YTSEJAM Digest 7013 Today's Topics: 1) Re: RE: Morse, Chroma Key, Sherinian by Jay Omega 2) kerry by "Trevor Hoit" 3) Re: YTSEJAM digest 7012 by "T. Beachler" 4) by rob denni 5) RE: Kerry and Bush; abortion and choice by "Andrew Coutermarsh" 6) Re: YTSEJAM digest 7012 by "Bill Huston" 7) Re: The stock market and our economy by Steve Chew ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 22:30:23 -0600 From: Jay Omega To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: RE: Morse, Chroma Key, Sherinian Message-ID: 11/5/2004 8:24:23 AM, "Niall Connaughton" wrote: >So take your dubya propaganda and stick it! Kerry for President! Kerry for >DT's new keyboardist! Didn't he vote for the 88 keys before he voted against them? :-) --Jay "can't believe he delurked for that" Omega --np: Pale Acute Moon - Newtopia ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 00:21:17 -0800 From: "Trevor Hoit" To: Subject: kerry Message-ID: <004f01c4c3d9$9903d020$message_id_removed> >From: rob denni >If your not for Kerry, your a dumb backwoods >redneck. I believe the correct phrase is: http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=3D344 ---YTSEJAM FILTER: Rest of message skipped because of attachment ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 03:52:24 -0800 (PST) From: "T. Beachler" To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 7012 Message-ID: Andrew, You could argue the other way, too. "People that voted for Kerry merely because he's pro-choice are extremely ignorant mainly because I think it's hypocritical to vote for somebody who's pro-choice but is also against the death penalty; how can you say that the sanctity of life isn't important if you're prenatal but once you're born and commit murder we have no problem allowing you to live?" For the record, I'm against the death penalty. I think letting a criminal suffer for their natural life is a greater punishment than killing them. Also, courts and jurors have been found to be wrong. I'd hate to find out I was responsible for putting an innocent person to death. I'm also, pro-choice. My definition is slightly different than how the liberals define it. I believe people have the right to choose if they want to have sex and if they do whether they'll use protection or not. The choice should be made a lot sooner and not after life has been created. Abortion shouldn't be used as a late-term prophylactic. /occasional-read-mode=ON Todd P.S. My first post in a few years. ;) > From: "Andrew Coutermarsh" > To: > Subject: RE: > *SNIP* > I have my reasons for voting Kerry, and I hope that > you don't think I'M > out of touch for voting for him, but the major > reason has nothing to do > with many other people's reasons. I didn't vote for > him because he's pro- > choice (although I do think that people who voted > for Bush merely because > he's pro-life are extremely ignorant mainly because > I think it's > hypocritical to vote for somebody who's pro-life but > is also pro-death > penalty; how can you say that the sanctity of life > is so important if > you're prenatal but once you're born we have no > problem killing you?). __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ---YTSEJAM-FILTER: This message was posted using the YML command ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 04:10:17 -0800 (PST) From: rob denni To: ytsejam Message-ID: Wow Andrew, what a cool post. I actually agree with some of what you said. I do think the Patriot Act is the biggest assault on our civil liberties ever. And if I'm not mistaken, didn't the Supreme Court find some of it unconstitutional? Anyway the point about the cd's was just one specific area. I believe that people think its a bad economy just because the news portrays it. How are you personally affected? Now I know that Ohio was hit hard so I could understand if they were disgruntled. As far as "disgruntled" workers go, there are a lot of people that do jobs that they either don't like or are over qualified for. If you get a degree in a specific field, there is no guarantee that there will be work for you in that field regardless of the economy. It's not the governments job to provide everyone with a job that they want to do. You have to make choices in your life and then live with them. The point is, these "disgruntled" workers could find work. Even though I disagree with a lot of Bush policies, I still voted for him for one reason, the war on terror. I trust him to do a better job than Kerry on that. ==== "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." -- Robert Heinlein "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy." -- Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, 1943. