Jump to content

Texas_Fett

Members
  • Posts

    831
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Legacy Profile Fields

  • LOCATION
    Financing my 'vette...

Texas_Fett's Achievements

Experienced

Experienced (11/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Been awhile since I've been around. Finally got a comp that could load Rebellion & Rebed without errors. Anyhoo, I've been trying to tweak things, and I'm trying to find a couple ship models. Anyone know if models are available for these? I think a few were in EAW, but I'm not too sure. MC30: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/MC30 Braha'tok Gunship: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Braha'tok-class_gunship Victory II Frigate (from BFII): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Victory_II-class_frigate Storm Commando Escort Carrier (from RSIII): http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Storm_Commando_escort_carrier Assault Frigate Mk 2: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Assault_Frigate_Mark_II Any help would be appreciated! -TF
  2. I'm relieved to see we haven't been directly affected by the London bombings. It's encouraging to see how the British people, as a whole, have reacted to it, however. Give 'em hell, Tony!! -Texas_Fett
  3. Which just proved my point. Actually, we've had higher turnouts over the course of the last three elections. 48% in '96 to 51% in 2000 to an estimated 54% in the last one. And if over half of registered voters are having their say...that's a good thing. "All men are created equal." That's self-explanatory right, if they are equal, then why can some marry their loved one, and why can some can't? Ok, "Pursuit of happiness," well they are certainly barred from that if they can't marry whomever they want. Not at all. They are free to pursue their happiness. They just can't marry another homosexual. Except that no rights are being trampled on, so no change is necessary. What, you think it's an arbitrary decision? No, there are reasons why gays aren't allowed in the military, and disruption of unit cohesiveness is but one of many. It's a DESTRUCTIVE 'lifestyle', and one that cannot be allowed into the military. Sure, there are areas other than the gay marriage debate (which was the subject of the argument and the reason for my statement above) where descrimination is necessary. You can't just let anyone into the military; you have to discriminate. I can't fly a fighter jet because of my vision, but I'm not about to storm congress because I can't adequately "pursue happiness" because of it. And also not part of the natural order. Geez, again you've just proven my point. It's against the natural order, hence they can't reproduce. You know as well as I that I was referring to the Grecian civilization that was conquered first by the Persians and then the Romans. The Romans had a failing economy, true, but the decadence of Rome and the atrophy of it's armies (due to relaxed standards) were also direct causes. And I take offense at your last line, JI. I expected better of you. That's your right, just as it is mine to disregard yours. Was he? And we're sure they married, are we? That's a rather civilized development, and one that I would find to be quite above the missing links...that is, from what we know of them, which isn't much. So it's impossible to "keep and open mind" and/or be logical if you're religious? And somehow the prejudice atheists bring to the argument is somehow superior to anyone else's argument? That sounds awful 3rd-Reich-ish, JI. I'd say y'all should try to be open minded and see the argument from our side, rather than just dismissing outright it from your obviously superior intellect and position. I fail to see what bearing that has on things, other than to hint you're for the downfall of society. Personally, I'd rather try to rescue what we have before resorting to armed insurgency and the overthrow of government, but hey! Whatever floats your boat... Ah yes, the almighty Euro. We'll see how long the corrupt European Union lasts. It even doubts the longevity of it's own existence because of it. Great for trade (assuming you can eliminate the corruption), but they cannot agree on any other aspect of existence. I'd refer you to the birth rates of pretty much all respective European countries. You have to maintain an birth rate of 2.1 to maintain your population size. Each Western European country has a birth rate below 1.5! (Great Britain might be an exception, though. See this story for more info. Or here.) That, my friend, is NOT a sign of a prosperous society. That's a dying one. I'd like to stop the trend here in the US. As I already said, civil unions don't particularly bother me. It's when they begin attempting to redefine marriage that I take issue. Republicans were liberal? They were even more conservative than they are now! Isolationist, protectionist...you name it! Democrats were more conservative than they were now, but they've been drifting left since then. JFK was pushing tax cuts, for Pete's sake! But all in all...a pretty accurate assessment. Cuts both ways, don't it? Now that's taking scripture out of context! Now I'm a hypocrite? For what, not compromising my beliefs? Thanks for the riposte, JI. I'd love to continue, but I'm gone for the next month. Glad we've at least tried to keep things civil.
  4. "Liberal" is a term in the American vernacular which describes a far-left political viewpoint. With little consideration for the rule of law (or the Constitution for that matter) a liberal seeks to redefine society at large based on what they perceive to be "fair" with little regard to the facts. As the previous two US Presidential elections and the last five Congressional elections show, the US population is growing more conservative in their idealogy after three and a half decades of the pendulum swinging toward the liberal view. Outrage is growing over "Liberal Activist Judges" who change laws by fiat rather than through the established legal system, overstepping their authority in the judicial branch. Much the same, there is growing unrest at Liberal Senators overstepping their authority in regards to filibustering judicial nominations. In short, a "liberal" is out-of-touch with Real America, as evidenced by their stubborn insistance that the reason they keep losing elections