potaetoes

What speakers are good? The 5150 speakers are known for being horrible, the XXX speakers are thin sounding and aren't all that wonderful, and no one really ever talks about the JSX cab or plays it but the few clips I heard weren't inspiring. the 10s in the classic 50 410 are good. the 12s in the 5150 cabs are quite good also - maybe not if you tune down to Z and play "brootal" metal alone in a bedroom, but they're actually good rock speakers. the 12 they stick in the bandit is a great match for that amp, too. their black widow cast-frame guitar speakers are generally well liked for clean tones, and their bass speakers are pretty well respected. really, speakers are not rocket science. it's just a metal basket with a magnet, a coil, some paper and some cloth. they build them about as well as anyone else. way too many dudes worry about the sticker on the back more than what something actually sounds like.

because they can. a lot of people bash their speakers just because they are peavey speakers, not because they're bad speakers. many of them are actually pretty good.

if they gave you the option of a having a smoker's lungs put in -vs- certain death from your own malfunctioning lungs, which would you choose? you could get cancerous lungs from a non-smoker, too, if the radiologist doesn't do his job diligently (which is what happened in this case - radiology error).

don't worry. she can't take the kids to iraq. hard for her to get custody if she's going to be facing likely deployment.

Originally posted by Loghead Whatever happened to blaming marijuana for all of society's ills? cheech and chong.

apparently "game on" means he's going to run and google things to look for support for his arguments, which explains why he hasn't been back.

Originally posted by guitar shmoe Gosh you are tiring....do I really have to list all the quotes from Thomas Jefferson that are ABSOLUTELY supportive of a Christian led Union?? though he was an open Deist...(along with B Franklin) Here's some T Jefferson to put in your pipe: " The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty, our student's perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens" Jefferson approved a Congressional decision to ordain special lands "for the sole use of Christian Indians"....."to be entrusted to the Moravian Brethren for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity" and in 1796 "An act Regulating the Grants of Land Appropriated for Military Services and for the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Christian Gospel among the Heathen" 3 times Jefferson voted to extend this act... In foreign affairs Jefferson sought to represent America as a Christian nation. Before the Treaty of Peace and Amity at Tripoli was ratified on June 4, 1804, Jefferson PERSONALLY required a particular clause (article XI) to be removed from the articles language. This clause stated that the United States "is not, in any sense, founded on Christian religion". On and on and on it goes....I have hundreds of em!!! Let's PLAY! GAME ON! so, who exactly are you quoting? seems like you're quoting someone with an agenda, who is talking about jefferson, which only demonstrates your agenda. aside from his suggestion of "perusal" (be sure to note the meaning of that word, and consider why he chose that instead of any of the other possible word choices, and consider also that there were no other texts in widespread print in English from which one could draw a general moral foundation at the time), you've got a whole lot of... not a lot. perusal of any and all religious texts makes people better citizens - believing any of it is certainly not required to benefit from reading it. there's something to learn from all significant texts, and understanding them is vital to understanding fellow citizens of all varieties. rather than manipulate his words, try to just post them as they are without the clutter of rhetoric around them. i'm sorry if it's tiring to you. persistant futility generally requires a lot of effort.

Originally posted by guitar shmoe Why didn't our founding Fathers choose any of the MANY available eastern religions to build our nation? Why Christianity? they didn't choose that either. they specifically rejected specifying any single religious system. it just so happens that the majority of religious systems share the same basic moral foundation.

did somebody say the founding fathers agreed upon christianity definitively as a moral base? actual history shows that they specifically rejected it. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782 Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787 History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813. Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814 And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Originally posted by Towelie v2.0 (I might be off with a few things there). not too far off - but mass production/mass consumerism began before WWII with Ford's production models and Keynes's welfare state and mass consumerism ideas, commonly referred to as the "Fordist/Keynesian Paradigm" the bretton woods agreements after WWII established the western economic stranglehold on most of the world. the war certainly played a role, but in itself wasn't responsible for things being how they are. it essentially created the opportunity to implement the ideas that were already around. they would have been implemented some other way, in some other fashion, eventually. edit: forgot to say... yes, it will be the demise of our economic superiority, eventually. it's a boom-bust cycle, and with every subsequent boom and bust, the peaks and valleys get more extreme. eventually there will be a suicidal boom, and/or a bust that proves devastating enough that the system will essentially collapse, disintegrate, and be consumed by a different system. china is following a similar path that we did, only with a different mechanism for implementing it, and they're learning from our mistakes. in all likelihood they will achieve greater economic stability and a longer turn in the driver's seat than we have enjoyed. when the big players start evacuating the US economy, keep your eyes open. it's no coincidence that gates and buffett are beginning to orchestrate their withdrawals.

Originally posted by guitar shmoe Ann Coulter is RIGHT! haha!

Originally posted by Loghead Is this a political or a religious thread? for some, there's no difference between the two, which makes them inept at discussing either.

Originally posted by guitar shmoe you really are a pumpkin head if you don't believe the gay lesbian agenda to squash opposition to their lifestyle is REAL and IN YOUR FACE. They are very adamant about legislating their lifestyle and prosecuting/jailing those opposed to the homosexual lifestyle as a 'civil' matter equated with race and hate crimes...where have you been? it's quite the opposite. they're adamant about keeping jerks like you from legislating against their personal liberty. are you really that stupid?