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 12:15:33 -0500 From: "Andrew Coutermarsh" To: Subject: RE: Kerry and Bush; abortion and choice Message-ID: > From: T. Beachler > Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 6:59 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 7012 > > Andrew, > You could argue the other way, too. > > "People that voted for Kerry merely because he's pro-choice are extremely > ignorant mainly because I think it's hypocritical to vote for somebody > who's pro-choice but is also against the death penalty; how can you say > that the sanctity of life isn't important if you're prenatal but once > you're born and commit murder we have no problem allowing you to live?" Okay, I don't really think that this one works as well. You make the phrase "we have no problem allowing you to live" sound like a bad thing, when, in fact, it's a right that no human really has the right to take away. On the other hand, the taking of the "life" of an embryo is a topic that's up for debate; more on that a little further down. Now, I think I may have confused people by saying that thing about people who voted for Bush because he's pro-life... I never claimed I was pro-choice. I merely stated that I thought it was ignorant (and not a little hypocritical) for people to blindly follow those religious doctrines to the letter, but completely ignoring the other side of it. > For the record, I'm against the death penalty. I think letting a criminal > suffer for their natural life is a greater punishment than killing them. > Also, courts and jurors have been found to be wrong. I'd hate to find out > I was responsible for putting an innocent person to death. I think it's not for me to decide who lives and who dies. I suppose that as a spiritual person, I have to leave those kinds of decisions up to the Guy Upstairs. That's just too much responsibility for me. > I'm also, pro-choice. My definition is slightly different than how the > liberals define it. I believe people have the right to choose if they > want to have sex and if they do whether they'll use protection or not. > The choice should be made a lot sooner and not after life has been > created. Abortion shouldn't be used as a late-term prophylactic. I very much agree with this; I would prefer what you described as well. I would also counsel women to have their babies and give them up for adoption (though I balk at the notion, given how many children there are in the foster-home project nowadays). The problem that I see is this: Abortion is really a religious topic and always has been. For those of you who aren't religious and are against abortion, I'd really be interested to know why, because here is how I see it: The reason that most people who are against abortion are against it seems to be because they believe it is murder of a human life. But scientific method proves that a human embryo is NOT a human life, but merely a conglomeration of cells. So according to science, we could "safely" abort an embryo before it becomes a fetus and starts developing organs, right? Because up until that point, it's just a bunch of cells dividing and dividing some more. However, where does one draw the line? At what point should you NOT be able to kill that parasitic organism that's inside the woman's uterus? I think that based on the best evidence they have, that science has come up with a pretty good way of determining it: You can't really call it a human life until it would be able to actually live on its own. So they determined that the end of the second trimester is where they draw the line; before that the baby has no chance of being able to live on its own, so there's no way you could call it a human. And this is why I say that I think people who are against abortion because they believe it's killing a human life are religious. If you weren't saying that on religious grounds, what other grounds would you have? Wouldn't you prefer to trust science over a vague definition that human life begins at conception (which I find funny, given that a woman will abort a fertilized egg many times if she's on the pill, and given that many times a human body will naturally abort an egg merely because it doesn't attach itself to the uterus... are those "human souls" brought up to God even though they "lived" for about a day, maybe less?)? I don't know... Being a religious person I think that it would be better to err on the side of caution, but I believe that religion does a lot of bad things because they believe it's right. Discrimination. Hatred. These are things that the church teaches us. Hate the sin, love the sinner? How about just "love the sinner and accept him for what he is"? My gay friends are NOT evil, nor do I feel they're going to hell for doing what they feel is a natural thing to be doing. And to think that people are so scared of that that they'd make laws against it... well, that just blows my mind. I still don't understand how people think that gay marriage would in ANY way destroy the "sanctity" of marriage, whatever THAT is. I don't even see how you could destroy an institution that has a 50% breakage rate anyway. God forbid you see two people who love each other confirm that love in front of everybody. Sorry, jumped topics there. Andrew Coutermarsh http://www.acvox.com/ andrew at acvox dot com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:05:34 -0700 From: "Bill Huston" To: Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 7012 Message-ID: Now THIS is the ytsejam I know and love.... Relevance