Liam

They can have him.

If they were not real, then they and their story were created by a human author. Therefore, the intent of God cannot be gleaned from the Eden story, since you are really only getting the agenda of their creator (deliberately small "c"). I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. You cite the Bible but then go on to say that it is not the word of God, therefore, not authoritative. You claim God's intent can be found in the story of Adam and Eve, but then say that they didn't really exist. So what it comes down to is that you are basing your position on marriage based on what you interpret as the implied intent of God as framed by the (possibly wrong and possible misinterpreted?) writings of a human author from several thousand years ago. Am I correct?

You gave us sections of the Bible to prove your point that God invented marriage, but then go on to say that the Bible is not the word of God. If the Bible is not the word of God -- according to your claim -- then it is not an authoritative source in this or any argument that touches upon religion. Essentially, you made a claim then discredited the only source you cited.

But you didn't answer my question -- you opinined on its likelihood and your guess as to whether it would be effective, which is not what I asked. I'll ask again: if the reporting by ABC was a deliberate attempt by the Bush administration to give a "scoop" to one media outlet knowing it would report it, and knowing that the reporting of that scoop might push Iran closer to a standpoint of negotiation... are you still against the publishing of the story?

The UN Human Rights Commission has long ago conceded its own relevance. This latest item does not at all surprise me.

Hysterics! Hysterics! The Republic is falling!!! Oh my god!.... This is perhaps the lamest stretch at tarring all non-Republicans I've seen in a while. First, anyone who puts dog poo in an envelope is a nutter, regardless of political party. Anyone who then delivers said envelope to the vestibule of an elected official is whacko. And anyone who reports the "incident", which is at best a lame prank, is taking himself too seriously, IMO. I don't trust articles like this. One thing strikes me as untrue right in the first sentence: "A jury in northeastern Colorado has ruled that a pile of dog doo left in the entrance of the office of U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was protected political speech, acquitting a critic of the congresswoman who admitted dumping the load." Whether or not certain acts are free speech is a question of law. Questions of law are not interpreted by a jury, but are decided by a judge. I doubt the writer made up the fact that a jury trial had taken place, but the jury likely decided a different issue (i.e., whether the defendant was guilty of violating a certain statute, not whether or not certain speech was protected by the 1st Amendment).

George Bush claimed that his favorite book from childhood was "The Very Hungry Catepillar". The problem with this claim is, it wasn't published till 1994. Maybe he was confusing it with "My Pet Goat", which he loved so much on 9/11.

What if the leak was deliberate -- someone at the White House or in the CIA deliberately leaked the information knowing ABC would report it so as to scare the Iranian regime and possibly get them back to the negotiating table. If that's the case, then the media is (unwittingly) doing to administration's bidding. B. Max, is *that* OK, then? Is it OK for the media to report things that actually help the administration achieve its national security interests? Seriously, I'd like you to answer the question.

Big surprise... http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/25/fox-ne...-war-the-least/

Last time I checked we still had a free press and ABC is free to report the results of its investigations. This is hardly a "spoiling the surprise of D-Day" moment. Anyone with half a brain cell should have already assumed this was happening.

This is not divulging national security matters. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/0...andidates_.html :"In a statement ABC News said, "In the six days since we first contacted the CIA and the White House, at no time did they indicate that broadcasting this report would jeopardize lives or operations on the ground. ABC News management gave them the repeated opportunity to make whatever objection they wanted to regarding our report. They chose not to." " Does anyone think the mullahs in Iran are so stupid as to think the CIA hasn't been operating covertly within Iran for years? How is the publication of that fact a matter of breaching national security? This calls to mind the hysterics Bush folks went into when it was reported that **DUH** US intelligence agents were watching bank transactions and wire transfers.

http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm

Reread my post. I never said he was too principled. I said he was too honest. His sometimes unvarnished telling of the truth about the problems we faced came across as dismal.

Agreed -- Carter was a terrible President, but mostly because he was too honest. (To a perhaps an equal degree, his refusal to play along with the entrenched interests in Washington worked against him.) I think he was right about Bush's presidency in terms of foreign policy. From 2002 to 2004, Bush managed to turn the US government's international image from mostly decent to one of the worst perpetrators of human rights abuses in the world and as nothing more than a protective shell for oil and commercial interests. The Bush Administration's actions must seem godsent to terrorist recruiters. Bush is bin Laden's wet dream of presidents. Add incompletence to that mix and you've got a pretty short summary of what people around the globe now think of our government. Carter, while impolitic in his candor, was 100% right.

