you might want to work to enact laws limiting the sheer frivolousness of straight marriage. You should be lobbying for an increase in minimum-age requirements, for mandatory counseling pre-marriage, and for statutory waiting periods before marriages (and divorces) can be permitted.

  3. Birth ControlThe dissenters in the Massachusetts decision are of the opinion that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. They urge that a sound reason for discriminating against gay couples is that there is a legitimate state purpose in ensuring, promoting, and supporting an "optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children." If you're going to take the position that marriage exists solely to encourage begetting, you need to oppose childlessness by choice, birth control, living together, and marriage for the post-menopausal. In fact, if you're really looking for "optimal" social structures for childrearing, you need to legislate against single parents, poor parents, two-career parents, alcoholic or sick parents, and parents who (like myself) are afraid of the Baby Einstein videos.

  4. Misc.
  Here's what's really undermining the sacredness of modern marriage: soap operas, wedding planning, longer work days, cuter secretaries, fights over money, reality TV, low-rise pants, mothers-in-law, boredom, Victoria's Secret catalogs, going to bed mad, the billable hour, that stubborn 7 pounds, the Wiggles, Internet chat rooms, and selfishness. In fact we should start amending the Constitution to deal with the Wiggles immediately.

  Here's why marriage will likely survive last week's crushing decision out of Massachusetts: Because despite all the horrors of Section 4, above, human beings want and deserve a soul mate; someone to grow old with, someone who thinks our dopey entry in the New Yorker cartoon competition is hilarious, and someone to help carry the shopping bags. Gay couples have asked the state to explain why such privileges should be denied them and have yet to receive an answer that is credible.

  The decision to make a marriage "sacred" does not belong to the state?if the state were in charge of mandating sacredness in matrimony, we'd have to pave over both Nevada and Jessica Simpson. We make marriage sacred by choosing to treat it that way, one couple at a time. We make marriage a joke by treating it like a two-week jungle safari. There is no evidence that gay couples are any more inclined toward that latter course than supermodels, rock stars, or that poor spineless bald man on Who Wants to Marry My Dad? There's good evidence that most of them will take the commitment very seriously, as do the rest of us. There will be more "sanctity" in marriage when we recognize that people of all orientations can make sacred choices. Good for Massachusetts for recognizing that truth.

  Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.
  
  Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091475/
• 
  101

  Bush Bash, Anti-gay marrige.

  by SC_Guy in

  1. social
  2. current

  .

  i think bush is trying to screw this country one more time before he's voted out of office....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Holy Matrimony What's really undermining the sanctity of marriage? By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate.com
  Posted Thursday, Nov. 20, 2003, at 3:29 PM PT
  
  

  Within nanoseconds of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's declaration that gay marriage is protected by the Constitution came predictions of the end of life as we know it: The president, speaking from London, warned: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle."

  "The time is now. If you don't do something about this, then you cannot in 20 years?when you see the American public disintegrating and you see our enemies overtaking us because we have no moral will?you remember that you did nothing," said Sandy Rios, president of the Concerned Women for America, to her 1 million radio listeners. "We must amend the Constitution if we are to stop a tyrannical judiciary from redefining marriage to the point of extinction," Focus on the Family urged in a statement on Tuesday.

  Extinction, no less. The institution of marriage?the one that survived Henry VIII, Lorena Bobbitt, Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson?is suddenly going to become extinct?

  Do you want to know what's destroying the sanctity of marriage? Phone messages like the ones we'd get at my old divorce firm in Reno, Nev., left on Saturday mornings and picked up on Monday: "Beeep. Hi? My name is Misty and I think I maybe got married last night. Could someone call me back and tell me if I could get an annulment? I'm at Circus Circus? Room?honey what room is this?oh yeah. Room 407. Thank you. Beeep."

  It just doesn't get much more sacred than that.

  Here's my modest request: If you're going to be a crusader for the sanctity of marriage?if you really believe gay marriage will have some vast corrosive, viral impact on marriage as a whole?here's a brief list of other laws and policies far more dangerous to the institution. Go after these first, then pass your constitutional amendment.

  1. Divorce
  Somewhere between 43 percent and 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. If you believe gay marriage is single-handedly eroding a sacred and ancient institution, you cannot possibly be pro-divorce. That means any legislation passed in recent decades making divorce more readily available?from no-fault statutes to the decline of adultery prosecutions?should also be subject to bans, popular referendum, and constitutional amendment.

  2. Circus Circus
  In general, if there is blood in your body and you are over 18, you can get married, so long as you're not in love with your cousin. (Although even that's OK in some states). You can be married to someone you met at the breakfast buffet. Knowing her last name is optional. And you can be married by someone who was McOrdained on the Internet. So before you lobby to ban gay marriage, you might want to work to enact laws limiting the sheer frivolousness of straight marriage. You should be lobbying for an increase in minimum-age requirements, for mandatory counseling pre-marriage, and for statutory waiting periods before marriages (and divorces) can be permitted.