is because they aren't communicating their message loudly enough rather than the fact that more Americans are simply rejecting that message. I was by no means accusing your Supreme Court; that was merely a jest. But the current U.S. Supreme Court sits at a 4-4-1 balance, with Ruth Bader Ginsberg as the "independant". I certainly won't vouch for their complete impartiality, but they have shown a bit more restraint than, say, the 9th Circuit (Circus) Court of Appeals. I think that 1 of both equivocal and equicovate are applicable here. You stated that gays have the same rights as you. As individuals, this would be correct. Taken into consideration with a gay couple, however, this changes. You could say that they have hte exact same rights as you, but they do not have the right to become joined in a civil union with their significant other. They do not have the right to the same benefits as a non-gay couple. Your words fit into the above because, though they have the same rights as you, those rights are not at all applicable to their situation. Sure they have the same rights as a couple! They have the same right to become a heterosexual couple that I do! They could only claim inequality if I, or a certain demographic group, were allowed to wed homosexally and they weren't! There is NO inequality of rights here! And my words do NOT fit into your definitions, btw, (even though it's the same definition that I listed ) because there is no intent on my part to mislead! It's not my fault you're comparing apples and oranges. No, they aren't being discriminated against. Period. They are being challenged on their attempt to redefine the institution of marriage. They want to force change upon the American public regardless of the consequences. Yes, it would be. But thank God, in his infinite wisdom, that this is NOT the case. And thank mother nature that the only way to reproduce where mammals are concerned is via a heterosexual relationship. No, that would be a right that I would choose not to exercise, just as you have chosen not to exercise your right to own a gun. That wouldn't give me the 'right' to claim discrimination. However, it's a moot point because any such society would be doomed to extinction within a single generation. Not when inacting new legislation to accomdate the supposed inequity sacrifices the stability of the entire society. What about all the unintended consequences? Do you know who else is building on the "gay-marriage" bandwagon? Polygamists, pedophiles, bestiality...where does it end? No. Gay 'marriage' goes against the natural order (that's a scientific fact, not just a religious p.o.v.) and should not be rewarded. It has always contributed to or directly brought down societies, not enlightened them (i.e., Rome, Greece, Sodom & Gamorrah...). It is wrong. It is perverse. It is a sin. It cannot be tolerated, let alone thought to be the same as a married heterosexual couple. You're right. If anyone should have a say in this, it's the Hebrews. Oh, look at that! They're against gay marriage too! To go back to the beginning means back in Genesis...and we all know what happened there. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And I would suggest that you look at this issue from the perspective that as an athiest you are just as prejudiced in your approach. Athiesm is actually described as a religion itself, since it is a belief that their is no higher power. I can no more "put my religion aside" than you can put your atheism aside. Your P.O.V. is by no means superior to mine, and your insinuation that it is is an insult to me and to millions of others who think likewise. You think it's some kind of crutch? A ploy? That I don't truly believe what it says in scripture? Do you think it's some delusional mass hysteria...a need for purpose and belief in what you deem (in your all-knowing atheist state) to be a false mythology? I sincerely hope not, but your comments are beginning to sound that way. I'm talking about a society (i.e., The United States) whose entire legal and moral system was/is founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs, like it or not. Undermining those beliefs undermines the system. And "gay marriage" DEFINITELY undermines...well, everything. And you DO need guidelines for it to be considered a marriage. Where, in recorded history, has gay "marriage" ever been sactioned? What's more, in the unlikely event that situation has occured, has that society prospered? Now I don't mean that the act itself was 'sactioned' in that it was tolerated while everyone else looked the other way. I mean was the act of homosexuality and subsequent "marriage" ever condoned? Don't bother looking...we all know the answer. No, it hasn't, and for good reason. It's destructive to society. That's not just religious hysteria, either; history backs me on this one. Oh, I'm well aware of their desire for spousal powers regarding wills, right-to-life issues, etc. But I was simplifying the matter for the sake of argument. No 'elephant' (or Rhino) was involved. Yes, there are Christian gays. Or rather, reformed Christian gays, as the majority have realized the perversion and sin of their ways and have since repented. As for those who want to blurr the line and continue practicing their 'lifestyle' while claiming to still be Christian...I definitely question their faith. And yes, it does encroach on my religion to 'accept' a gay married couple. They cannot be married in Christ (as per Jesus' own words...it's a sin equal to witchcraft and idolatry, in that they cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven), therefore they are not married. And forcing me to 'accept' that they are married is an infringement upon my beliefs. An athiest technically cannot be married in a Catholic Church, and such a marriage would be strongly advised against in any other Protestant Church as well. A 'gay' and 'straight' couple are most certainly not the same in terms of a relationship. How can children be produced? Sure, there's adoption, but that's a whole 'nuther issue. True, but you'll also find that those old-time limitations on slaves and women were proven wrong scripturally, as well. No such chance on gay marriage. The strongest proponents of civil rights and suffrage were Christians. The strongest detractors of civil rights were Liberal Democrats. The US Civil Rights Act would not have passed without Republican support, as more than half of the Senate Democrats (including sitting Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd) voted against it. Anyway, I've said my piece. I can dance in circles on this topic and I know I won't change your mind, GAT. But I do hope I've opened your eyes a bit. "Any man under the age of thirty who is not a liberal has no heart...yet any man over the age of thirty who is not a conservative has no brain." -Winston Churchill
