PocketRocket

I would never drem of doing such a thing Sure thing!!!! Personally, I don't see a problem with it. I have friends who were raised by gay parents, and who have turned out to be some of the nicest, most together, most caring and loving people I know. I am sure many others will find fault with this.

I work with a few young Muslim people. We have become very good friends. We co-exist quite nicely, thank you.

In an earlier post in this thread, I made a "joke" about everyone being armed, in a restaraunt for example, and someone coming in to shoot up the place being, shall we say dismayed, to find himself staring down the barrels of several weapons. Actually, it went along the lines of "Oh look, a man shooting at us, let's kill him". The humour value was debated, but that's not the point here. Interestingly enough, on the drive home from work last night, radio on CBC, I was listening to a show called "As It Happens". Apparently, one of the states (I believe it was Arkansas, but I may be mistaken, I just got out of bed and I'm not all here yet) has passed a new concealed weapon law. It allows people to carry concealed handguns in restaraunts and bars. The logic behind the law is basically the same as that in my joke. One of the state representatives was interviewed via telephone on the program. His line was basically that if everyone is carrying, then the odd psycho-drunk who would be tempted to pull out a weapon and start blasting away would be discouraged by knowing that most of the people around him are packing. He expanded on this to say that if someone actually DOES start shooting, then by having lots of people shooting back, it would minimize the loss of innocent lives. Uh-huh. In a bar. Did it ever occur to these people that if someone is drunk enough to pull a piece and start killing people at random, then he's likely not in a rational frame of mind??? Good God. While I am sort of middle-ground on the whole gun-law thing, the LAST place I would like to see people armed is in a bar. Make them check their weapons at the door. If you're worried about shoot'-em-ups, then arm the bouncers, but NOT the people who are sitting drinking. (I looked briefly for a link to this news item a few minutes ago, but unsuccesfully. If anyone else finds any links to this, please post them. I'll try again tomorrow to find some)

Going off topic a bit..... My mistake, EUREKA. I was refering to an earlier post that was actually CAESAR's. Sorry about that Aw gee, that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day, but then again, I just got out of bed 15 minutes ago Again, sorry about my error. Back to the topic.... I think this may be the resulty of several different things. In some part, I think that because the USA and Canada are relatively young nations, both of which were founded by gun-totin' pioneers, the whole gun culture is more deeply ingrained. The wide-open spaces encourage hunting. In Europe, where the cultures are much older, the general population did not usually possess firearms. Little or no reason to. Hunting there is a diversion for the rich, which few exceptions. Nearly all European nations have a history in which you were either very rich, or you were a peasant. People were not brought up with the notion that a firearm is a normal household item. The population at large is not interested in owning a firearm. If no one wants to own one, it makes it easier to control. But criminals there, as here, are still armed. Similar conclusions can be drawn about a lot of Asian countries. But then again, look at some of the middle-eastern nations. M-16's and AK-47's are household items in many areas. Pre-teen kids taught to maintain, and shoot, automatic weapons. I think gun-control laws in some of these countries would be an excercise in futility. In short, your statement is right, but there are underlying reasons outside the realm of control laws.

Well, we are in the US politics section and the title of the thread is "Bush is Right" but I am sorry if I misconstrued your opinions. Hey, no problem. We're all friends here, even if it does sometimes get a bit heated. Who were you referring to? Actually, it was sort of hypothetical, but all through history many empirical nations have fit the description. England, Spain, Greece, France, USSR, Nazi Germany, even Attila and his Merry Band of Huns, and so many more. But now that you mention it, the USA does sort of fit the description. Funny how that never occured to me before I am willing to believe that participants in free markets ultimately respond to other dealers. Democratic political markets are not the same. Well, you mentioned Dief and Mulrony as the only Consevative PM's in the past many decades. If they are an example, it's no wonder Canada keeps looking left. It is, in fact, my firm belief that Mulrony bears sole responsibility for the demise of the PC's. "Democracy is a lousy system of government, but it's the best we've come up with so far...." Robert A Heinlein. (I like that line).But really, who HAS created such a viable system??? Canada's seems to work as well as anyone else's. But if you look at it historically, the whole idea of democracy is still in it's infancy. Give it another thousand years or so to develop, then we'll talk. Geez, now I don't know WHO to believe. I'm so confused....

That's a good question. It's easy to control firearms when you know where they are and who has them. It's a bit tougher when they are smuggled in and sold on the black market to people who never register them. However, I'm not quite sure just how much better these "other" countries are doing. Do you think that every drive-by shooting is reported world-wide??? How about muggings where someone is actually shot??? I'm sure there are more unregistered, illegal weapons in every country than any of us will ever be aware of. That's the whole point of not reporting possession of a weapon, so that no one will know you have it. In spirit though, you and I agree on this one.

