crazymf

I is what I is.

Further, who are we to invade and convert them by the sword? That is a tricky one. Is it on behalf of an oppressed majority, or minority? If only one person out of 20 million want change, is that enough to justify invasion? What would be the parameters of justifying the act? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have to be honest, my first reaction was, so what? Those 2 queers might be Alqaeda for all we know and with all the backwards laws they have over there, as long as they keep it in their own border, whatever.

Now THAT'S funny. Gotta getcha to quote that one pal. I don't recall it ever being an issue anywhere when I was growing up.

In Saudi Arabia, the legal maximum sentence for practicing homosexuality is beheading. In China, it isn't officially admitted to exist. Formal charges would fall under 'offensive behaviour'. In the US, many states still can convict under 'sodomy laws' (though it doesn't carry the death sentence). I condemn the act and all religion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think it's harsh too. However, those are their laws. If people choose to live under those laws and are free to leave any time they want, who are we to judge them? If the people are not free to change the laws under a democratic solution and are forced to live by them, no one should complain if a free nation liberates the oppressed people so they can live their lives as they see fit. Everyone forgets that about Iraq. Remember Uday and Qusay??

For everyone who condemns this act, shut the hell up about the States going into Iraq from here on in and I don't want to hear a word if they go into Iran. These types of acts are stark contrasts of beliefs and can't be stopped any other way than regime change. Can't have it both ways.

Do none of you have a sense of humor? Raise your hand if you do....sheesh.

Well, seeing as how this is the first truly heartfelt thread I've seen on this forum, I'd just like to add that my fellow whitey's don't wear sheets on their heads or burn crosses. We don't give a crap about that stuff. Not to say I wouldn't be above putting a frozen stiff calf in my buddies corral when his cow's are calving. That was funny watching him try to figure out which cow calved and how he missed that. HAHA! Or we wouldn't be above moving old man Johnsons outhouse back exactly 5 feet at Halloween. We go to work hard everyday because thousands of welfare cases depend on us.

You know, I thought about mentioning that, but didn't, because like the people who brought the gun laws in in the first place, they don't know the difference between a shotgun and a rifle anyway. Goes in step that sometimes people who know the least say the most. I know a couple people that can listen to someone for a few minutes, pick up some terminology, and then start debating topics they know nothing about. Is this the case? Further to that, it's not only unlikely, but illegal to hunt migratory waterfowl using a gun that fires a single projectile. As far as gun safety goes, although a shotgun can pretty much clear out a room at close range, like the old Ithicas that you can pump holding the trigger, they are absolutely safe if you are over 100 yards away because they're a close range firearm only, unlike a rifle or pistol. Of course a shotgun with slugs in it is a devastating power at up to 250 yards<> in the right hands. Rhino stoppers.

The fifth recount of Florida votes still showed it "too close to call," so Bush and Gore met in secret to decide who would concede the election. After days of discussion they decided to use a simple coin toss. It was agreed Gore would toss the coin and Bush would call it. Gore tossed the coin high into the air. "Heads!" shouted Bush. The coin hit the ground and began to roll on its edge in a circle. The circle became smaller and smaller as the speed of the coin slowed. It stopped rolling, still on its edge. Finally, after agonizing minutes, it fell. TAILS! "I won! I won!" shouted Bush, "just like I thought was right all along!" "What do you mean, you won?!" said Gore, "it's tails. You called heads." "I thought the coin toss was for who would CONCEDE..." said Bush. "That means I won! You have to concede since you won the toss." "No, it was for who would WIN," said Gore. "You confused me," said Bush.... "I thought it was the other way around," he said dejectedly. After a long pause Gore's smile came back to his face as he shouted, "Two out of three!"

Two guys walk into a bar look over and see a guy that looks just like Hitler. They decide that they had better inform the man of this before he goes out and gets beat up. The first man says, "Excuse me sir, but we just thought that we'd let you know that you look just like Hitler, and you better be careful where you walk." The man looks up and says "Oh, that's because I AM Hitler." The two men look at each other, and the second man asks "Did you just say that you are Hitler?" The man sitting down says, "Yes, that is what I said. You see, I've been hiding out in Bolivia and reassembling my army to take over the world. First we're going to kill all the Jews, then we're going to kill all the baseball players." Again the two men look puzzled at eachother, then ask "Why are you going to kill the baseball players?" The man sitting down then exclaims "See, I told you nobody cared about the Jews!!!!!!!!"

Bill clinton was being questioned about the affairs he had with paula jones and monica lewinsky and they asked him "did you do any of the sexual acts with paula that you did with monica?" and he replied, "close but no cigar!" *************************************** The two major party presidential candidates today agreed that Americans are seeing too much inappropriate material in popular entertainment. However, they disagreed on the details. The Republican candidate, George W. Bush, stated that there is too much bloody violence in the movies and on television. Vice President Al Gore, his Democratic opponent, stated meanwhile that the media present Americans with too much sex and frontal nudity. In other words, Bush says there is too much gore and Gore says there is too much bush.

I found this amusing. GW was re-elected by the moral majority conservative traditionalists in the USA, but this putz tramps on him while complaining about the loss of traditionality.

Actually it was a stereo funeral. One speaker on the right and the other on the left. I crack myself up sometimes......hehe. Bad.

I use my photo too.