  5. Huh? What's this in reference to? Ah, the old "Liberal Activist Judges" ploy, eh? Now, I take issue there. According to webster.com: I am in no means attempting to deceive, and I'm quite committed in what I say. I'd counter that anyone attempting to argue that homosexuals are being denied rights is being "equivocational" in the first definition, although I don't doubt their commitment. Again, gays have all of the same rights that I, as a heterosexual, do. They just choose not to exercise them. So now we're supposed to create new rights for them? Or even worse, redefine a fundamental tenet of the law despite its roots in Christianity for the sake of a tax break? I don't think so. If anything, I'd tentatively support a civil union, but gays should by no means have the same status as a heterosexual married couple, and should not be able to force society at large to accept that they're 'married'. (So much for freedom of religion!) Their 'cause' is nowhere near the level of the civil rights movement for blacks/afro-americans/whichever-PC-term-is-in-vogue-this-week, and it's a travesty that they're seeking to make it so. Are they enslaved? No. Are they being denied rights? No. They are CHOOSING not to exercise them!
  6. Correct. I, also, do not have the right to marry someone of the same sex. We are, therefore, equal. Likewise, they have the same rights I do: to marry someone of the opposite sex and reap the 'benefits' of the marriage tax. Citizens of the US are entitled to "the pursuit of happiness."...they aren't guaranteed happiness. Just as people aren't guaranteed to have a good marriage. The 'right' to marriage, despite sexual preferences, doesn't exist.
  7. I think you may have it backwards, GAT. You said yourself that ...and this is pretty much the same ideal behind the US Constitution. As such, fundamental Christian beliefs are inherently part of our respective societies and serve as the building blocks for our legal systems. Central to that theme is the the sacrament of marriage and it's definition as prescribed by God; i.e., between a man and a woman. Therefore, to challenge that definition and seek to change it undermines the foundation of the entire legal system which will, in turn, lead to even greater challenges which will eventually result in it's entire collapse. Best to avoid the end of civilization as we know it, IMHO. Of course, from an atheist's perspective, that whole scenario may be hard to swallow, but that's the basis for the concept. We're not using a "but that's the way it's always been" argument...that's just childish. As is the "change/progression for change's/progression's sake". I mean, from a scientific standpoint, why are we even having a discussion about gay marriage, anyway? It flies in the face of 'evolution' and 'Darwin's Theory' to begin with, and whenever homosexuality occurs anywhere else in nature it quickly dies out since it goes against the natural order. Yet we, as humans, are suddenly above all that? Logical thinking there. I believe that is called a 'plot hole' in literature. I'd go into more depth, but I've gotta get to work. Laters!
  8. Sure Hutton! I'd like to take a gander at your work, especially where Rebel pilots are concerned.
  9. emphasis mine - TF That's not to say there is a complete separation, but it is in your constitution. Precisely my point! The ONLY thing that the US Constitution says is that "CONGRESS shall make no law" It doesn't say a thing about prayer in schools (regardless of whether or not they receive federal money), the Ten Commandments in public buildings and courthouses, or even if individual States want to establish an official state religion! That section of the Constitution is listing the limitations of the Legislative Branch of our government, not limiting the actions of all Americans. It applies ONLY to the House of Representatives and the Senate.
  10. Another consideration is that France was known for ages as the "eldest daughter of Rome" for having such staunch support across the board for the Vatican and Catholicism in general. Now, 'separation of church and state' aside, (a phrase that appears NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, or ANY legal document apart from the opinions of activist judges, thank-you-very-much. So long as Congress doesn't pass a law saying "Christianity is the only sanctioned religion of the US", we're fine. But I digress...) you cannot ignore the history of your country or the opinions and attitudes of the majority of your citizens. Honoring a religious and secular leader like Pope John Paul II is not an endorsement of Catholicism, contrary to the Socialist's perspective. I know they're trying to 'prevent the passionate upheaval caused by religious fervor in government', but really... BTW, what does 'laic' mean?
  11. Congratz! Let me know how geeky it is when they arrive! I wish I had the cash to spend on all the sets I always wanted...
  12. Okay, I had (have) set 493, 6805, 6825, 6826 (and other small ones), 6844, 6845, 6846, 6847, 6871, 6872 (I loved this one!), 6874, 6881, 6882, 6883, 6884, 6891 (Another favorite of mine, for obvious reasons), 6930, (I wanted 6931), 6950, 6952, and 6972. And those are just the old-school sets. I also had some Blacktron, et al, but I'll spare the list of those.
  13. I go back even further than that, SOCL...I have some sets from 1983. That was back before Space Police and Blacktron...before helmet visors, even. Back when you prayed to God that you wouldn't get more than one goofy lego spaceman in yellow...

Copyright (c) 1999-2022 by SWRebellion Community - All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters. Star Wars(TM) is a registered trademark of LucasFilm, Ltd. We are not affiliated with LucasFilm or Walt Disney. This is a fan site and online gaming community (non-profit). Powered by Invision Community

×
×
  • Create New...