Insom Elvis

Sorry but YES THEY DO... Were all born as God made us, Straight!!! Adam and Eve!!! get the point??? We all have Fathers and Mothers, not fathers and fathers, or mothers and mothers. Yeah, I could see someone being gay due to an unusual upbringing, influence of peers, whatever happens during childhood could have an impact on our sexuality, but if you want to tell me that people are born who genitically cannot use their reproductive organs for reproduction, onlt sexual pleasure, id say theres something wrong in the genetics pool. I can live with some people grow up to be attracted to the same sex, but then your body wasnt made to suit you. Notice how 20 years ago gays were a lot more rare than they are now, and in that time its become so socially acceptable to be gay that it's almost a crime if you don't fully support it? You would think this change in attitude may have helped the gay trend a bit.

No kidding, I'd like to see the looks on their faces now. I also noticed the protestors are burning flags, including the American flag, nothing new there but notice we're not all out in the streets burning buildings and whatnot. How far back do you wnat to go? Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Philippines, Vietnam, Panama, Greneda...U.S. history is full of little "interventions" like these. That's not even getting into the rouge's gallery of regimes that the U.S. has supported. I could have sword Cuba had a tryannical dictator, North Vietnam engaged South Vietnam... Yes we've supported some nasty regimes, I don't know why and I don't like it, but I don't know all the details either. I know in the case of supporting Osama Bin Laden, that was key to disrupting the Soviet Union which posed a much larger threat to the U.S., and now we have to deal with a more powerful Taliban, but we don't have nukes hitting our cities. You said "(Canada) helped us gain our freedom", which is historically inaccurate. I have to admit my mistake here, I meant to say the French assisted us, and settled in Canada, showing the beginnings of Canada's alliance with the U.S. I'm not gonna get into a legalise argument about UN approval. The fact is, though, the UN doesn't really mean anything, which is why the U.S feeld free to disregard it when necessary, but can also turn to it (for example, by citing Saddam's vilation of UN resolutions) when their actions require the veneer of legitimacy. I'm definitely curious about what "international majority" you're talking about. By international majority I mean when a majority of nations with U.N. involvement take the same side on a topic, like sending inspectors into Iraq. If the U.S. asked for approval from our allies to invade Spain becuase their bulls hurt people, we would not have approval from a majority, in fact many of these countries would probably interfere with such a move and take up arms against us. This obviously wasn't the case with Iraq, in fact I'd suspect some of the politicians that disapproved of our involvement there sleep a little better at night knowing Saddam isn't running around with any chemical weapons.

The relationship I have with my wife is by choice a sacrament, between us and God, nobody else. Very much agreed I have to agree here as well, although I'm starting to figure that if gays want to be gay, it really doesnt involve me, but I will still vote against gay marriage as it's offensive to my traditional views of marriage and what it means to be married. I wouldn't vote for cilvil union for gays, but if they got it I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

"Jihad warriors"? Weren't the Crusaders jihad warriors? And "subjected"? Where would you have chosed to live? Moorish Spain or Christian Europe? http://www.africawithin.com/black_history/..._chapter18.html Cordoba was the most wonderful city of the tenth century. It was served by 4,000 public markets and 5,000 mills. Public baths numbered in the hundreds. This amenity was present at a time when cleanliness in Christian Europe was regarded as a sin. Education was universal in Moorish Spain, available to the most humble, while 99% of Christian Europe was illiterate In the tenth and eleventh centuries, public libraries did not exist in Christian Europe, while Moorish Spain had more than seventy, of which the one in Cordoba contained over six hundred thousand manuscripts. Scientific progress in astronomy, chemistry, geography, mathematics, physics, and philosophy flourished in Moorish Spain. Scholars, artist and scientists formed learning societies, while scientific congresses were organized to promote research and to facilitate the spread of knowledge. A brisk intellectual life flourished in all Islamic dominated societies. You seemed to have missed the point - however, that Muslim empire unfortunately no longer exists. Maybe they can attain these things again, but not if they keep up the psychotic violence, and certainly not under the leadership they have today. Exactly, who has more libraries now, if you want to go that route? Maybe the people of these hate-filled countries have been kept in the dark by their leaders or lack of scientific progression? Maybe they should try being social and share in the rest of the worlds knowledge. Not every invention we use came from the country we reside in, this is a product of communication with other nations, coherent communication, and political relations. Try sharing technology with a civilization that is every bit as brutal and inhumane as they were in the dark ages. We have advanced while they have not. They have profited from our technology mostly only by using our leftovers, but you won't find great new concepts coming from the middle-east. Change is unacceptable in much of the middle-east and in their minds, things like equality for the sexes and open voting would be untolerable change.