Merely a point to illustrate the polarization of you and I discussing probably anything at all. Don't know what the sex comment is about of course, but if it's an insult, keep it. Not part of the 'rules' here that you seem to know so well.

No, but it was crazymf, Might I refer you to the thread "What is land ownership anyways", where this notion was covered extensively. The UN was created mostly to put and end to the idea of gaining territory by conquest. Most of the world wished that WWII would be the last time territory was gained by conquest. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You may refer me because I didn't read that thread. Thanks, and I will. My basic point was that when the bombs come out, there are only the rules of who wins by force. Even the UN is toothless as the USA demonstrates regularly.

Methinks you've watched "Red Dawn" one too many times. Sure, I suppose a theoretical airborn invasion could be undertaken. of course such an invasion would require an enormous force and a tremendous amount of supplies, as the invaders would be a long ways away from their home base. Then there's the small matter of holding onto such a vast amount of territory. Even a small military like Canada's could mount an effective resistance against such an invasion. Because if they go down, we go down wih it? And because we're not really all that similar. Not twisted, just applying your logic. When you take away any rule of law or moral guideline and adhere to such "survival of the fittest" thinking, you surrender the right to make moral judgements, simply becuase the law of the jungle precludes morality. If survival of the fittest is the only rule, then Hitler's invasion and occupation of other weaker countries was justifiable, as was his attempted genocide (after all if the Jews et al were too weak to resist, then that's the way of the "law of the jungle.") Naive? Nope. Consistent? Yup. Can you say the same? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Seeing as how you still don't understand what I'm saying: If someone slapped you upside the head, I think you would tell him that was against the rules. If there was nobody there to help you enforce your rules, and you got slapped upside the other side of your head, you'd be screwed. Talking wouldn't help much at that point. Do you get it yet??? Conquest is like that. I suppose you're in favor of the gun laws too? Of course you are.

BD, I think you totally don't even understand what I'm saying to you so I'll try to be clearer. Anybody with a motive and airplanes. ie. Russia? China? No contradiction at all. You put words in my mouth to suit yourself. I state that our economy is tied to theirs, so why fight to be different when we can strengthen our similarities instead. Twisted statement there BD. Sarcasm doesn't do well with you. The attacks were no doubt justifiable to the extremist twits who did them, not to us. That's why retaliation is justifiable to us for those attacks though. If you want to celebrate Hitler, go ahead. I don't see how the two are related. Again. You seem naive to me. Talking apples to my oranges. Blue, red, whatever. I can tell you'll be confused if it ever happens.

BD, you're showing your naive colors. Like your post about rules of conquest on the other thread, you seem to want to live by rules and regulations. That's all great providing everybody plays by those rules. Outside of our borders are many more sets of rules and regulations. Saying we are immune to invasion from the north is mere isolationism or more naivity. Working against the states is like the mouse crawling up the elephants leg only to get pissed off. You're right on one account, if they go down we get dragged down too. My opinion is that we need to work closer with them to become a more similar society. Acting as the defiant little brother all the time only hurts us, not them. Diplomacy and rules only work until the bombs come out. Then it's natures rules, survival of the fittest. One more thing. No matter what you come back with on this, and I'm sure it will be something, if we no longer serve the US's interest being self governing, we will become state immediately. If by some whacko election, for instance, a communist government took power in Canada, the states would invade immediately and take over. There would be NOTHING for us to do about it either. It would be over in days if not hours. The only reason we are still soveriegn is because they want us to be.

Ok hold on here you guys. In every case, the conquered land was retaken by conquest. The victors then perhaps chose to unoccupy it, but that was by choice. My remark was not sarcastic at all. It's the real world out there guys. Survival of the fittest. If I conquer you and take your land, it's mine unless I choose to give it up or someone else comes and takes it away from me. I get the feeling like you guys think there's rules for this kind of stuff. It's truly like the playground. The toughest guy makes the rules.

BD, you missed the point here. If you win, you WIN, W-I-N. You make the rules, you won, they lost. Conquest is rewarded by territory. That's what it's about.

Yeah, some of us have lived a bit before we got here and got called western separatist anti-gay rednecks.

Yes. I don't speak any French, but didn't have one single problem with anyone last year travelling through Quebec. The problem is we are 3000 miles away and it's easier to concentrate on media induced differences than to reassure each other we're the same face to face. I think that is human nature and is part of the Canadian problem.

Yeah, I only drive when I can't get some big strong man to chauffeur me around. And I never stop for pedestrians - can't they see me coming and get out of the way? After all, I'm generally chatting on my cell phone with a girlfriend about hair and clothes and makeup, and since she's driving too we can't both be expected to watch the crosswalks and oncoming traffic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My sarcasm beeper's going off, beep, beep BEEP, hehe

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm not ready to jump on any bandwagon dissing the USA just yet. They're self centered hard headed people, sometimes as ignorant as all get out, maybe even usually. However, they run us one way or another and all we can do is fight it. I find that counterproductive. The sooner North America has a common currency like Europe and less borders, the better off we'll all be. Fleabag, I graduated in 76 when one of our dollars was worth 1.20 us. That was a year after Vietnam ended and it's coming again. The dollar is a changing. I did a music tour through the USA in 77 and in Philidelphia had a screwed up veteran hold a shotgun to my head after buying some dope from him. That was fun... Watch and wait before passing judgement on our brothers....