Rue

Lol, well I find describing disagreements as to political positions "spitting" hysterical. I also would ask you to point out where Mr. Harper ( and I am no conservative ) or more accurately put, the current Canadian government ever said anything that supports either side over land title issues in Jerusalem. Please point out the policy and/or statements, because they do NOT exist and never have. The assumption that Canada must be anti-Palestinian because it has spoken out against terrorism or said Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism is just that an assumption and its an assumption made I would contend by lazy minds. With due respect this trendy leftist assumption that demands we all consider anyone who is against terrorism or supports the right of Israel to exist must be anti Palestinian is a fallacy. It is a negative stereotype that says anyone who is against terrorism or supports Israel can't possibly believe Palestinians should also have a right to a state and live free of terrorism as well. Numerous Canadians including myself may be against terrorism and believe Israel has a right to exist, but it doesn't necessarily mean we are anti-Palestinian. More to the point I find it an absolute rock for people to make sweeping statements that says Harper or for that matter any politician or citizen panders to "Jews" because they support Israel's right to exist. That is pure unmitigated anti-semitism. It uses the pretext of Israeli policy to drag in all Jewish Canadians and label us as part of some cloned conspiracy to hate Palestinians simply because we believe in a Jewish state and that if you want our vote you must hate Palestinians. What an odious, belittling, patronizing smeer. What next? Did Harper pander to Haiti votes because he sent support to Haiti? Enough with this passive bigotry. I can not stand snively, indirect couched bigotry. Let's get it straight. Jew or non Jew, if a Canadian believes Israeli has a right to exist and defend itself against terrorism, it does not make them anti Palestinian or a panderer to Jews. This is the assumption bigots make and in the reference to Jews its based on the stereotype that a Jew by supporting Israel hates others. Take that stereotype and shove it where it doesn't shine, I say. More to the point policy Harper enunciates was in fact started by Paul Martin, not him and it came in response to elements in the Liberal party openly engaging in open anti-semitic comments using the pretext of criticizing Israeli policies to try rationalize those comments. Martin became so disgusted he openly stated what I am now stating-the fact that a Canadian politician defends Israel's right to exist or its right to defend itself against terrorism does not mean Canada is anti-Palestinian. This is the same whisper bigotry we saw circulate across the Liberal party convention floor telling voters not to elect Bob Rae because his wife was a Jew and he would support Israel. I am a Liberal and I would not have voted for Bob Rae because I consider him an NDP putz who dag nab near destroyed Ontario but to smeer him as many Liberal party members did with the same assumption being used against Harper is an anti-semitic crock. You tell me why does it seem that the sameperson who says it is possible to criticize Israel without being anti-semitic is the same one to claim if you support Israel you pander to Jews? You tell me because it is the same trendy leftists that engage in both references. This snide suggestion that anyone who supports Israel's right to exist hates Palestinians is the kind of simplistic black and white all or nothing you are either for or against mentality that intellectually lazy people engage in and I challenge or as Naomi says, spit at. In the real world, those of us with credibility when we look at two parties to a conflict do not see things as black v. white. You want to set Harper up for simplistic name calling do it without exploiting the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I support any Canadian politician who supports the right of Israel to exist and is against terrorism and if that same politician criticizes Israel for other policies such as its current position on settlements in Jerusalem, no simply because I am a Jew does not mean I won't vote for them or automatically reject their criticism, thank you very much.