There was a case in my hometown in the U.S. where some teens, girls i believe took some pills they had acquired from one of the teen's parents. The teen who was staying the night became ill and wouldnt respond to phone calls so the first teen went to check on her and found her in poor condition. When relating the problem to her parent's the first teen was advised "to stay out of it." The second teen died from this overdose. Here's a link to the article. Teen overdose death I'm not sure how severe the punishment should be for the first tenn, but the parents should absolutely be nailed to the wall. Not only did the parents allow the use of the drugs wich resulted in a death, but they looked the other way when the teen was in need when they could have saved a life rather than their reputations.

I'm agreed to cutting off relations with Iran. For that matter perhaps we'd be doing ourselves a big favor by cutting off relations with quite a few of the middle eastern nations that act so irrationally on such a regular basis. My only problem is when genocide or any sort of civilian slaughter occurs, yes we can turn and look the other way but if we have the power to stop it, aren't we morally responsible to make an effort? I don't mean Iran, as I haven't heard of this going on there, but Iraq, africa, etc. If we're just talking about Iran, let's cut off all communication with them and be done with it. if they make bombs, I doubt they'll use them on us, unless of course once they have the weapon their confidence and hatred toward the west becomes inflamed, then we have a much bigger issue to deal with.

How thouroughly Un-American. Really? Imagine being one of these fanatics who have nothing better to do with their time than sit in a cave, making new plans to destroy our society, but unsure wether or not they'll succeed. Then some idiot comes on the American news, flaming Bush and congress and political decisions, and sympathizing with terrorists. I don't see how that would help the welfare of this country. Analogies like that are appealing in their simplicity, but totally useless. For example, don't you find it odd that you had no problem helping that little boy when he was running around hitting other kids that you didn't like? Who has America attacked that did not first initiate war on another country, one whom we were allied with or decided to murder civilians? Uh... do know one of the key groups that helped found Canada were the United Empire Loyalists: that is, people loyal to the Britsish Crown who fled your country after the Revolution? What does this have to do with my statement? Well, you'd probably ahve a lot less to stress about if your president wasn't starting uneccesary wars and making even more enemies in the one region in the world where your country can least afford it. True, we don't need any more enemies, but we follow the conduct code set out by the U.N., we were much more successful in wartime when we didn't have to ask permission and sit on our asses for months or years to attack but hell we're doing things the right way, with full support from an international majority and you still attack our president? How is this his fault when he has to go through congress and they feel the need to ask for U.N. support, which is granted?

Possibly. Anytime people from different cultures, religions, backgrounds, etc. end up in the same place by necessity, there are going to be problems. There don't have to be problems, but there are. A black guy might be mad at me because I don't give him a cigarette, instead of calling me a "non-cigarette giver" he'll propably call me a stuck up cracker. That's not quite racism, just the latter is more powerful. It's really not all that bad here though, I see a lot of acceptance. I don't like rap and the ghetto-style culture but I'm no bigot, I've had black friends. I'd be friends with a black before I was friends with a skinhead.

Why do so many people think the U.S. goes to war for oil? We have oil. We need more, yes, but being an economic country, we buy it. I don't like Haliburton's involvement but I see that as more of a "oh crap, I forgot you used to have an influence over this trade issue, the people are going to tear us apart moment<" rather than an "Hey side-kick, our evil plot is foiled once again, they know about the oil." Get over it. We have Texas and Alaska, the media watches Bush and everyone he's sneezed on since 1960 with a microscope and if this is all they can come up with, we're running a pretty honest game. Why do soldiers continue to fight for this country, and why do firefighters continue to deploy to these sand dunes to protect the burning rigs continue to do so? They must have faith in something. Screw the oil, people are dying and it needs to stop. You can tell me the Americans bombed a school thinking it was a bomb factory, fact is they hit a bomb factory and the pictures you see are of a school that their great dictator disliked and had shelled. It's our reporters that took the pictures and our editors that peiced them into the storyline, so who's to blame for misinformation? Our media, not our presidency. Clinton tapped suspected terrorist phone lines, he ordered a cruise missile strike of one of Osama's largest meetings at a terrorist camp, and the dunce missed, but still, why hate Bush for continuing to try to protect our country? I'm ashamed at a large portion of America for this, I'd like to think Canada has more sense.

