Posts by obigmcveyo

Thanks for all the suggestions!  Well I use one of those black hard plastic type spoons because I have a lot of non-stick stuff so I don't have very many metal utensil (in fact only my grilling stuff is metal). 

I did do the just boil water test and let it boil for a couple of hours and it actually seemed to turn out alright, and didn't appear to have any of the greyish color or metalic smell to it like the soup did, so there may be hope yet!  I suppose it could have been the chicken since it was frozen for a while before I used it.  Why would chicken take on a metalic taste?  I plan on trying to make up a small batch of soup some time next week and seeing if the same thing happens.  If not I will deffinitely look into some other pots.  The reason I like this one is because its big (12 or 14qt i think) and lets me make a lot for when family or friends come to visit. 

Thanks again for all the suggestions!

Thanks for the ideas!

I am not entirely sure what kind of pot it is, but its not alluminum (to heavy) so i think its a steel of some kind.  It might be anodized though.  Also, the soup I was making was not acidic, it was a simple chicken vegetable soup (whole roasting chicken, carrots, onions, celery, frozen spinach, lima beans, corn, green beans) but did not put any tomatoes in this batch.  Also, I noticed the broth got this grayish tint to it which I had also never seen before which I presume was from the pot as well.  After washing it though I didn't notice any places it seemed worn down or anything like that so I dunno. 

Perhaps the best bet would be to just try again and see if it happens, and if it does move on to a new pot.  Its a shame though, these pots aren't cheap. 

The only decline to society I can see is that there have been many studies that I am aware of done that advocate the idea that kids need both a father and mother when growing up because each gives a different kind of support and love. 

But...

Like you said that is no worst than many others in society today though, with how many broken families there are and how many others horrible things going on in society today, I don't think homosexuals should be excluded from the misery. 

As I stated before, a big problem with it is a lot of people see the word marriage and think of it as a holy ceremony, so if it was called something different when done by the state (civic union, etc) then you would have a lot less outcry for it.  I am not saying this is right, I am just saying its a little pet theory of mine. 

** I would like to add I am not saying that homosexuals cant be great parents and that all heterosexual couples are great parents, I am just saying I have seen a lot of studies that advocate a father and mother being in the house hold for optimum growth and upbringing of a child

Oh don't get me wrong I wasn't saying that they should be denied rights, I never implied that, I was just commenting on nasuoni's comment that people have no choice in being homosexual but have a choice to murder.  I was just saying some people have no choice to murder or not, if the are hard wired to do it. 

And I would say they are similar in that Homosexual has an urge and then acts on that urge just like a sociopath has an urge and then acts on that urge.  A sociopath is a state of being just as much as homosexuality is a state of being.

Im not picking a side since I don't live in California, but I have a couple questions/comments.

First, I don't think its unconstitutional because it is a state directive and the constitution gave the states the rights to make there own laws and govern as seen fit within their state, so because its a state proposition it then doesn't fall under the constitution. I could be wrong, but I think if it is not covered in the bill of rights then it is up to the states to come up with legislation for themselves. That is just my take on it anyways, I am no constitutional scholar by any means.

Secondly, I have a question about the law in the first place. I heard/read (I think) that when california voted to pass the allowance of gay marriage in the first place, that it wasn't passed by the popular vote but the California Legislation passed it anyways. Is there any truth to this? If that is the case then I can understand why it is on the ballot.

Oh man those were the good ole days.  I remember the day after wrestling season we would always go over to our one friends house and order like 15 pizzas and gallons of ice cream for 7 or 8 of us and just relax and watch movies and play video games, eat pizza and ice cream and goof off.  I completely understand why you would want to do that after not having to watch your weight any more for wrestling.  Don't even get me started on the all you can eat chicken wing nights we had in the off season.

Though that is to bad you had an injury and your season is over this early into it (has the season even started yet?), good luck with your recovery. 

Original Post by kathygator:

Original Post by obigmcveyo:

Well it would appear crazi, at least from the general consensus of this thread and the hostility/attitude displayed towards most conservatives, that we are indeed evil hate mongering people whose mission in life is to hold people down and take away peoples choices, and have no ability to think or reason on our own.