I am aware that a favourite tactic of those who want to criticize Israeli policies is to quote Haaretz articles that criticize Israeli policies but ignore the ones that say positive things about Israel . In this case the report you talk of needs to be read to understand its context. The report talks of a lot of bills THAT WERE NEVER PASSED. That said it is not my intent to defend bills that are passed in the knesset that discriminate against Arab Israelis. I and many Zionists would arue zionism is democractic and was never intended to discriminate against non Jews within a Jewish nation-it sees the state organ as vital to protecting Jewish identity but not to be used in a manner that unecessarily discriminates against non Jews and I like most Zionists (the majority) criticize Israeli policies when they go too far or run counter to basic fundamental principles of human rights and tolerance and I would be the first to concede as a supporter of Israel some of the bills you mention discriminate unecessarily and unfairly. There is no doubt there is an element in the knesset of right wingers some of whom are out and out racist against Arab Israelis otherwise who are not motivated by hatred but the fear of Arab Israelis becoming the majority population within Israeli in the next 40 years and seeking to preserve Jewish identity no different then what you see European nations doing faced with rising Muslim populations or say the U.S. when it stresses American identity over any other identity. There is a double standard with certain Israeli critics who single out Israel for trying to preserve its Jewish identity while looking the other way when other nations do the exact same thing-its the same double standard that ignores the fact that even with the discriminatory bills we are talking about-they are not even close to the dhimmitude and institutionalize discrimination against Jews and other non Muslims in Muslim countries. I would Naomi take you more seriously if you criticized equally the discriminatory laws of France, Canada, the U.S., Syria, Iran, and so on. I would like to point out one further thing. To generalize and say the views of a minority of right wingers in the Knesset represents the entrie Knesset is not true. The Likud for example only has 28 seats or something like that-hardly a majority and it needs to put together a minority coalition to survive. Because Israel uses a system of perportional (did I spell that ryt?) representation similiar to Italy's system, fringe groups, some very extreme and anti Israel and anti-semitic and some anti-Arab are able to get elected. The Shas Party is for me a party I find very troublesome and were responsible for orchestrating the timing of an announcement to embarass the visit if VP Joe Biden. Foreign Minister Lieberman's party is also home to some very racist members. Myself I find Lieberman to be an ignorant racist thug. However they do not reflect the majority of the knesset. The majority of the knesset are middle of the road moderates sitting on the sidelines as coalitions, fragile ones at that are hobbled together to achieve a majority of seats to rule. In the Likud party, Benny Begin the son of former Prime Minister Menachem Begin sits waiting to dethrone Benjamin Netahnyahu and is against a Palestinian state on the West Bank. Netanyahu to survive must engage in bluster, bravado and tough guy talk but when the doors shut out of camera range you and I have no real idea what his views are and what games he has to play to try achieve them. The Kadima Party led by Tippi Levni which I openly admit support for and a blatant bias for, is a party very closely aligned to the views of both Senator McCain and Joe Biden who was active on the Foreign Relations Committee and make no mistake Kadima is the party of choice for both Republicans and Democrats while the right wing of the US Republican party and in particular its Christian Zionist supporters prefer Netanyahu. The right wing members of Netanyahu's coalition saw Biden's visit as a deliberate attempt to boost Tippi Lenvi's positions so they spit back at what they perceived was internal interference. The bottom line remains however that the majority of the knesset and the majority of Israelis are pro American, and want a two state solution. Criticizing discriminatory legislation is legitimate, but all I ask is we look at the full context, not to condone it but to understand it is part of a greater constellation of issues and it does not happen in a vacum-much of it is a historic and on-going response and reaction to the Palestinian Authority's refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and/or distance itself from certain extremist elements within its own party. The Palestinian Authority has its full share of extremists as well.

Oleg sometimes genius is not appreciated. Freud had a horrible time when he first raised his notion of the Oedipal Compex and you can imagine how trying to explain the world was round was not easy and I need not tell you what the Catholic church did in reaction to Galileo. In your case give BC some time to assimilate to your quantum paradox theories. He will come around.

Careful where you do that routine Oleg. I would have your audience scanned for weapons first.

I am still working on the title to this thread. I immediately had visions of Queen Liz picking and eating flees off of Willy's head. I am sure Willy is a nice boy but its time to revisit whether having a soverign monarch is antiquated. As for Chuck, I will say this. He married this hideous creature that reminds me of the Salt Creature in the old Star Trek episode which tried to suck all the salt out of Capt. Kirk's head and had chameleon qualities so it could disguise itself as a woman which of course Kirk fell for since he was a player. The idea of Camilla Bowels (what an appropriate name) being the King of Canada's chicky poo nauseates me. Its time we appoint our own Queen. I nominate Mr. Jay from next American Model who is Canadian and clearly has the qualifications.

I feel the same way after the first sentence of an Oleg Bach post.