This is classic, blame the current terrorist problem on Nazis? That's like saying my sheep had twins because the duck mated with him all because neither likes the cow. If I drive a Ford, am I supporting the Nazi party? Will I go back in history and win WWII for the Germans? The iron cross was a German denomination long before the Nazis used it and it is still represented in Americas fire department, who gladly employs blacks, gays and Jews. So we have gay black Jewish firefighter Nazis driving around in fords? Wait, with Tali-ban passengers shooting R.P.G.s at hell... who's left?

They will probably find Bat-Boy before they find Iraq's alleged WMD's. (For those conspiracy theorists who think the "mainstream media" is biased away from the profit motive) This is about as plausable as Iraq having WMDs in the first place!! Thanks for the laugh dude Funny how noone knows about the school with dozens of gas masks hung on the walls, a converted bio-chemical bunker. Also, the 2 mobile chemical weapons factories, or transport truck that happened to have trap-doors leading to biological munitions... or the fact that around the time Jessica Lynch was taken prisoner and the Iraqi people were helping U.S. spec ops to retreive her that scientists gardens were unearthed to find the plans to make nuclear and chemical weapons. Are you really overlooking this? People this bent on killing innocents don't need this technology and if you want to defend them, buy a gun and go over there and hope to hell you conform to their society to a tee or theyll kill you. Pick someone easier to defend next time.

Where in God's name do you get you information from? Are you insane? Who was quietly arrested, what dark side of the F.B.I. sure if they're against me, they're all dark-sided but what the hell? Please don't tell me you represent a majority of Canadians in these conspiracy theories? I live a nice, quiet comfortable life in the U.S. and the crap you're talking about isn't even covered by our tabloids. It's like me saying the canadians resurrected Godzilla and are storming the beaches of Normandy in a time machine to overthrow Ghandi. I know very little of your PM, but apparently you know even less of our government. Our president has to walk on eggshells because the press is constantly sticking their cameras up his ass and you think he's running off with trillions of dollars? Wow. I want to know your sources and if I'm wrong on this one, Save me a spot in Canada, or Guatemala for that matter.

I'd like to see that on video! And when viewed I'd have to say he's as stupid as whoever led you to believe anyone would say that and not be slammed out of this country faster than people are permitted to enter it. He can spy on my conversations all he wants. It would be nice to speak in total privacy, but then congress doesn't care who I went home with last night. I don't want to see a state of martial law emposed on the U.S., but I'd rather Bush know what toothpaste I used than not know that the guy down the block has an R.P.G. aimed at a populated hotel.

Perhaps the most sick thing about our justice system is the guy who drop the cement block will likely never see the inside of a jail because the woman did not die and therefore he can only be charged with assault with a weapon. I think we need to change the law that so if you commit a crime that results in the permanent injury of another person then it should be treated the same a murder - the fact that death did not occur is irrelevant.We also need to have a new crime called 'murder by mob' which carries serious penalties. The police should not have to figure out which individual in mob actually landed a the killing blow (a near impossible task). All the police should need to prove is an individual was a willing participant in a mob attack to get a conviction. I pity your system and envy it at the same time. In America, that could be a count of attempted murder, to attempted manslaughter, to misdemeanor vandalism resulting in injury, depending on the lawyer. Those last 3 words say a lot, unfortunately. In a case like this, the kid might be desensitised to think this was ok, and made a mistake that really messed up someones life. Or it might be a case where he caused an effect and because of chance, the effect turned out to be devastating. I'm lost on this one, if i shoot a .22 bullet at a bird in the middle of nowhere and it misses and happens to hit a hunter a mile away should I be charged with murder? No, if I can presuade the judge... but yeah in this case I'd say change is in order, no matter what the kid hit bad things would happen. His family should pay for the reconstructive surgery and maybe his parent will implement a different style of dicipline.