Interesting, at least its good to know how some people feel about us.

I think, with only a few exceptions, we've been pretty respectful of one another. It is regrettable that you don't see it that way. :/

You are right, most people have been respectful, but they can be respectful and still feel that way about conservatives.  And I am not saying it is either deserved or not (and I am not saying all feel this way) it was just an observation how it appears most people who aren't conservative think about and view us. 

And conservatives are no better, because a lot of them view most liberals as baby-killing hippies who just want to take away our hard earned money and give it to people who have never done anything to deserve it.  Again I am not saying whether it is deserved or not, it is just the general opinion a lot of conservatives have towards liberals. 

It is a shame both sides have this view point rather than trying to see how the other side views things and coming to compromises about things, rather then just seeing it as the other sides view and therefor inherently evil/wrong/stupid.

I love lamp!

Really though I love working with kids (tweens and teens) and when they say something completely profound and unexpected like its normal and makes me remember why I love working with them.

Original Post by ignayshus:

Original Post by pgeorgian:

Original Post by obigmcveyo:

And of course you want to dictate to me what I should do with my resources PG. If you didn't want to impose your believes on me, you wouldn't want any taxes for social programs that I thought were wrong and let me give the way I want and you give the way you want. But you think, because it is what you believe is right, that I should give money to everyone, even if I don't think so, but that is because you are open minded and correct, and I am closed minded and wrong. So yes you do want to impose your believes on me.

What if instead of taxes for social programs, they let people decide what social programs their tax dollars went to, that way you can give to what you think is important, and I will give to what I think is important.

oh, for godsake. yes, i would "impose" taxes on you. so would any government, including yours. we don't let people decide where their personal tax dollars go because it would be a beaurocratic nightmare (aren't you the ones who claim to want smaller government?) and because it would amount to institutionalized discrimination.

Actually that's an easy fix:

Contributions to a qualified charitable organization are treated as a dollar-for-dollar, non-refundable tax credit.

Personally I'd love that, because in most cases the government is at it's best when it's providing incentives toward the end it wants to effect and at it's worst when it's trying to actively administer/create the effect itself.

That is a good point Ig, isn't it like 65-85% you get back now if you give to a charity?  So anyone who gives to charity is in a way dictating how their taxes are being spent. 

And Kathy, I don't think they should be completely done away with, but what PG was arguing was that person should still get the same aid, whether they use it to buy drugs or food, and we have no right to tell them otherwise, and that is what I don't agree with.  If it was money they earned on their own then I have no right, but when it is money they are receiving from the government, from me, they should use it how it is meant to be used. 

Yes, I would agree that people have those basic rights, until they make choices to give up those rights.  For example, Kathy, do you think felons should be able to have the right to bear arms, which is a basic right of an American?  Or do you think they gave up that right when they committed the felon?  I think people should be able to have all those rights, until they make decisions and prove they are not deserving of those rights.

And of course you want to dictate to me what I should do with my resources PG.  If you didn't want to impose your believes on me, you wouldn't want any taxes for social programs that I thought were wrong and let me give the way I want and you give the way you want.  But you think, because it is what you believe is right, that I should give money to everyone, even if I don't think so, but that is because you are open minded and correct, and I am closed minded and wrong.  So yes you do want to impose your believes on me. 

What if instead of taxes for social programs, they let people decide what social programs their tax dollars went to, that way you can give to what you think is important, and I will give to what I think is important. 

I would also caution against using the word all mooni. I know many dems that have supported a lot of the things you stated (wasn't Al Gore's wife one of the bigger pushers of music censorship?) and I know many many 'conservatives' that are not for a lot of those things, and many on both sides that are in between and are for some and against other. I guess it is really defined differently for everyone, and if that is what her definition means doesn't mean all people apply to that definition. Two conservatives will have different definitions of what it is to be conservative, just like two liberals will have different definitions of what it means to be liberal. To some liberals it means bring all our troops home, and leave the world to themselves, but Obama doesn't want to do that, he just wants to take them from one place and move them to another, so is he not liberal then? I guess, the problem is that is one persons definition, and people are trying to apply it to all people who relate to that definition, and that cant be done, just like why stereotypes don't hold for a lot of people.