  3. Birth ControlThe dissenters in the Massachusetts decision are of the opinion that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. They urge that a sound reason for discriminating against gay couples is that there is a legitimate state purpose in ensuring, promoting, and supporting an "optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children." If you're going to take the position that marriage exists solely to encourage begetting, you need to oppose childlessness by choice, birth control, living together, and marriage for the post-menopausal. In fact, if you're really looking for "optimal" social structures for childrearing, you need to legislate against single parents, poor parents, two-career parents, alcoholic or sick parents, and parents who (like myself) are afraid of the Baby Einstein videos.

  4. Misc.
  Here's what's really undermining the sacredness of modern marriage: soap operas, wedding planning, longer work days, cuter secretaries, fights over money, reality TV, low-rise pants, mothers-in-law, boredom, Victoria's Secret catalogs, going to bed mad, the billable hour, that stubborn 7 pounds, the Wiggles, Internet chat rooms, and selfishness. In fact we should start amending the Constitution to deal with the Wiggles immediately.

  Here's why marriage will likely survive last week's crushing decision out of Massachusetts: Because despite all the horrors of Section 4, above, human beings want and deserve a soul mate; someone to grow old with, someone who thinks our dopey entry in the New Yorker cartoon competition is hilarious, and someone to help carry the shopping bags. Gay couples have asked the state to explain why such privileges should be denied them and have yet to receive an answer that is credible.

  The decision to make a marriage "sacred" does not belong to the state?if the state were in charge of mandating sacredness in matrimony, we'd have to pave over both Nevada and Jessica Simpson. We make marriage sacred by choosing to treat it that way, one couple at a time. We make marriage a joke by treating it like a two-week jungle safari. There is no evidence that gay couples are any more inclined toward that latter course than supermodels, rock stars, or that poor spineless bald man on Who Wants to Marry My Dad? There's good evidence that most of them will take the commitment very seriously, as do the rest of us. There will be more "sanctity" in marriage when we recognize that people of all orientations can make sacred choices. Good for Massachusetts for recognizing that truth.

  Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.
  
  Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091475/
• 
  101

  Bush Bash, Anti-gay marrige.

  by SC_Guy in

  1. social
  2. current

  .

  i think bush is trying to screw this country one more time before he's voted out of office....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Yeru has had this argument before. I will not state that Yeru should do anything. I think that there are some things that might be good for him... but he has a right to his opinion, and I don't get to "should" on him. I believe that he would do his best to discharge his duties properly if his opinion came into conflict with his duties, for example.

  I understand why you say that, seattle nice guy - but I think that you are being somewhat dismissive of Yeru to say that. If you read this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/62166/1.ashx , for example, you will see that he has held this opinion for some time, and has discussed it with quite a few gay people. He's committed to it. It would be nice if hanging out with some gay guys for a while would change a view as deeply rooted as his - but it's not reality, in my opinion.

  Quite simply, he doesn't want to choose to accept the concept of homosexuality being accepted by society, or as a way someone is rather than a behavior they have, or as something other than a sin. Yeru is a member in good standing of two groups that are not homosexual-friendly - the US military and the Catholic Church - and his views are symptomatic of some members of each group. You can argue with him all you want... but you are starting from different places - because one of you accepts homosexuality as a state and the other as a deviant behavior.
• 
  41

  Constitutional Amendment : Slippery Slope

  by patio34 in

  1. social
  2. current

  this was too good to leave on the bush/gay marriage thread so i'm starting a new topic on it: .

  the following was sent to me recently: .

  as certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a constitutional amendment codifying all marriages entirely on biblical principles.. after all, god wouldn't want us to "pick and choose" which of the scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  For an abstract of Chinese math history, :

  http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/mathhist/china.html
• 
  41

  Constitutional Amendment : Slippery Slope

  by patio34 in

  1. social
  2. current

  this was too good to leave on the bush/gay marriage thread so i'm starting a new topic on it: .

  the following was sent to me recently: .

  as certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a constitutional amendment codifying all marriages entirely on biblical principles.. after all, god wouldn't want us to "pick and choose" which of the scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Wow, I don't remember the names without looking them up - that proves their lack of value, doesn't it? After all, my memory for things I had to go look up on my own because I wasn't told them in history class is the final arbiter of significance. Not. That doesn't prove a damned thing and you know it.

  Muhammad Bin Ahmad invented the zero in 967 AD (some sources credit India for the zero - either way, they weren't Christian).

  al-Khawarzmi is credited with the first treatise on algebra. By the 11th century the Arabs had founded, developed and perfected geometrical algebra and could solve equations of the third and fourth degree.

  Abu Jafar Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn al-Hassan separated trigonometry from astronomy. This contribution recognizes and explains weakness in Euclid's theory of parallels, and thereby may thus be credited as founder of non-Euclidian geometry.

  For more see, http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html and http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980422/1998042208.html, where the above was sourced . Curiously, most of these guys lived in Iraq, not too far from Baghdad.