But that is a completely ridiculous analogy. Pedophilia is about men preying on children, always. The vast majority of polygamy involves consenting adults. If children of any sex are involved in polygamous relationships, it must be criminalized not because there are more than two persons involved, but because children are involved. To discriminate against a relationship solely because it involves 2+ people is no different than other forms of bigotry. Hey, if you want your wife rolling the dice to see if she wants to sleep with you or one of the other 6 tonight, more power to you, but if you want this in a legal document or to be socially acceptable, move to an island I'll never know exists.

But is force required to teach that lesson? Listen if/when I have kids, I would make sure they know when their actions were wrong, I simply belive that spanking is not neccasary to accomplish such a thing. I belive punishment of some sort is neccasary, but that punishment doesn't have to be a spanking. Saying now little boby it isn't nice to hit, will not accomplish anything, I think thats probabley worse then spanking, doing nothing that is. But saying little bobby its not nice to hit and because you have hit me this is going to happen...., not only do you let them know its wrong to hit but you also show their is consequences associated with certain actions. Showing that actions have consequences is important, but I don't belive spanking is the only way to do so. For instance in the case of moderateamerican and his jewish comments, why not ground him and take him to a holocaust museam? Consequences for his actions and the ability to learn why such words are so offensive. Generally after you learn or read some first hand documents about the holocaust, you loose all apetite to make such jokes. Woah I think you're arguing against me but I totally agree. Let me state this again, spanking is absolutely not the only way to punish your kids! At a very young age, a little swat on the butt can do wonders to get a kids attention but when you get into the years where they decide Naziism is cool, hell I've been there with my girlfriend's boy. Trust me as a parent some things change if / when you have kids, they always do but I like you outlook on the anti-semitism. Now in my case, the boy was kicked out of school for drawing swastikas on his homework and a previous list of well, anti-authority gestures. In his case, I doubt the holocaust museum would do him much good, he'd just blow it off and think about something else. but every kid is different right? As it turns out, the boy has no respect for the Nazi party whatsoever and just likes the designs of the Swastika and Iron cross, I just had to help him understand why there are people out there that take those symbols very personally and why he shouldn't flaunt them. Especially the swastika, that was a given. It was by chance, after having his hand sutured by a Jewish doctor who shuddered at the sight of his iron cross ring that he finally came to understand a bit of what I was talking about. For any of you that have a case like this, introduce your kid to a Jew who by any other respect is just another person then introduce the subject and let them speak their point of view. It's amazing the changes you see when the kid refers Naziism to a real person they know rather than a race they've never had contact with. Oh and with spanking, maybe a time-out works for you, do whatever you can and if you succeed without spanking, great, but if you let your kid slap you in the face someone is doing something terribly wrong.

I feel honored to provide personal insight here, where in most of these forums I'm already under fire for my conservative thinking. I am a white American living in a mixed community. I say mixed community because the entire country is now a mixed community. You might hear white people calling black people "niggers," but you'll notice they won't do it in front of a black cop. Some of us remain racist and will always hate those who are different from us, which is kind of B.S. because we stole this country in the first place. On the other hand, we were here before the blacks and I now have to protect my kids and watch whatever media input affects them becuase I don't want my daughter yo start thinking she's a "hot bitch wanting to get nizzle on some black dizzle." Pardon the pun. There are those of use who have combined black and white culture and see no difference, unfortunately it isn't the ancestral, tribal African culture but the street drug-dealer slang culture that has imposed itself. If you're black, you can come to this country at free will and explore as you like, same with the whites. On the other hand, if you are a respectable black or white person, wanting to show your kids what America is like in all its glory, good luck. If you come to my hometown near Las Vegas, you'll see a whole lot of white people in nice, big houses and 2 or 3 blacks with bandanas on, walking the streets. If you go into Vegas, you'll meet whites managing casinos, Blacks selling cars, Mexicans everywhere, whites selling drugs and blacks managing whores. Honestly the cultures have merged to the point where it almost doesnt even make a difference. If you're mad a black guy, he's a nigger. If you're black and you're mad at a white guy he's a cracker, and if you're mexican everyone's something I can't even pronounce. I do find it odd that you'd even worry about going to Yosemite. The national parks are one of our last conservations of what America is supposed to be like, just stay out of the cities and you're set. Don't pass up a trip to one of the most beautiful places in America because you dont want to hear the "N" word. You can hear the "N" word on half the movies you rent. Or maybe thats just here.

