Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day

[sigmtnman]

He's over near Nashville unless he was fibbin on the location with his last account.

[Wingshooter]

I'm guessing the Ban Hammer is capable of striking in the same place twice.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Batman

[mikegideon]

Wow.. lol

Please hand the hammer to your hubbie. He has work to do

[RobertNashville]

So....let me understand...

Someone so "smart" as to register again after getting banned thinks it's a good idea to announce to the forum that he did that AND to do it in the same thread that got him banned in the first place?

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

He isnt very smart..but that was a given right from the start

It seems I have avatar issues:(

Edited August 3, 2012 by Sour Kraut

[mikegideon]

So....let me understand...

Someone so "smart" as to register again after getting banned thinks it's a good idea to announce to the forum that he did that AND to do it in the same thread that got him banned in the first place?

May set a TGO record. Banned twice in the same thread is probably a new one.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

On the military pension thing, am not smart enough to say if it is right or wrong, but think I recall reading that even revolutionary war vets received some kind of pension? Or maybe am remembering wrong. That is not to say the founders were never wrong, just that the tradition seems to go back a ways? Not a modern progressive invention?

On the "user freaks out, gets abusive and banned" it is interesting it seems to work about the same way in multiple instances. A fella hangs around for awhile not remarkably out of line and then after posting maybe even hundreds of messages, suddenly starts heaping abuse on any and all. It is just an interesting dynamic. You wouldn't think an outright troll would bother to build up a record of numerous innocuous messages just to set-up an abusive freakout? A fella would need a lot of time on his hands to do that intentionally.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[daddyo]

May set a TGO record. Banned twice in the same thread is probably a new one.

He must be a refugee from the old Tennessean political forum.

[Garufa]

On the military pension thing, am not smart enough to say if it is right or wrong, but think I recall reading that even revolutionary war vets received some kind of pension? Or maybe am remembering wrong. That is not to say the founders were never wrong, just that the tradition seems to go back a ways? Not a modern progressive invention?

They did. Their widows also received a pension as did the widows of soldiers from both sides of the "War of Northern Aggression".

Edited August 3, 2012 by Garufa

[sigmtnman]

Yes, it is a fact that they have given pensions for some time. The pension records are used to show that you had relatives who fought, in order to join some historical groups.

I'm not sure what to think about pensions no matter the source. For the .gov I see it falling under the cost of common defense. You'd think though if it were money in the bank so to speak you could chose your dog as a beneficiary of it if you wanted to.

[Garufa]

My take is "pensions" have been the norm since day one in this country. Revolutionary War pensions were first approved in 1776.

The practice is as old as the Nation itself.

[TSprint1]

"I'm not sure what to think about pensions no matter the source. For the .gov I see it falling under the cost of common defense. You'd think though if it were money in the bank so to speak you could chose your dog as a beneficiary of it if you wanted to."

Don't think so. Military Survivor Benefits assignment are pretty restricted as delineated at:

http://www.military.com/benefits/survivor-benefits/the-survivor-benefit-plan-explained.html

No obvious dogs, etc there.

[sigmtnman]

"I'm not sure what to think about pensions no matter the source. For the .gov I see it falling under the cost of common defense. You'd think though if it were money in the bank so to speak you could chose your dog as a beneficiary of it if you wanted to."

Don't think so. Military Survivor Benefits assignment are pretty restricted as delineated at:

http://www.military....-explained.html

No obvious dogs, etc there.

I didn't mean to imply it was currently possible. I was expanding on my previous thoughts.

Edited August 4, 2012 by sigmtnman

[RobertNashville]

Yes, it is a fact that they have given pensions for some time. The pension records are used to show that you had relatives who fought, in order to join some historical groups.

I'm not sure what to think about pensions no matter the source. For the .gov I see it falling under the cost of common defense. You'd think though if it were money in the bank so to speak you could chose your dog as a beneficiary of it if you wanted to.

Few pension plans exist any more outside of government service.

I've worked for two different companies and qualified for their pension plans; neither company offers then any longer. A pension can be crafted however the employers wants to do it but in most cases, the retiree usually has a choice of several options as to how the benefits are paid including whether there is a survivor's benefit or not.

[Mark@Sea]

Good luck finding that argument about gay marriage without a religious component. It's part and parcel to the argument, except to those who wish to throw away a tradition by allowing a group or class of people who have never had the ability to "marry" and now want it....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regretfully and respectfully disagree.

"I now define "moral behavior" as "behavior that tends toward survival." I won't argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word "moral" to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define "behavior that tends toward extinction" as being "moral" without stretching the word "moral" all out of shape."

Robert Heinlein, The Pragmatics of Patriotism, 1973 speech to Annapolis graduates

Heinlein referred to survival of the species, not the individual. For those who have not read the whole speech, I strongly recommend you take five minutes to google it. I have never found a better definition of morality.

Given that absent advanced medical technology, a same-sex couple cannot reproduce, same-sex marriage is immoral.