I would agree with you. Suggesting helping people in time of need has made their situation worse is simply a negative assumption. Years ago I was in Haiti as a child when my mother volunteered there as a doctor. In those days Papa Doc Duvaliers ran the country. He had a police force the Tons Tons Macoups ( I probably spelled that wrong ) who drove around in pick up trucks in blue shirts. If a citizen looked at them in the eyes, they would arrest them. They all wore sun glasses even in the night. What I know of Haiti is that all the trees were cut down causing widespread erosion. Once the trees were gone the soil blew away and so today Haiti has no soil-its all blown away and they bring in crushed sea shells to try stabilize the ground. When you have an earthquake on sandy soil obviously everything will crumble. Add to that the poverty and fact everything is built with cheap cement and zero safety codes and it spells disaster. 80% of Haitians can't read and make less than $2 bucks per day and some estimate there is a ratio of about 2 doctors per 100,000 people. The Duvaliers robbed the country blind placing hundreds of millions some say billions of stolen money into Swiss bank accounts. The US and the West propped up Duvaliers for years knowing he was a corupt sob. When he died and his dim witted son took over they soon chased his fat boy son to Switzerland. Haiti is a strange place. There is a tiny elite group of light skinned black people who had all the wealth.Your beauty and success was based on how pale you were. All the money was condensed in less than .5 percent of the population and found in a closed community in Port Au Prince. Religion in the country was a strange mix of Catholicism and Animism (voodoo). Because of the shortage of doctors, spiritual voodoo healers had huge importance. When I was there people talked of people being possessed because curses were put on them. Some of the explanations for the behaviour I saw was more mundane-rabies, epilepsy, brain tumours, polio, tuberculosis, dysentary, malaria, dengue fever, intestinal or brain parasites, malnutrition, mental illness, infections spreading from rotting teeth through the spine and up into the brain, etc. Fresh water has always been an issue. There was also no shortage of Christian missionaries coming to "save the savages" and setting up schools but perpetuating this wierd racist phenomena. The image of Haitians is of savages with machetes. They have gangs of young men yes. However given the fact they are a fourth world country comparing them to Canadian society is pointless. There was at the best of times poor roads, little electricity, no hospitals, schools, infrastructure with any foreign aid being intercepted by corupt politicians. In the horror of this latest tragedy one positive thing will happen. It took down the corupt government-in effect Haiti has no government now. The people might stand a chance now. The Americans will have no choice but to become the police force on the ground for now. The first problem after reestablishing a secured road network is building a make shift port and expanding the airport. Then comes the disposal of hundreds of thousands of bodies which by now are bursting open and full of maggots and will be spreading bacteria into the air and soil. Another problem will be getting water and food to survivors many of whom by now will be suffering from organ failure. The third problem will be housing. Huge tent communities will have to go up but the question is where? Fourthly, after bodies are removed, then the huge problem of moving the rubble off roads and off the ground to rebuild comes about. There will be violence soon. How wide spread no one knows but it is human nature for starving and desperate people to loot if they see food or other goods coming in and so establishing a ground security presence is essential. The Americans should coordinate the ground security. Certainly not the reminents of the Haiti government which was corupt. Quebec has over 100,000 Haitiens. They will want Canada to have an open door policy to allow them to take in their relatives. That is bound to cause racial friction in Quebec which already has seen race friction between Haitiens and the "purelaines". The U.S. and Canada both face a real political issue. Both countries have large Haitiens communities that will want their families taken in to their respective new countries as well as many other catastrophe escaping refugees but the fact is neither the U.S. or Canada wants to get stuck with hundreds of thousands of impoverished, uneducated people. We will see the usual liberal guilt displays in the next few months and I predict all the celebrities will get in on the concerts and marathons and speak in hushed tones. But 6 months from now, a year from now, 3 years from now, you won't hear a peep as we move on to the next trendy event. That is when Haiti will need the help the most and when the reality of refugee politics kicks in and Canada and the US will be faced with trying to contain huge influxes of catastrophe refugees without coming across as being mean. The bottom line is, when people see such disasters there is a genuine sympathetic reaction followed later by the keep those poo people on their own island reactions.

Actually this web site has a terrific summary of how equalization payments are calculated and applied and it shows that and I quote from it, " the key recipients of equalization payments are the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, especially when examining the amounts they receive on a per capita basis. By contrast, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario generally do not receive equalization payments (although, British Columbia did receive small levels of payment between 1999 and 2006)." Ontario and B.C. are in the same boat as Alberta and Ontario is in the worst position of the 3 because the formula has not adapted to the huge losses of jobs in the manufacturing sector in Ontario.