You won't have to worry, America has the strength to invade Iran and this is what concerns me. If it were back in the WWII days, no problem, we win. But these days, we have to bring along our imbeded television crews to feed the media their life energy and if we so much as give a splinter to an enemy soldier dressed as a civilian, our asses are grass. I see it going something like this: Iran purchases enriched uranium from the Soviets. They make some power plants and wouldn't you guess this stuff makes great bombs too! Knowing they can have that kind of power, even if only to protect themselves from an assault, they make the bombs quietly while the U.N. take 12 years to come to a decision ( again ) and now we have another nuclear threat to deal with. So America invades, with smaller forces from the U.K., Canada, Japan, etc. backing them up. We cant bomb, that kills people. Wer cant assassinate, that's illegal. We can't wipe our asses with toilet paper containing arabic print because thats racist. We're screwed. After a few thousand deaths to our brave marines and a few more terrorists hit the U.S., we withdraw, leaving the Iranian people to govern Iran, and now we have one more country determined they can beat us and far fewer soldiers to defend us. Noone wants my suggestion at this pint but I'll slip one in here anyways. Leave them alone. Theyre not hurting anyone. Ifg they launch their one nuke, they can't hit anyone but maybe Israel that's of alliance to us. If they hit Israel theyre gone, like they never existed. Otherwise, we can introduce different, efficient ways to produce electricity that wouldn't counter as bombs. I really fear a war with Iran, they are a capable society, much more structured than Iraq, and if we attack them we might have to fend off Syria at the same time, as well as dealing with the current forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. If any of you have access to a map of the middle east, note the nice straight line these countries create, include pakistan whom we've had words with over the travel of terrorists and you'll see what we may be dealing with soon here.

I gave you my respectful attention, as much as I could muster, if you choose to end the discussion because you don't see me as someone fit enough to respond to then so be it, I don't have a specific agenda, or word to spread but I feel my opinion matters just as much as the next guys so I am responding to your comments. Actually, no, I have never had sex with a virgin, one of the many products of a society bent on sexual freedom without consequence. I have heard of women completely uncomfortable with sex, and would not ask one to have sex with me. A meaningful relationship can be formed without sexual intercourse, believe it or not, and I would have much more respect for two men wanting to share emotions rather than impregnate eachother's rears to relieve sexual frustration. No I don't think gay people have sex to acquire discomfort, I'm sure discomfort is just a minor obstacle, hell I've seen a guy on t.v. getting his reproductive tool stuck in the intake of a Jacuzzi just to get off, that's determination. No, black people didn't rewrite histort to reach equality, white leaders realized they had made a grave mistake in enslaving a race, or accepting the fact that their ancestors had enslaved another race for personal gain and tore their own country apart to give them their freedom. Then white activists took action and with black leaders lead protest on protest until the blacks right reached a level equal to that of the whites. Yes there is still racial discrimination, but if you tell me it the whites causeing it all, why can't I walk down "d-street" in my own town at night? There will always be discrimination, but we have brought the blacks to equality with whites without rewriting history. Gays are not slaves, they do something unnatural to the human body and want me to accept it. I'll accept it if they do it somewhere other than a country that was founded on higher principals. Speaking of slavery, do you know what kind of atrocities continue to dominate in Africa? Read up on it sometime, who do you think America bought the slaves from? Usually rival tribes.