at its finest ; ) > > Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 01:25:27 +1100 > From: "Niall Connaughton" > To: > Subject: RE: Morse, Chroma Key, Sherinian > Message-ID: > > No no NO! You are completely WRONG! This is a typical attitude from one of > those ignorant, right-wing psychopaths. Open your eyes! > > It is quite clear to anyone who is in the least bit intelligent that Kerry > is a major fan and supporter of Pain of Salvation, Opeth and I've even > heard > Porcupine Tree. The whole "out of touch" thing is a vicious rumour spread > by > the government and the sheep in the public. That means YOU! > > Actually, Bush wouldn't even be able to pretend to be a fan of Morse, > Chromakey and Sherinian if it wasn't for Kerry, because Kerry INVENTED > progressive rock and metal in the first place, back when he was in > VIETNAM. > And that's a FACT! > > So take your dubya propaganda and stick it! Kerry for President! Kerry for > DT's new keyboardist! > >>Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:01:05 EST >From: email_address_removed >To: ytsejam@torchsong.com >Subject: Re: Morse, Chroma Key, Sherinian >Message-ID: > > >-------------------------------1099670465 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" > >point of order: al gore invented prog rock with the intent of using the >internet (another of his inventions) to provide us with discusion boards so >we >could get the word out on these great bands that will never be on mtv >(which was >invented by bill and hillary clinton). kerry was just along for the ride. email_address_removed ---YTSEJAM FILTER: Rest of message skipped because of attachment ---YTSEJAM-FILTER: This message was posted using the YML command ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 14:31:13 -0500 From: Steve Chew To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: The stock market and our economy Message-ID: > >If I posted that I bought five CDs, would you be saying "See? The >economy's not bad." However, you have no way of knowing how I got those >five CDs, nor is it really fair to judge the entire economy based on a >75 purchase. If those were the only five CDs I bought all year, suddenly >it doesn't fit that I "have money to buy cd's." > Agreed. >Second: Yes, the unemployment level is at a relatively low rate. But the >only reason for that is that the unemployment figures don't include so- >called "discouraged workers," which is the number of people who have >stopped looking for work altogether. I heard on the news that if the >number of discouraged workers was factored in, our unemployment rate would >be something like eleven percent. > Yes, I wish they would release those numbers too, though I think they're harder to track. If the jobs keep growing at the rate they did last month (unlikely) then Bush may end up not losing jobs during his term which would be a good sign. >Thirdly, the Dow is NOT an indicator of the economy. > On the contrary, the Dow and other stock market indexes are excellent indicators of the health of the economy. If you look at the last 40+ years of the stock market indexes like the DJIA and S&P500 you'll notice that when the economy is improving or healthy the stock market is trending up. When we're in a recession it goes down. This can be seen most recently in the 2000 - 2003 recession, but also occured in the early 1990s recession, the mid-70s and numerous other times. The actual numeric value (10,000) isn't the indicator but rather the trend, up or down. I've looked at the trends and they are there (I don't mean daily or weekly trends, but yearly). There are many reasons for this, but one of the primary ones is that, as you said, the indexes reflect how well particular companies are doing. In an improving or healthy economy the companies will perform better (make more money) and therefore investors will have more confidence to invest in them, driving their price up, thereby pushing the index up. The trend of the economy and the stock market trend are very closely related. > >There is no possible way that I can support a president who ADVOCATES >citizens' giving up their civil liberties. The PATRIOT Act is a perfect >indicator of how Americans are so willing to give up their freedoms to >obtain a little bit of convenience in their lives. As Benjamin Franklin >once said, "Anybody who would give up essential liberties in order to >obtain a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security." >I think that statement has never been more true than it is today. In > I agree strongly with you here. I'm really tired of people giving up liberties in the name of security, especially when most of the security is only perceived rather than real. Steve ------------------------------ End of YTSEJAM Digest 7013 ************************** === Contributions to ytsejam: ytsejam@torchsong.com === === Send requests to: ytsejam-request@torchsong.com === === More information at: http://www.dreamt.org/local/ytsejam.php === === Brought by the ghost of ytsejam@arastar.coms past === === Reach the owner of this list at: ytsejam-owner@torchsong.com ===