[Oh Shoot]

... Don't think so. Military Survivor Benefits assignment are pretty restricted ....

Public and private sector pensions in the civilian world are much the same.

- OS

[sigmtnman]

Few pension plans exist any more outside of government service.

I've worked for two different companies and qualified for their pension plans; neither company offers then any longer. A pension can be crafted however the employers wants to do it but in most cases, the retiree usually has a choice of several options as to how the benefits are paid including whether there is a survivor's benefit or not.

Yes, I had one at Lucent that had a number of options. The governments grubby hands sucked though.

[robin48]

My religion does not condone violence. I believe than anyone in the military is going to eternal hell. In fact I'm going to cheer when they unload the corpses off the plane. Since this is a religious statement it must be ok. Who wants to buy my hamburgers?

Troll much?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Regretfully and respectfully disagree.

"I now define "moral behavior" as "behavior that tends toward survival." I won't argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word "moral" to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define "behavior that tends toward extinction" as being "moral" without stretching the word "moral" all out of shape."

Robert Heinlein, The Pragmatics of Patriotism, 1973 speech to Annapolis graduates

Heinlein referred to survival of the species, not the individual. For those who have not read the whole speech, I strongly recommend you take five minutes to google it. I have never found a better definition of morality.

Given that absent advanced medical technology, a same-sex couple cannot reproduce, same-sex marriage is immoral.

Actually, I'm glad you showed that, Mark.

Unbelievable, a fantastic argument without using

a biblical reference, although it seems to parallel

the other argument very well.

I never thought to seek Heinlein's noggin.

Thanks! I'm happy to stand corrected

[Garufa]

How abouot we just leave religion out of it, let the homosexuals have legal unions with all the benefits of traditional "married" people, and just be done with it?

The biggest issue seem to be with the definition of "married" and the term itself. I got married in a church but you know what? I could not have done so without a government issued permit. Ergo, marriage is a government sanctioned and regulated matter in this society. The religious part is just a formality.

Let the gays have "civil unions", quit worrying about what is going on in other people's lives, bedrooms and minds. There really are more important issues in this country right now than inane social distractions.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Garufa

[sigmtnman]

Troll much?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

You are kidding or just late to the party?

[TGO David]

You've gotta wonder how sad a person's life has to be to come to a forum like TGO for the sole sake of trolling it. Small penis?

[Mark@Sea]

Nah. Graduated from a "womyns studies" course and can't find a job. Stuck in moms' basement with 120 grand in student loans and employed at Wendys.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Mark@Sea

[TGO David]

Nah. Graduated from a "womyns studies" course and can't find a job. Stuck in moms' basement with 120 grand in student loans and employed at Wendys.

Guess CFA wasn't hiring when he was looking.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Heinlein referred to survival of the species, not the individual. For those who have not read the whole speech, I strongly recommend you take five minutes to google it. I have never found a better definition of morality.

Given that absent advanced medical technology, a same-sex couple cannot reproduce, same-sex marriage is immoral.

Thanks Mark

I like Heinlein and there's probably not much he ever wrote haven't read some time or the other. He has had other opinions on the matter as well. It is no shame to be contradictory, as one can't write much without contradicting oneself every possible way. Nobody is entirely self-consistent.

The following is just devils-advocate thinking. Am not trying to prove any point.

Am not disagreeing with that definition of morality. Dunno if it has much to do with gay marriage except in limited situations. For instance, to short-circuit the debate whether the earth is overpopulated or if it can become so, imagine a generation starship which can support a max 1000 people. It can't support 1001 people and get to the destination. Imagine people live a long life on the starship. Once the population nudges up near 1000, having children becomes immoral because it threatens the survival of the group. Gay marriage wouldn't become necessarily moral, but on the other hand a childless person would be vastly more moral than a compulsive breeder so careless as to kill everybody on board with too many babies?

Even in our own situation, it seems difficult to imagine gay marriage would be immoral because it would cause humanity to die out. For one thing, if humanity dies out under forseeable conditions, it won't be because people didn't have enough babies. Big percentages of the population could decide to go childless before we would be in much danger of falling below a viable breeding population.

In addition, if reproduction is the only justification for marriage, then it is immoral for childless couples or old people beyond child-bearing age to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation.

In addition to addition, all it takes for a gay couple to reproduce is a turkey baster and a cooperative third party of the opposite sex. So as long as a gay couple has a turkey baster and a friend, would the gay marriage be moral?

In addition X 3, old Heinlein in some of his most memorable stories painted pictures of societies with large mixed-group marriages living good and prospering, with all the people in the marriage doing it like rabbits with each other regardless of sex. So Heinlein apparently, at least sometimes, didn't view gay marriage a survival liability.

====

Also, I really like sigmtnman's new squeal like a pig Polk county moniker. Excellent! If I was gonna move somewhere, it would be Polk county. Beautiful out there.