One of the most embarrassing world leaders (impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice) is coming to Toontown. Men who are serial-cheaters on their wives can definitely relate to him...not withstanding the rape accusations (Juanita Broderick) that have followed him throughout his life. While President Bush liberated 55 million Muslims from brutal tyranny, Clinton argued what the definition of "is" is. Only because Ross Perot split the right. Perot (19,742,267 votes) + George Bush, Sr. (39,104,545 votes) garnered 58,846,812 votes. Clinton received 44,909,889 votes. Bob Dole didn't exactly excite the Republican base. Nice guy but.... Bob Dole (39,198,755 votes) + Ross Perot (8,085,402) garnered 47,284,157 votes; Clinton barely nipped them by getting 47,402,357 votes; a slim 118,200 vote victory. Of course. If I was getting $100,000 US per speech, I would be "all over the place" too. No, this isn't the demonized Paula Jones. However, Ms. Jones was a guest on Hannity & Colmes when the results of her lie detector test were released. She was asked if Clinton exposed himself to her - in a hotel room - while Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. She said yes and the lie detector guy concluded that she was telling the truth. I understand that lie detectors aren't admissable in a court of law, but it is damning evidence. Thank God for Fox News--since the liberal MSM flat-out refused to report this. :angry: Decisions decisions. Do I spend $84 or $235 to heckle this poor excuse for a man? Proving that crack cocaine is alive and flourishing... This statement makes so much sense I almost want to sing. ...Almost. Thanks for spelling Clinton out for us, I never thought I'd have the same respect for a president as I do for Howard Stern and apparently I'm not alone.

Except it is the other way around. We busted into their living room, held a gun to their head, flushed the Koran down the toilet and mocked their religion. They spit in our face, so we call them savages. I know the counter argument could be, "well they started it. Look at 911." This is total ignorance of history. But suppose 911 came out of nowhere. And suppose Iraqis (or Palaestinains, Syrians, Iranians) were behind 911. Did the US Air Force bomb Pendleton NY because Mcveigh was from there? Did the Brits bomb Belfast because the IRA was based there? Can Cuba bomb the US because Luis Posada Carriles is hiding out there? There are proven techniques to deal with terrorism. It essentially involves police work - even international police work. I still here people saying "This is war!". It didn't have to be. Do you think we just randomly bombed Afghanistan because Osama Bin Laden is from there? Of course not, we tracked down the most legitimate suspect, researched his involvement in terrorist activities ( yes, I know we armed him to destroy the Soviet Union, sucks to be us ), then initiated a search and destroy plan. By eliminating his most violent supporters and soldiers we are doing the world a favor. It's not like we found out he went to school at Terrorism for kids Junior High School and napalmed the place so do us all a favor and put it in perspective. I dont care who did what, if there is a single person on the face of this planet willing to kill massive numbers of people to teach the U.S. not to be the U.S., what does anyone have to lose by taking them all out? They're so gung-ho for suicide, how about we assist that in their land rather than let them carry it out in our land, while taking thousands of people with them.

Last I heard, they never went through with it... One of them joked that it would never work because the other guy hangs his wet socks in the shower. It seems even the most basic concepts are eluding you. Apparently the most basic concepts are eluding the people who choose to ignore them, think of the sheer physics. Does the square peg fit into the round hole? I mean without discomfort, bleeding, advanced spread of disease, colon damage, etc. And if you care to forget the argument against gay sex then I'm fine defending straight marriage. Marriage is straight by definition, gays will never have marriage unless they re-define it and that is rewriting history. Civil union is a different matter which I am fully open to discuss, in any case please show me my shortcomings, I am as accepting of your opinion as you are of mine.