just taking this piss outta ya... lighten up, francis

Bush supporters after 2000 said popular vote didn't count (Electoral College count did) b/c their guy lost the popular vote. Here's Electoral Vote counts for the 1992 and 1996 elections: 1992 Clinton: 370 Bush: 168 1996 Clinton: 379 Dole: 159. I think >2:1 two times qualifies landslide wins, doncha think? *LOL

Do some research. I'm not at all a Bush supporter (heck, I voted for Dukakis in '88), but this statement is silly. In the 20th Century, two main international financial bodies were created to facilitate the development of economies, manage the fluctuation of interest rates and exchange rates, and act as a stabilizing force in global economic matters. One is the World Bank and the other International Monetary Fund (IMF). The US mostly nominates the head of the World Bank and Europe mostly nominates the head of the IMF.

Maybe the glass of wine has caused this thread to become a muddled mess or maybe it's allowed me to see with clarity, but I think just about everyone who has posted to this thread is responding is such an extremist way. There's no doubt that war is hell. It should never be entered into lightly, easily, or without exhausting every other option that would result in less carnage, demolition and displacement (note: I did not include national pride). Regretably, there is also a time for war: when all options are exhausted, when doing nothing will cause greater damage, more grave consequences, greater human suffering. I think that supporters of war (in today's terms, they're also Bush supporters) like to gloss over the tragedy of war and the loss of war, and the failure it represents. They think of it like some John Wayne or Chuck Norris film where good guys and bad guys wear black and white. Likewise, the peaceniks (in today's terms, they're also likely to be Bush opponents) fail to realize that war sometimes IS justified. Intervening in Darfur or Kosovo would be two perfect exmaples where military intervention and, yes, cracking skulls, would probably save thousands of lives and foster stability. I am in no way excusing this president or this war. It is a fiasco. It is beyond the point of ever being winnable. Honestly, we should consider ourselves blessed if it resulted in what we could categorize as a "draw". It's now obvious that even before the flimsiness of the cassus belli was laid before us, the administration was pathetically incompetent at post-war planning. None of us should defend this war simply for flag and country. Doing so only condemns us to make the same mistake in the future. We should string up the man and his cohorts who humiliated us all with their incompetence and who have boxed us in to a no-win situation. And then we should turn to the people of Iraq and help them. We can still win the peace if we work with whatever government arises there to better the lives of its people. Peace and democracy will ultimately prevail, but it can't in Iraq at the point of a gun barrel now or at any time in the future given the mess Bush is leaving for us all.

I have to echo what Andrew Sullivan just posted on his blog about the Ron Paul thing: right-wingers are lambasting Ron Paul for stating the obvious (that US foreign policy decisions have ramifications, NOT that we deserved 9/11 b/c that's not what he said), but at the same time right-wingers are falling all over one another to eulogize Jerry Falwell, who stated shortly after 9/11 that we DID deserve this for becoming too secular.

I suspect Jesus and Falwell aren't exactly next door neighbors these days.

Good riddance to bad trash. The man was a hate-monger, pure and simple. His epitaph ought to be his post-9/11 statement about who caused the terror attacks.

I think you nailed it. The 260+ million Americans enrolled in a healthcare plan get better and quicker medical service than Canadians get, though it is more expensive. (You also have to look at the costs of prescription drugs which are usually considered when determining healthcare costs. Rx's are cheaper in Canada -- pharmaceutical companies often use the US as a market where they can recoup their R&D costs, so drugs are more expensive to the US consumer.) Sadly, for the 40+ million who are not enrolled in a healthcare system, they do not have access to routine medical exams, preventive care, etc. There are federal and state programs for them and they are never turned away from hospitals, but they get far inferior service than covered persons get.

No, the movie did not condone those things. If anything, it showed the damage that can reverberate through families and the lives destroyed when society refuses to allow two people in love from sharing their lives.

It's completely improper to show this film to anyone under 17 without getting parental consent (same as with any R rated film). On a side note, I went to a Catholic high school and saw "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff" in my literature class when I was 17 (1985). My mother was absolutely scandalized. She then sheepishly admitted that she and my dad saw it in the theatre when it was considered "pornographic" back in the 60's. It had such a stigma about it that, to this day, she still hasn't told any of her friends that she saw it in the theatre.

What happens though when the guy next door starts thinking that the neighbours wife on the other side is better looking and friendlier than yours? OMG... you cannot be serious. Canada is so not on the horizon of US military objectives. I'm sure it's an ego boost to think that you are (and I'm not saying you don't have resources the US covets, b/c you do), but US commercial interests also respect property interests. The US can access all it wants to get from Canadian resources by tapping commercial interests. The US has absolutely no designs on Canada or in apppropriating Canadian property beyond what it already does.