CAESAR.....good morning, always nice to chat with you... RE Swats on the rear: I firmly believe that some measure of corporal punishjment is necessary with most (not all) kids. It's not that the kids are bad, but, being kids, sometimes it takes a whack just to get their attention. And by a "whack" I DON'T mean clubbing them with a closed-fist. Usually just the insult of actually having been hit is enough to bring a kid close to tears, and at that point you have their full and undivided attention, so a little love-tap is generally more than enough. When the kids get older, then you can use logic. As a kid I was a bloody hellion. The ONLY way to get my attention was to clobber me, or at least to make me THINK I was being clobbered. If nothing else, it teaches that actions have consequences. RE Funny: Thank you. Sometimes we just have to lighten things up a bit to keep them in perspective. EUREKA didn't seem to appreciate some of my attempts at humour. I don't blame him. Sometimes my jokes are pretty bad. But hey, you can't be "on" all the time. Have a good one.

AUGUST: Sorry it took so long to reply. I simply haven't looked into this thread in a while..... At the federal level, we have in effect a one-party state. That shows immaturity. I am assuming you say this because the Liberals are really the only major party right now. But the flipside to your statement is the fact that they became that way by the will of the people. That's you and me. The PC's (remember them???) were a major force since Canada's birth, until they were voted into obscurity that is. But as another sign of maturity, new parties are evolving out of the old, and are free to do so. No one is forcing a one-party system on us. We are free to vote the liberals out any election we choose. The analogy is meaningless. The whole point of society is to be able to live with others.We in Canada have not managed to do that in a stable way. Our federal parliament is a good indication. Parliament. Their internal bickering is simply a result of the adversarial party system. But as a nation, we generally get along pretty well with others. As a society we seem to do pretty well, too. So what's your point here??? That is entirely your perception, and it says much more about you than it does about the US. Where did I mention the US??? You assumed my statement was a reference to the USA. So I ask you, this says more about who???

Here, here!!!! Bravo!!!! I agree, whole-heartedly!!!!

Yes, good morning to you too, EUREKA. Always a pleasure. I'll have to take your word on this one as I have never seen anyone fall over dead as a result of sarcasm. In fact I've never even seen anyone start bleeding, or even sustain mild bruising from sarcasm. Oh geez, there I go again. I hope it didn't hurt. Sorry. Are we getting a trifle over-zealous??? C'mon, it's just a discussion, and we're all on the same side. We all want a safe society, we simply sometimes disagree on what will make in so. Well, let's see now. Pistol whipped. In other words, struck repeatedly with a somewhat heavy blunt object. I can see that if the kid didn't have access to a pistol, then he would have had nothing to use to beat the other kid with. Like a rock, or a bat, or a hammer, or a big stick, or a piece of pipe, or......you get my drift??? (Damn, sarcasm again. Sometimes I just can't help myself. Sorry.) Now if he had SHOT the other kid with the pistol it would reinforce your point a bit better. But I agree with you on one thing, both these kids need to be reined in and taught a thing or two. The hard way if necessary. Amongst other things, perhaps it's time for schools in trouble areas to resume mandatory surprise locker-checks. First time someone is caught with something questionable in their locker, you put them on a short list to be checked on a random day each week. Hell, check 'em ALL on a weekly basis. Put the short-list on daily checks. What the hell is a pistol doing in a teenager's locker??? Was it a registered firearm??? Where did he get it??? Grill the kid. Find out who the hell is distributing illegal handguns among school kids. If it came from his home, confiscate the weapon, and ALL other firearms in the family home. Make such practices routine. Would that be enough control for you??? In fact, make it illegal for anyone with a history of violent crime to own a firearm for a set period. Say ten years offense-free before they are allowed to own even a target rifle. How would that be in your opinion??? I would have no problem with such a legislation. Gun control, gun registration, etc, I've already said I have little or no problem with. Pistols are already practically banned in Canada. You need a special licence to (legally) purchase a handgun. Then, you are only allowed to carry it from your home to the shooting range (the range must be a registered, recognized establishment) and back home again, BY THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE. Cannot stop for groceries. Cannot detour to pick up a friend. The firearm laws in Canada are fine. If they are enforced, they are quite effective. Obviously, the kid in the example above was NOT observing current carrying-laws. But that's part of the problem. As I stated in an earlier post, it is very easy to obtain an illegal, unregistered pistol. All you need is between $400-$1,000, and an evening in a seedy barroom, and odds are high that you can find a handgun that's been smuggled in from the good ol' US of A. And that's the big problem. Easy access to illegal firearms.