One reason why Libertarians didn't get more votes in the election is because you shut us out of the debates. The other is your ballot access laws which make us spend millions to get on the ballots even in districts where we outpace one of the two Tweedle parties. And finally, the Reform party received millions of votes in prior elections and you didn't let them in the debates either. The real reason you resist including the third largest party in the debates is fear. You're afraid we'll show the American people that your "small government" rhetoric is all bullshit as you've grown the government faster and larger than any other party in history. It is funny though that you're suddenly concerned about the popular vote now -- your Tweedledum party wasn't so concerned with the popular vote in election 2000, was it? But I guess whatever argument works at the time should be employed, right? After all, hopefully nobody will notice the inconsistencies. Ah, but we're noticing. And we keep doing better and better in every election. Eventually, we'll start costing you seats in close elections. Then we'll replace you as the primary opposition in a couple of others, and send folks to Washington. Then, your worst nightmare begins! I would love to see a third or even a fouth party in american politics. A triangle is your sturdiest structure after all.... Completely agreed on that... I can agree with a large portion of both sides of this argument. I am a registered Rebublican voter but I tend to sway towards the Liberitarian party and definately away from the liberal faction. I could see a great good coming from a Liberitarian party in power, given the right president, congressional candidates and structure. The reps and Dems are competing for power, why would they allow a third party into their limited discussions? This is a competition, not a charity, if someone wants the floor they need to find a way to get more support. Rather than stand in line and wait for your opponent to give you airtime, go to the public, get support from the press, use whatever means you might have at your disposal and then you might have something of a chance. As it stands, The Dems and Reps have all the funding, air time and ( here's a big one ) history they could possibly want. Nothing has ever gone perfectly for either party but I'm sure people have uncertainty when it comes to opening the way for a third party. Do they have the experience to run a country founded on Bi-partisan ideals for so long? Will they go too far and diminish our military and defense systems? If the Libs are to win, they need a stable platform and a hell of a lot of support which is hard to gain when most of the country depends on a republican democracy to keep everything in order on a day to day basis.

Well you have some good points that I must agree with, and some extreme points of view whose origonal meaning I must defend. First of all, you're right, not everyone should spank their kids and it is definately not a miracle cure. I don't know you and I can't tell you how to spank your kid to invoke dicipline without causing emotional damage so if you're unsure you might want to ask someone else. Second, yeah we played in the mud and got spanked for it, the threat of being spanked stayed fresh in our minds and by the time we grew into responsible adults and had made a few minor mistakes, we had it well engrained in our minds that EVERY ACTION HAS AN OPPOSITE AND EQUAL REACTION. So that when we considered stealing money from an ATM, we knew that if we did there could be consequences if we were caught, rather than being raised into adulthood by parents who negotiated with us as to wether or not wer agreed with out punishment of a harsh scolding. Where do you think these guys get the attitude that they can do whatever they want and noone can stop them, never showing remorse? Is it because their dad spanked them for shoplifting at 5 years old? Don't make me laugh. How about the fact that by only reinforcing the behaviour positively, the parents condoned all behaviour, on different scales, but never helped that childs mind to comprehend that there are consequences in the real world? Try your method on a criminal, when he shoots you in the gut, make sure he knows damn well what he's done wrong by saying "that is wrong," and send him on his way. I'm not saying spanking is absolutely necessary, but if you're totally against an age-old remedy that worked for generation after generation until some nut decided it was suddenly wrong, ior some asshole decided to beat his kids and make people see it as something worse than what it is, you're only limiting your resources and possibly defending your kids right to walk all over you.

Concerning the topic of gay marriage imposing on one's self... The fact that my neighbor has a gay relationship doesn't concern me at all. It might turn my stomach but I can deal with that. However I would love to raise my kids on the foundation that was laid out long ago, by much more honorable people than we see common nowdays. I wish I could have been alive in the fifties, when morality, loyalty and honor were features worth supporting in a society. I want my daughter to know that if she wishes to fall in love and be happy, she may find love in a man who is worthy of her attention, get married and raise a family. We have become very liberal, people get married on teusday and divorced on thursday and no wonder, they hardly knew eachother. Kids are having sex at 13 years old and younger and this has nothing to do with the lack of morality in our society? I dated a bi-sexual girl for 6 months, she was as sexually premiscuious as they come, while I kept my eyes off of beautiful women to ensure I never had a slight thought of straying, she wanted to invite them home. I do not want to raise kids in this kind of an atmosphere. Yes, I'm sure there are gay people out there that are perfectly sane and rational, but then I have to ask, why do you not enjoy the company of the opposite sex? Our bodies were made male / female for a damn good biological reason and it wasn't just sexual pleasure. Can you not embrace your designated role as one or the other because of a past experience? If so you made the decision to be gay based on a psychological imprint, that should be treated, not embraced. I'm sorry but premiscious sex and gay relationships fit into the same category, sexual release without lifetime commitment. I'm not perfect in this area, few of us are but I don't march in parades to justify my sins and I don't ask that a court condone what I do in the bedroom so why do you think you can?