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.

Noone in this is righteous, although I'd die to protect an islamic family persecuted by Christian dictators or the same vice-versa. If both parties are thugs, why does one kill its prisoners while the other feeds them?

Ah... i don't see how eating kittens and killing nuns relates to being gay. If I wanted to, I could go from being a kitten eater and back in a week. I couldn't just become gay if I wanted to. Nice try though. Marriage was originally defined such that the woman (or in many cases, women) were the property of the man. Do you stand for that, as well? You missed my point by a mile. He wants me to be gay for a week based on the thought that being gay is genetic. I want him to eat kittens and kill nuns because that would represent the same state of mind as if i were to eat kittens and kill uns for a week, why doesnt he eat kittens and kill nuns? because of genetics or because of his upbringing? As far as being a man's property, that depends on the defenition and translation, My cat is my property but that doesnt give me the right to beat it. I don't consider my girlfriend my property, but i am more hersd than I am anyone else's.

What's an eency-weency WMD? One that misses the city by 5 miles and kills 100,000 and wounding 600,000 rather than one that hiots dead-on and kills 1.2 million and wounds 2.4 million? I have to put this as simply as possible. I doubt Russia is going to nuke us. I think Iraq would if they had the chance. Therefore, I'm much more concerned that Iraq could have WMD's. Russia may have super-dooper nuclear powers, but they dont have the food to keep their own miltary fed. They have probably robbed the fuel to launch many of the nukes to fuel the planes that transport goods from place to place, I mean the cold war has been over for a while. I think Bush see's these nuts dancing in the streets burning American flags and shooting at embassys over cartoon publications and can't just sit and let them play with explosives. That makes sense to me.

Perhaps you simply lack the imagination to consider how you might enjoy yourself if you were to have more time. A second education and degree, followed by a second career, perhaps? Learn a few more foreign languages and travel the world. Learn to fly. Accumulate lots of money and live the life of a wealthy man. See how many different nations and cities you can see. I don't imagine I'd be bored any time soon. After working close to people aged much beyond my years on Earth, I find that the mind tends to burn out with the body. If you don't believe there's anything after this life, then by all means, grow even older and wealthier and face changes beyond comprehension for even longer, but I for one choose to let go when it comes my time. Besides, wealth doesn't come with age, and it seems change doesn't do so either. I've seen some pretty old homeless people out there, and I wouldn't want to enjoy any more seconds than necessary as a parapalegic burn victim. Besides, how do you think you can clone yourself and instantly be that person, leaving you old, worn down body behind? All you'd have is the thought that someone else is having fun with a replica of your body.

Funny, I don't remember getting the form that indicated which sexual orientaton I want. It just so happened that by the time I started to get interested in such matters, my attention turned to girls. SO no, it's not a "choice". If it is, I'll make you a bet: for $500, I want you to be gay for a week. Deal, and I'll offer you $500 to eat kittens and kill nuns for a week. The fact that you dislike killing nuns and eating kittens isn't because you happen to be genetically opposed to such things, but the fact that you were raised in a decent society with morals and learned inhibitions, restraints, and well right from wrong. Enjoy the kittens.

There were as many gays then as now. It is only that back then, you could be fired from your job on the simple suspicion you were gay. Or thrown out of your appartment. Or harassed by cops. Ever heard of gay bashing? You could even murder a gay person and get acquitted if you claimed that the (dead) gay guy made a pass at you. Miss the "good old days"? If a gay guy made a pass at me, I'd inform him that I'm straight. If he continued, I'd leave his presence. If he persisted, I'd have to assume he was infringing on my right not to be gay and defend myself if necessary, but if I saw a one-sided fight between a gay male who had done nothing wrong and a bunch of thugs who hated gays, I'd do my best to defend the gay male. Firing someone, killing them, hitting them, suing them or otherwise being mean to them based on sexuality is wrong. All men are created equal, and I stand by that. People have no right to hurt gays for being gay. BUT research where marriage came from and you'll see where I stand. A premiscious man who cheats on his fiancee should not be allowed to marry her. Anyone who cannot keep it in their pants except with their husband or wife should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is between a man and a woman, you know the routine. Now this bit about the gay suicides due to wanting to be heterosexual, are you kidding me? I want to have been born with 12" reproductive organ, but I'm not going to kill myself over it. I doubt they committed suicide because they couldnt convert to liking women, they probably did it because of the intense stress involved in being socially abnormal. I'm not even saying they could have made that choice, I'm saying it didn't necessarily stem from a genetics code which randomly puts a gay individual into the gene pool. What kind of childhoods did these people have? were they ever molested? were they exposed to the gay lifestyle? These can be factors that contribute to a person becoming gay. I know many women that were sexually abused or raped became very premiscious afterwards, if I was mentally and physically raped by a male figure or exposed to the gay community regularly, I'd probably see it as an option. In my entire family, one of us is suspected of being gay, my cousin. We all had great parents and a good upbringing except for him and his 2 brothers. He, the oldest, was the most exposed to his biological fathers abuse. He was hit, kicked, allowed to watch porn at a young age, now he's into tiffany lamps and victorian trim on mid-western architecture. He has many female friends, but has dated none, talks with a lisp and shows great admiration towards male actors. I treat him like I would anyone else but doesn't this reinforce my theory? Maybe somehow genetics plays a role but sexuality is something we learn, not something that forces our mind in a certian direction.

