Insom Elvis

The safest place to live is right beside a Hell's Angels clubhouse. So what if they're the baddest asses on the planet? Hey, they're our friends 'cause if we didn't call them our friends they would commit all their bad-ass crimes on us! I guess it is better than living beside a Vietnamese gang house or a Indo-Canadian gang house so hey, we should be happy that we live next to the "nicest" criminal on the planet. America will never disturb Canadas border, I think that's pretty obvious and a good reason not to wish we'd trade places with a different "criminal nation."

Agreed. It is a risk either way, for both the U.S. and Canada. We can pull out now and prove to the world we have no intent to follow through on our promises of stopping terrorism or protecting the people who aided us in the countries involved, who will surely be tortured and executed. Our other option keeps us engaged in combat for who knows how long and for an undetermined length of time, causing more casualities, expense and dissent among opposers of the war. Personally I think Bush will keep the U.S. engaged until the next election where a democratic president will be elected and pull us out of all conflict immediately. Whatever good or harm this does, Bush's hands are clean of the action and it'll be up to a new president to solve a still ongoing problem. One thing I can say for certain is if terrorists strike at either of our contries after a full withdrawal of forces we will once again have to consider taking the battle back to their soil and the hell away from ours.

And if Righties ran the world Islam, homosexuality and abortion would all be banned and women would be back to being beaten, barefoot and pregnant. Women wouldn't be beaten and killed when impregnated by means of rape while their civilizations praised for holding onto their ideals while we uprooted their controlling dictatorships, Islam would be welcome until someone drew a cartoon about their god and they chose to riot and kill to show discontent, and homosexuality would be accepted until the left-wing media decided it was cool to be homosexual and produced show after show and movie after movie to force it down our throats. It's called DEFENSE. For those of you that are better educated, ( past the fifth grade level), CAUSE and EFFECT. And rightists would allow women to wear shoes, not be pregnant, and not be beaten because they believe in equal rights, not making slack for those who cant seem to fulfill our need for stability and rather not working, beating spouses, starving their children, etc, etc.. in the name of equality. We make amendments to our standards to allow everyone in the world a peice of the pie and as a result we get their culture...go figure.

All I can say is wow, and I wish I had the time to take all these posts in and comment, but by the time I read the last one, the first few might as well be last week's shopping list. TM12 said something I can agree with, concerning Bush's setbacks. And Zeus, I can agree that I was a lot more optimistic about his temr in the beginning than I am now. I don't think Bush necessicarily is a divider, because I would define a divider as someone who intentionally divides. I'd say that because he's tried so hard to win both sides of the fence, he's left himself split down the middle instead. I see Iran and Syria as possibly being part of an agenda, or overall plan. Talk to someone involved in the ongoing battles in Israel or Lebanon and they've seen it coming a hell of a lot longer than we have. Zeus, you mentioned the ineffectiveness of swaying the direction of politics by pleading to our representatives... You have a point, but does anyone have a solution? Or do we wait out the term, hoping that either side of the bi-partisanship develops a strong enough platform to make a change before we're immersed in total war with all of Arabia?

I do relate the supposed condition in the same way I would relate any other genetic "malfunction," which we all have, ie; poor eyesight, thin hair, etc. But at the same time I want the people defending the "born gay" theory to feel free to argue their case as I'm very interested in genetics and psychology and the struggle between the 2, so I'm being as PC as possible... In slight contrast to my earlier comments.

I'm starting to understand a bit more on this topic, morality and religion aside, all I have left to wonder is how one is born into homosexuality. One fellow made a point that seemed to make sense, he said something to the effect of a genetic way of keeping the population from reaching excessive sizes. I was having a chat with a woman I work with today on the topic and she mentioned something else. She said that during the time where the fetus is still female and the male changes haven't quite occured, something different happens that leaves a male body with female instincts. That made a hell of a lot of sense to me, and it's one of very few explanations I've heard that even put thereories out to support the "born gay" idea.

When are you Republicans... (might you be a Bushbot automaton?)... going to get over Clinton? You justify almost all of King George's mistakes... and they are numerous... because of Clinton. Clinton IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! NOT FOR FIVE YEARS NOW! You people need Clinton! I bet that you Republicans all secretly wish that Clinton was still in office so that you might never have to face the reality of the Bush record. And Insom Elvis... I don't mean this to be as harsh as it may read to you... it's just that at some point you guys have to get over Clinton! I've been battling Bushbots that try and prove that 9/11 took place because Clinton was getting head. If you say... Bush did this... they reply... well Clinton did the nasty with Monica... too wrongs don't make right any more than voting for the lesser of two evils brings about good! We'll get over Clinton when the following happens: 1. When leftists quit worshipping Hilary, who many claim had much influence over his political decisions. 2. When Clinton realizes he isn't the president and quits addressing the nation on T.V. 3. When leftists quit bad mouthing Bush senior and claiming Bush junior is finishing what daddy started. Bush Senior has been out of office a lot longer than Clinton. Then again we kind of still talk about every president we've ever had because once they serve a term they're written into history. Don't feel bad, if a Democrat wins next election, wether he's competent or not anything bad that happens will be blamed on Bush and anything good will bring the new pres tons of adoration from the left.