What absolute nonsense. Slave province? Only someone born in a world of affluence they take for granted would state this. You want to know what it is like to be in a slave province? Go find out what happened to Biafrans in Nigeria. Go find out what happens to Sudanese from that country's southern districts. Go find out what happened to Bagladesh when it was called East Pakistan. Go find out what happened to East Timor when it was part of Indonesia. Give it a rest. Alberta hard done by right. Yes Albertans walk around with bloated bellies while we Easterners live off their blood. Give it a rest. Ontario has paid more in transfer money then any other province and we do not whine about it. The vast majority of Alberta's oil is sold to the states, not Eastern Canada. Go prove that wrong. People out East in the have not provinces do not get their oil from Alberta precisely because you would whine and suggest you can't get as much money selling it to Maritimers as you can Americans. Alberta benefits from confederation precisely because its allowed to bloat and become rich off its oil money and not distribute the majority of it to the rest of the country. You have no idea what it is like to live in a province being raped by a corupt central government. Go talk to an Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian. Go ask people who live in Southern French states what they think of their Northern counterparts. Go sit with the Basques. Go ask the Scotts and Taffies how they feel about the federal government. Go ask the midwestern US states or southern states what they think about California or the Eastern states. You confuse regionalism with tyranny.

Splash I know the routine. If you are looking to come on this forum to avoid having to do research try someone else. You want help I have taught for years at colleges and universities as a lecturer, so I can help but no, you will not get the answers from me and the exercise your teacher has asked you to do is designed to encourage you to take the time to find out the actual proper descriptions of political ideologies and how they have become completely misused and distorted in common every day language by people for many reasons the two most common being ignorance and political bias. The term political spectrum is an open ended question. There is no one answer. It refers to the range of political ideologies from the extreme left to extreme right. It is whatever parties you place on that left and right scale provided you can explain why you put them where you did on that scale. Some people will place political ideologies at different points on the scale reflecting their own personal biases. Coming on this forum and asking people to give you answers will only share their personal biases and with no references to back up their opinions. If you want to write a paper properly what the teacher wants to see is not just an opinion. They want to see how you arrived at your opinion. They want to see the objective information you used to base your conclusions. In a proper paper you start with a thesis proposing what you will contend is true. You then present evidence summarizing what that evidence indicates. You then conclude by summarizing the evidence and linking it to the opinions you then concluded from the evidence. When the teacher asks you for the economic/fiscal and social-moral harm aspects those are the measurments he/she wishes to use. In other words explain the ideologies you will place on the scale using two references-their economic beliefs, i.e., completely government controlled (extreme left), moderately government controlled (left of centre, right of centre) absolutely no government control-extreme right, and centrist if you think there are any. The point of the exercise is to show you that parties on the left and right of the spectrum often have the same moral or social harm philosophies and what may differ them sometimes is only economic approaches. For ideologies you may want to work with anarchist (extreme left),communist, socialist, liberal (Bentham definition), conservative (Burke definition) and libertarian (extreme right). Give clear definitions of each ideology's take on its market place philosophy (economics) and its moral positions. Then explain why you have put them where you have on your scale. Conventionally speaking anarchism is to the extreme left or right. Next to anarchism on the left is communism, then heading towards the center, socialism then liberalism. After passing the right its conservatism then facism then libertarianism ending on the extreme right with anarchy. The point is the extremes to the left and right become one and the same. When you spend more time studying Political Science you will find facism on the right and communism on the left have totalitarian characteristics that are the same. You would also find Nazism in fact incorporates many traditional Liberal (Bentham) views. You will also find conservatism (Burke) which is usually associated with right wing big business and Christian fundamentalists, in the true ideological sense is about laisez faire economy and freeedom of the individual while Liberalism sees a collective good as more important to advance than individual good. How we place these ideologies on the spectrum as I stated earlier depends on each person's biases. What the teacher wants to see is that you can justify why you put the ideologies where you do. If you just repeat what people tell you the teacher will know right away. Its precisely why Bubly said the teacher the question provides the answer-you won't find it parroting other peoples opinions. So in summary from left to right you might want to try: anarchism....communism....socialism....liberalism...centre...cnservatism...facism....libertarianism...anarchism Do a chart and call it figure 1. On that chart have one box with the above name to the left, then two boxes for each ideology to the right, one for economic beliefs and one for social morality beliefs Footnote where you got your definitions from. Then in Figure 2, draw a chart placing the ideologies from left to right. In your paper start off with a paragraph proposing what you intend to show and explain. Then referring to figure 1 and figure 2, explain why you put the ideologies where you did on the scale. Conclude with stating whether the spectrum you use could be subject to variance or change or distortion depending on someone's political biases or on how they emphasize certain beliefs in each ideology to define it as being to the left or right. You might want to explain howsome characteristics are traditionally to the right and some to the left but can be in the same ideology and so you placed it where you did deciding on which of its characteristics was the most dominant or important. I would suggest you stick with conventional definitions of the ideologies from encyclopedias and journals and not go for example to a Nazi site to get the definition of Nazism. You will also find today socialism and communism are used interchangeably and many people mistake libertarianism with anarchism and mistake conservatism as necessarily meaning religious fundamentalism and regulated behaviour-actually traditional liberalism is more likely to feature those two qualities. See for yourself. Don't be short cutting and having others tell you how to write your paper. Good luck.