Originally posted by guitar shmoe and you denying it doesn't prove anything.... if you want to be a homo? go ahead.... if you want to take away my RIGHT to disagree with you publically....then it is anti-American. who said anything about taking away that right? disagree publicly all you want. like i said, you'll always be free to be an asshole, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

Originally posted by guitar shmoe do you think TRUTH is time sensitive?....how many years of evolution do you think will have to transpire before a homosexual male starts producing a fetus instead of a turd? if gays and lesbians want to sexually gratify themselves at the expense of 'any orafice goes'...then, GO AHEAD! I have nothing against their right to PRIVACY.....now, if what they are trying to do is LEGITIMIZE this activity and make it "illegal" for me to disagree with this lifestyle (which is what they are trying to do...) so that I cannot publically object or be thrown in jail...THEN, I believe this is nothing more than ol' fashion reverse McCarthyism...FORCING me to agree or else! this is NOT American! I do Not FORCE my worldview down any one's throat, I don't try to LEGISLATE my lifestyle so that others cannot disagree with me or be thrown in jail. what the hell are you blathering about? you'll always be free to be as big an asshole as you want to be. you can hate fags as to your heart's content, no matter what law is passed. you can't do it in such a way that it impinges on another person's life, and that IS american. discrimination is your right, go ahead and do it all you want, as long as it doesn't affect other people - being free from the consequences of your choice to discriminate is everyone else's right. laws against discrimination do NOT hurt you at all. it just prevents your beliefs from screwing up other people's lives, which is EXACTLY what this country was founded on.

Originally posted by guitar shmoe I will say it again....The ONLY thing separating gays from non-gays is a sexual act... you can say it as many times as you want - it won't magically become a fact.

Originally posted by rgf Re-read your statement.....it really makes no sense.....'you are fighting for americans, not a symbol'.....very next sentence....'the flag represents liberty gained by revolution against oppressive government'....Question - If the flag 'represents' something, wouldn't that make it a symbol? Now go sit on your avatar! yes, you moron, that does make it a symbol. that's what flags are, and that's all that they are. it is ONLY a symbol. symbols are not what anyone with half a brain fights for. what part of that confuses you?

Originally posted by boogienights Don't confuse my team with the Government, I'm talking about people that put on uniforms to defend YOU! It seems you just comprehend what you want and spew anti-government statements as fast as you can don't you, you are eager to spread your' beliefs, go ahead and pick apart/twist what I say and use it for your' own purpose,what you say doesn't matter and nobody cares. In the end boys still have a penis and girls still have a vagina. that's just it though. you're fighting for americans, not a flag, not a symbol. you're fighting for what the flag represents, not the actual flag. the flag represents liberty gained by revolution against oppressive government. if our government outlawed our right to invoke its very meaning by burning it in protest, it would no longer have that meaning at all. it would then simply be a new symbol of oppression. is that what you fought for?

Originally posted by Lgehrig4 Once again I never said unnatural. Imperfection can be natural. I think it is clear to all of us when something goes wrong. I feel homosexuality is an abberation of nature just like someone with an extra limb. If homosexuality was the intent (I only say intent b/c I don't know of any way to put this) of nature we woldn't be having this conversation. Lastly, I thought I made it clear that the only differences b/t Hets & Homs were sexual preferences. This means that I respect them no differently than I would Hets. IMO the beneifts of marriage in our society should be reserved for het couples. i'm going to invoke godwin's law (a.k.a. internet rule #4) here: hitler would have agreed with most of what you've been saying.

Originally posted by guitar shmoe burning/desecrating the flag, soon will NOT be a 'right' now you're a fortune teller? i think i'll burn a flag in your honor.

Originally posted by Lgehrig4 When you run out of sarcasm see if you have any intelligent thoughts swimming around that you care to share. oh, so you want me to go first?

Originally posted by Lgehrig4 I am not religious nor do I have anything against homosexuality. when a man lusts after another man or woman lusts after another woman there is a problem. Genetic? Learned? Who knows, but it goes against the nature of all living creatures - to procreate and continue the gene pool. I would never avoid or disrespect a person for being gay because they feel, care and have the same needs as heteros and outside of our sexual preferences we are the same. I will not, however, pretend that everything is normal because it is not! Lusting after the same sex is not what nature intended. An albino lacking pigment is not what nature intended. A mentally retarded person is not result of the perfectly developed fetus. That said, IMO the benefits of marriage should be only be for couples made of one man and one woman. Why? Not because God said so. Not because it is disgusting. Because only man and woman and create a child and raise the child to do the same therefore continuing the race(many do a poor job these days). Marriage evolved because humans have a reproductive instinct and ability to rationalize. hey, everybody, check it out. somehow, this guy found out the very intention of nature! he also is an expert on the evolution of marriage and the nature of all living creatures!

Originally posted by Loghead Are you spinning words for a living these days? i just try to line them up in some kind of sensible order.

guess who forgot to read the Federal Flag Code, section 4, article g...

Originally posted by Loghead Not at all. Sentence variety is the spice of life. well, sometimes you don't want too much spice in your bread and butter.