I like that quote by T.R., and I'm not opposed to the logic, but if there isn't a better way to get our president in line, we're showing potential threats that we're not so united as a country. I'm sure Bush makes mistakes, I wouldn't follow him or anyone else blindly, but I'm sure he knows a lot more of what's going on than me, and I'm sure he can do his job better than I can. The best I can do is voice my opinion to my representative and hope that my concerns, along with similar concers from many others makes it up the political chain. Puplic protests are fine, they show that free speech is still alive and well, but there's a big difference between public protest of an action made by our leaders, and the alternative of protestors being aired on every channel, bad-mouthing our governement 24-7. I agree that we used Osama Bin Laden to do our dirty work, but he used us for resources to fight his personal war against our mutual enemies, so I can hardly say he's a victim. We may be part of the cause of the current problems involving his position with the U.S., well with the free world as we know it, but I doubt the fact that he's an irate extremist makes matters any better. I hope this sheds some light on what I'm trying to explain, I have no doubt that you will continue to find arguments against my perspective, but I most certainly am not blinded or brainwashed by Bush. If you want to see blinded and brainwashed, elect a supermodel into office and we'll talk.

Innocent people died, we killed the killers and reports say we killed innocent people as well, that makes our actions difficult to justify, but what do we do now that we're there? If we abandon Iraq now, the tyrants will resume control and have a hell of a lot of U.S. supports executed. Remember seeing them on t.v. along with our boys, pulling down statues and whatnot? They wont last a day if we pull out now. What alternative do you suggest?

Well one of us is missing the point, that's for sure. The way I understand it, he wanted you to be gay for a week because we all know you can't do that. It would be like me trying to become a 6-foot 5 black guy for the week, it's just not something one can make a choice about. You then replied and asked him to eat kittens for a week. I could make a choice about eating kittens. I'm still having a hard time accepting that genetically, our bodies can decide that our reproductive organs will never be used to reproduce, if that makes any sense? I know some people are born blind or deaf, but those are birth defects which have a cause, if being gay is a genetic anomoly, what could the cause be? Would you come to the same conclusion with a person who grows up to be shy, outgoing, responsible or irresponsible? All of these things seem to be traceable back to a person's upbringing if you look into the psychology involved. If you, na85 I believe, had a "normal" childhood with the conditions you stated and your gay friends are the same way, there is definately a hole in my theory, and I can't think of a similar example where genetics alone interfered with a persons actual personality. Yes you could make a choice about eating kittens, but unless you were raised in the wild or as a complete nut, I seriously doubt you could force yourself to do it based on your upbringing.

Isn't this really just a matter of opinion and personal choice? If you believe that life beyond 100 would hold little thrill, then fine, don't clone yourself. But why should it be illegal for others with different opinons to have the option? Because there still exists the possibility that the first attempts would result in failures, and that the babies would have to suffer the consequences of thos failures. Also, you're assuming you could stick your brain in another person's body and resume life, I'm sure the brain wears out over time too.

Yeah, the buildings were designed to withstand the force of impact from a 747, but not the damage dealt from explosion from a full fuel tank. If you wish to think this was a conspiracy I have to ask you what would motivate the hijackers to commit suicide if not an afterlife sought due to promises in the Quran? Money is no good when you're dead.

Well currently thay've got an insurgency-cum-civil war on their hands which is excrabated by the prescence of foreign troops and a governing authority that seems to have used the reconsruction as a pretext to line their own pockets.(For example.) Basically, the failure to establish order and provide for the basic needs of Iraqi society can be laid at the doorstep of the "coalition" that blundered its way through with no apparent plan of action. At this point, i don't see nay way of fixing this humpty-dumpty situation othe than stepping back and letting Iraqis sort things out among themselves until they get to the point where they can ask for our help. BlackDog... When we step back and let them fend for themselves they hate us for doing so. Yeah, we went in full bore, blowing the opression to hell, then left and the opression punished the populace. Didn't we learn something from this? The worst thing we can do for the Iraqi people, especially those who have helped us is to leave right now. No apparent plan of action? I don't see Kuwait in any immediate danger, I don't see scud missiles wiping out populations of almost defenseless countries, I see Sadaam in a jail cell and little more than road side bombs between the U.S. and an Iraq that will someday have the courage to vote freely.

You make it sound like that's easy. It can take years of bureacracy and bribes, not to mention a lot of money, to secure a child from some third world country willing to let you adopt one. Besides, as I said, it would offer up the opportunity to eliminate so many diseases and gentic defects we're now subject to. Why a third world country? Do you think there isn't a single child in Canada that doesn't need a home? I like the thought of elimintating illness and disease for fututre generations, but at what cost? We can destroy the future of a human being you voted to create by making their life a living hell, but that justifies the well being of thousands who suffer from time to time? Hell I can find a great way for Canadian soldiers to feel less pain in battle, but it mkeans I have to kill a couple to fine-tune my testing. Is that ok? It better be, based on your tone.

When the leader of your country is screwing the intern while married, you tend to wonder if his commitment to your country is similar to his commitment to his wife, meaningless.