Lol Bubber there's lots more where that came from. Maybe he's home schooled.

While you are at it Bam you might also want to explain to this Ashley character the GG is a figurative position in our constitutional system and has no political power or significance politically. He seems to infer there is some mystical power attached to the GG. Given Ashley's other posts maybe he's worried a Jewish person will be appointed GG. On a more serious note it is time for a native GG for the obvious reason. Either that or go with Shania Twain.

Thanks Michael for pointing out his disconnect when he Jooo baits. May I say to my American imperialist swine friend Bush-Chaney I would prefer his Yankee imperialists by out Stelco and employ people then have Hamiltonians remain unemployed. Call me short sighted. As well the Joo baiting and suggestion the American company has been circumcized speaks for itself. On a more serious note, we Canadians have no business whining about this-if an American wants to step up and invest and no Canadian wants to, then shut the phack up I say. We can't have it both ways. Just remember Busch-Chan, you won ONE jr. championship. Just calm down.

Right when the terrorist blows up the plane you are in they will ask if you are American first. Hello anyone home? You seem to have missed the point.

I would love to have told by MP but he is on vacation. Also he seems a bit more concerned about what is wrong with Michael Ignatieff. Also my Member of Parliament is about as accessible as a deep rectal tumour. For me to find it requires quite a lot of assistance from others trying to do it myself is a real pain in the buttox.

I think it makes perfect sense to pay members of Parliament hundreds of thousands of dollars not to work, Also I think it makes perfect sense everytime the party in power gets experiences political difficulties to simply suspend parliament and not talk about those difficulties and its vision for remedying them. I mean if you want an accountable government and a democracy move to Afghanistan. Oh no wait I am confused. I meant Iran. Um no, I meant China. No no I meant Zimbabwe.

William did I remind you not to eat anyone today please? That said. In your own way you make a long of sxentence and I agree with you except for the comment that sex is dirty. Sex can be dirty. It depends on whether you practice good hygiene or not. Before I was married I had sex with clean people. One time a woman with dirty finger nails did try to kiss me but I told her it just was not to be. That is why Lindsay Lohan and I are not an item.

I figured it out YankeeWoman. Brett Hume is in fact an agent of Satan pretending to be a Christian trying to get to Tiger's soul now that he is vulnerable. People who claim to be Christian and telling others to be Christian are in fact Satan's agents involved in false flag operations to recruit souls. They also are part of the illuminati and many are Mossad agents too since my people are all Satan's children. So if Sarah Silverman calls you or Tiger, do not answer the phone. Also Paris Hilton said in an interview she is a good Christian but in fact she is and in her case the Satanists have planted false stories about her being a slovenly woman to confuse you. You got that? Also Tiger Williams is in fact gay and the sex scandal is an elaborate cover story because his lover is Chuck Norris. I mean it really is quite simple to figure out when you just think about it.

WELL SAID. For me this is not a black and white issue. It's about discerning shades of grey. Its easy to say we don't want bad people coming to Canada. How we define bad however is where it gets difficult and the Leafless types of the world assume bad means anyone they say is bad. We already know Leafless' agenda. He wants a nation where everyone practices the exact same religion and follows the exact same beliefs as him and speak English and look just like him. I do not want to be Leafless Canadian. His designated type of acceptable Canadian to me would result in rampant inbreeding and I find inbred people to be problematic.