Well, if we were to take that chance and try to clone humans, we would be willingly introducing a human life that could be ridden with mistakes. If you clone a baby, and something goes wrong so you euthanise him/her, you are commiting murder. Let's say nothing goes wrong, it's a complete success, you get to enjoy raising a child with no real parents, a science experiment. This clone would have constitutional rights too, what if they decide they're sick of being an experiment and want to try to live a normal life, if at all possible, there goes your research. What if that persons falls in love, gets married and has kids? what if they're messed up because of an alternate-generation carried defect? You brought what could turn into an entire family line into the world not knowing wether or not their great grandchildern would number in the dozens and all have irreversible flaws that made life unbearable. There are millions of chances one would have to take, and more importantly, I have to ask why? Why do we feel the need to clone ourselves? Population was mentioned, I think we have enough people in the world to not worry about humans dropping off the face of the planet. If you cant reproduce on your own, you'd be doing more than anyone could ever do for 1 child by adopting. If you absolutely must have a child with your shared genetics, the technology in that field is astounding these days. And if it's just a case where you deem yourself perfect and want an exact replica, you have no right to ever plant your seed in such a fashion. The previous post mentioned a super-combatant. What if the clones don't want to fight? What if they revolt? What happens when the entire military is forced to resign to make way for clones and remote-controlled fighting vehicles and you have 500,000 ex-soldiers sitting in the unemployment line along with the millions of clones that there was no place for? I really feel that we have no place reproducing mass amounts of life or experimenting with creation of life when it could harm a few or many in such a horrible way. Imagine being a "braindead" person having your face removed. It would be interesting if in 20 years after removing this and that from here and there we find out that clinically braindead people can still feel pain wouldn't it? You may not be able to scream for help, but as long as noone knows it they assume youre as good as dead. If I'm as good as dead, kill me before you cut my face off. And people wonder why I'm no longer an organ donor.

I was pretty pissed off the first time I saw someone mocking Jesus Christ, and the second time, probably up till now I hate to see that insensitivity and disregard for my belief. But I have full faith in my God, not that I think he will call on lightening to strike them down at any moment, rather that he will allow them to mock him as much as they like. This is how a peaceful religion operates, to strike against any who oppose your beliefs is to attempt to take a persons free will away. You can't make the world a civilization of zombies who love everything you do and hate everything you hate so why throw stones and shoot at people and burn flags? Someone might draw nasty cartoons about Jesus for 80 years before they die of natural causes, I feel bad for them when they hit that crossroads start the journey to an eternity in a lake of fire, but I can set a much better example by not trying to force them to respect my religion, and just being a good example of what I believe in. This should ovverride anything that has been said or done to piss off the muslims, but somehow they feel differently.

Well, the U.S. was pretty freaked out about the U.S.S.R. installing nukes there, and rightly so, we also never took kindly to the way communist dictators did their business, they seem to execute people more frequently than they wash their hands after using the bathroom. There were dozens of reasons and excuses for going into Vietnam, if I had been president then, I would have most likely stayed out of it based on the fact that part of our reasoning was to assist the French as to asllow them to redploy in Germany and focus on thir civilian economics which didn't involve Vietnam at all. The only real reason I'd have for paying attention to the matter would be that China would have been a hell of a scary adversary and we didn't need a mini-China continuing the communism trend. I really can't argue your perspective on Vietnam and further beyond what I've said. Iraq is far different than Vietnam, Bush just came on the news today, adressing the progress of hybrid engines in autos and the direct effect of lessening our dependency on foreign oil. We may have fought harder because oil was a self interest, but that's not what made us want to invade. I doubt Kuwait enjoyed being showered in mustard gas, it's a no-brainer why we interfered there and even if it's not, I'd be pretty happy to send an American flag after that sorty of an invasion from Iraq. Maybe Bush woke up one day day and thought "I need oil, lets invade Iraq," and while we're at it let's protect innocents from murder in Kuwait... I'd still say we did some good. Besides it's not like we don't pay for the stuff, how do you think these sheiks are driving around the desert in limos? They're a bit more expensive than camels and last I heard, their water bottling company was a bit dried up.

If Africa has coca-cola, Lebanon has Ak-47's and mexico has brain surgeons, Iraq can have WMD's. I don't know about nukes, but the 2 mobile chemical weapons trucks were a bit convincing. They could have had help too, Syria doesn't exactly have a disneyland mentality about using force and I'm sure a nuke or scud could bring in quite a bit of cash for the distributor. Besides Saddam's year's warning from the U.N., our little war over there 12 years ago might have been a bit of a wake-up call, he's not going to advertise the presence of WMD's after tore through his defenses like a hot knife through butter. Also, even if none of Iraq's bordering countries were willing to help them smuggle anything out, if I was in Saddam's shoes I'd have put a real low price on any hot items or buried them out in the middle of nowhere for a bit. The fact is that the only solid evidence we can get on this would be to actually find a well hidden WMD, have enough of his own men coming forward as to their actions, or catch the sneaky bastards on satellite with one but I think they know better than that.