Original Post by kathygator:

Obig: Crazi's postition seemed to be no tax money for social programs. I took that to include federally funded grants and loans. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Thank you all for humoring me with such a good debate. :)

Well that could be her view on things, I could only talk for myself, but I guess I didn't quite see it like that.  I see the conclusion today is that there are no stereotypical conservatives or liberals, everyone has there own, slightly different view of things and which ever side they lean more towards is the side they usually associate with. I guess its kind of silly to try and lump people together like that.  Its a shame that the fundamental differences on things makes everyone look at the people on the other side of the isle as them as monsters and will not agree on things simply because it was brought up by a  democrat or republican, not because of what is or isn't best for the country.  But I also feel these same issues have been plaguing the country since it was established, so we are really debating the same things they were 230 years ago.

There are competitive admissions, and we definitely have to compete with international students as well, but I have not known a single person who has wanted to go to college that hasn't been able to.  Maybe I am fortunate there, it may not be the college of their choice, but anyone can go to a college after high school (or i assume trade school or another form of education).  The competitive admissions is more of a function of a compacity of a school, and based on merit as well, so anyone has the option to go to any school, regardless of race, religion, income, you just have to out perform everyone else trying to get in to that particular school, and if you don't get into that school there is another school you will be able to get into.  This is of course unless you basically failed high school or some other thing, in which case you would have to work to show you are ready for college, for if you let just anyone in then I would think you would see a much, much higher drop out rate. 

Original Post by hkellick:

I guess.. your attitude seems a little.. out of touch with reality, especially for someone whose family was terribly poor.
Do you think you would have succeeded in ANYTHING if education wasn't free? Especially in today's world where manufacturing jobs are heading out of town? I guess I have to doubt that you would.

My family was poor. We lost our home when I was 13 and my mom worked harder than anyone else to keep us in the place we had. If education WASN'T Free.. she would have had to begun to make choices... about whether or not she could avoid education (and at what cost). Choices that could have been things like.. education or clothes, or education or food. Especially with three of us.

It's my own experiences as someone who grew up fairly poor (maybe not out on the street, but unlike some, all my clothes were hand-me-downs, most of my books used, all of our groceries on sale. We lived check to check.), and made it himself fighting tooth and nail for every opportunity I got, that education is VITAL. Take that opportunity away.. and America will no longer be capable of being a great country.

I may have rambled a bit, but my point is... your attitude seems somewhat out of touch with your experiences.

Are we talking about k-12 education or college education?  I was assuming a college or post high school education. I agree that the k-12 education should be provided for everyone, but my Fathers college education wasn't free, and my education certainly wasn't free, and all of my friends educations certainly weren't free.  I think merit based systems are great and if you work for it then you should be able to go. What I was talking about is making college free for anyone who just wants to go.  But the point is, everyone does have the opportunity to go, if they work hard for it , so what needs to change about the system?

Well i guess you get what you ask for around here :)

First, santo, obviously kids are not subject to proving they are bettering themselves, that is a stretch on what I said.  I know I said everyone, so I will try and be more clear, sorry about any confusion. 

And HK made a good point, who picks what is acceptable.  So maybe it shouldn't be free for anyone, but incentives that make it free or something like that.  Or if you are an addict and trying to get better, prove it, provide them with the clinic they need to help quit and make sure they go and attend and keep track, if they don't then they forfeit  other benefits as well.  But i do not believe that just everyone should have automatic free health care, and encourage the already huge problem of people just taking advantage and leaching off the government, and leaving a lot less for people who actually need it and are working hard to do it. It is sad that welfare actually encourages people to not get work.  I don't have all the answers, I just know that to reward those who take advantage of an already broken system more is not the right answer. 

Do I think that everyone should have the option to get health care without bankrupting them, yes, do I think everyone is entitled to it, no. 

As far as PG's question, perhaps they should do an incentive program where there is a base price for health care and then provide incentives to that for not smoking, eating healthy, going to a gym/working out, not drinking in excess.  So for those that follow a healthy life style it would be free, but those who don't have to pay a little extra.  I am not saying this is full proof, just an idea.