1. By any chance do you work at a funeral parlour? 2. Give thought to what a Big Mac is made out of. 3. By any chance do you work at a senior citizen's home? 4. How many freezers do you have? 5. Where do you live? 6. Consider sticking to chicken and fish. 7. Do you have a chainsaw by any chance?

You assume: 1-aliens did not in fact create us mixing various species to come up with us 2-aliens have not been observing us for millenium 3-aliens are not among us 4-Oleg Bach is not an alien. People please.

Agree.

"the undeniable fact is that revolutionary secular and apostate elements in the Jewish community in Europe contributed greatly to hostility towards Jews after World War I.. The above comments are not undeniable facts, but they do in fact form part of someone's subjective opinion and subjective opinions of course are most certainly subject to other opinions that may disagree with some or all of the opinion stated. The above subjective opinion is also illogical. Even if there were a sect or sects that subscribe to the author's subjective opinion of what revolutionary secular or apostate means, the fact that sect is revolutionary, secular and/or apostate does not "contribute" to its hostility. What might contribute to its hostility is an individual or individuals who disagree with its opinions and who then choose to react with hostility. The above is a classic case of blaming a target of hostility for in fact the person or persons engaging and directing the hostility. The person engaging in the hostility is the one who in fact contributes the hostility. The person expressing the unpopular opinions does not contribute to the hostility unless they themselves engage in hostility towards others. The so called revolutionary or secular or apostate views which are subjective descriptions dependent on the writer's political perspective and bias are distorted by his own bias as being assumed to incite intolerance. Nothing in the essay indicates the revolutionary, secular apostate opinions suggested their believers were engaging in hostility to anyone, rather in fact, simply engaging in free speech. I would be curious where in these so called religious, secular and apostate people, words indicate they were threatening others with violence. The above article is ludicrous. It presupposes simply because one has an opinion that is different then another's it is culpable for any violent and intolerant reactions to it. That is illogical. The fact I disagree for example with the writer's contentions and find them a crock of excrement does not mean the writer contributed to the hostility I might be perceived to exhibit in my reaction to his comments. I am responsible for the perceived hostility that comes from my reaction, not the writer. This idea where we blame the victim of hatred because they have the nerve to express an opinion different then someone else is a crock. A rational man when reading another's views he disagrees with does not become enraged or hostile unless and until such time as those opinions might suggest he is about to be physically atacked and even then a reasonable logical man is presumed to use only reasonable force to defend himself and not take the law into his own hands. This blame the victim pretext misses the basic point, we are all responsible for the actions we engage in-saying someone else made us do what we did is an attempt to delegate our responsibility to others. Next we should cover all women head to toe because it contributes to their sexual assault and all people with beards or religious garments should do away with them because it contributes to the hostility directed at them when they refuse to shave and wear turbans or yamachas. The above is a classic anti-semitic canard-Jews brought the holocaust on themselves for not knowing their place. Change the name of the group and it applies to many targets of hostility, i.e., blacks down South, certain tribes in Africa targetted with genocide, Armenians, Kampucheans, Burmese, Armenians, Irish, Ukrainians, and so on.

Still on about this? I want this official. Out in the open. I am thiking of having an affair with Tyra Banks. I am reluctant not because she is black but because her head is shaped like an alien's or a large light bulb or a big squash.

Bottom line if 2 people want to get married they have the same legal right to do that as straight people. The law does not concern itself with which consenting adult you have sex with. To me it is a travesty that after living with a partner say 10,20,30 years, they could not have the same rights as next of kin with a dying patient. That is the point. If you are of a religious belief that feels gays should not marry then post people at the door of your house of worship with no gays allowed in signs. I am sure they can deal with it not that I speak for them. I mean what nonsense. This notion a person should be able to impose their religious views on others is b.s. Enough. I think Mr. Canada should be more concerned with the pedophiles and adulterers in his church. May I suggest in regards to the former, he not confuse them with gays. In regards to the latter he burn them at the stake and make sure they sizzle real good. As for Lindsay Lohan, whether she marries a man or a woman, I will carry on and survive. As for Paris Hilton who ever she marries should for sure get a blood test from her and watch for facial sores.