Re: $15.00/hr....Gee how do you think that would affect Wally's product prices???? How much does the average stockboy at Zeller's make??? Re: On the backs of it's workers.....There is this wonderful thing called "minimum wage". If you accept a job that pays only minimum wage, then that's what you should expect to earn. No one ever expects to compile a personal fortune working at McDonald's, or at Wendy's. Why then is WalMart any different??? Also, if the government thinks minimum wage is adequate, then who are we to argue??? Maybe we need a new, multi-tiered wage scale. Miinimum student wage. Minimum adult wage, etc. The sad thing is that I'm actually defending a company which I depise for a variety of reasons. I dislike all big-box retailers. As I stated in an earlier post, I avoid WalMart except as a last resort. Likewise Future Shop and Home Depot et al. I don't like any of them Big box=great price. But the flip side is that the big boxes are staffed primarily by people with little or no product knowledge or training of any sort. Example...When I go to a hardware store, it's a little Home Hardware store. There are a couple guys there who know EVERYTHING about building ANYTHING. If they don't have what I need, there's another, bigger store, a Beaver Lumber, where again, the staff is very knowledgeable. Next, I'll try Canadian Tire (at least it's Canadian owned, and sometimes has some smart cookies staffed). If they don't have it, then I'll try Home Depot. But I don't expect anyone there to know anything, and I am seldom disappointed in that regard. In fact, while doing some electrical work in a friend's house once, we stopped at Home Depot to pick up a few supplies (his choice, not mine). Whilst inside, a kid working there tried to tell us that we could use 14 gauge, 3-conductor wire to supply power to the kitchen range. The kid absolutely refused to believe that it would not handle the current required. I reported the kid to his manager, not to be mean, but to possibly save someone's life in the future. Running 14-gauge to a stove is a sure way to set your house on fire whilst cooking thanksgiving dinner. This is the kind of service you get with minimum wage employees who are not adequately trained. Great prices partially as a result of low wages. But you get no knowledge-based support whatsoever.

EUREKA: I was speaking in general terms. I did indeed read this whole thread in detail before commenting. I am no fan of Wal-Mart. There is one in my town, but I do not patronize it except as last resort. I have, however, gone into Wal-Mart, looked at prices of specific items, and then gone to locally owned businesses to buy the same items. But, I use the Wal-Mart price to haggle. Example, I used to build models. One I wanted was at Wal-Mart at about $18.00. A local hobby shop had the same model at $24.00. I offered to pay $21.00 at the local store saying that I'd rather suport local business, if they were willing to meet me halfway. They gave it to me. I paid $3.00 more than at WallyWorld, but got the satisfaction of knowing I was supporting a locally-owned business, who still made some profit on the item. If more people were willing to do this kind of thing, Wally wouldn't have the strangle hold it has established. I don't think I've spent $100 in Wal Mart in the past 10 years. As for the pay at WallyWorld, you're right. It sucks. But if someone is unsatisfied with their lot, they can continue to put out resumes and seek better employment elsewhere. There will always be SOME crappy jobs out there. Believe me, I've worked a few. But you grin and bear it and continue looking until you find something better.

I noticed that all five awards were objecting to the treatment Israel received at the hands of the recipients. This makes me echo CAESAR's question; Who exactly is the organization behind these so-called "awards"???

It's a tough call. On the one hand, the business of ANY retail business (or any business at all, for that matter) is to make money. Maximize profits. That is their reason for being. The bigger the corporation, the more impersonal this motivation becomes. On the other hand, we have the worker, who naturally wants to maximize his/her paycheck. The problem is with the type of business. A retail outlet is an entity which can easily be added or removed to a community. This is unlike a production based company, or a resource-based company. A mine can hardly pack up and move elsewhere. The ore is in the ground at specific locations. Can't force it to turn up where it ain't. It's not very easy to move a major production facility like GM or Ford, and even if you could, the auto-workers union is so well entrenched that the car companies cannot shake them off no matter where they would choose to locate in North America. As someone who in the past owned and operated a small business, I can appreciate both sides. At most, I employed 6 people at once. It was a specialized business. For a while I made a bundle, but as the market for my services gradually declined, I sometimes had trouble making the payroll, and eventually, one by one, had to let my people go. Luckily, all but one of them understood my situation, and knew that I was really trying to keep things rolling, and keep them employed. To my shame, and dismay, I failed. Water under the bridge now, and I still maintain a close friendship with the guys who worked for me. Except for the one. The question ultimately becomes how much can the company afford to pay it's employees and still make a profit. When the profits stop, the company closes, plain and simple. Me?? I'd rather have a job where I make a bit less money than have no job at all. Welfare ain't for me, I'd rather earn my keep. And I have little use for unions in their present form. They have changed from something designed to protect the worker, to a political process wherein whoever promises the biggest pie gets voted into the position as top-dog. When I see someone straight out of high-school, with no specialized training, taking home close to $1k/week, while the company he is working for is struggling to meet the union-scale payrolls, it tells me that the union isn't thinking long-term job security. Unions have a purpose, but in recent times many of them have become circus acts, and have lost sight of their original reason for being.

You thought that was funny??????? Well, in light of the fact that most people would say something like "Eeek" or "OH MY GOD", rather than "Oh, look...", yeah. I guess it would translate better with voices. I was hearing it as John Cleese in my mind when I wrote it. So I'll concede the point that my sense of humour isn't all that great. See my disclaimer at the end of this post. Likewise I disagree. I have still threatened to beat the crap out of my kids. I have still spanked them. It's all in the delivery. When the kids threatened to call Children's Aid (both kids took a stab at this approach), I explained in great detail how they would get to live in an orphanage and eat oatmeal 3 times a day, and not watch tv etc etc...... Being kids, they bought it. But then again, they had both seen Oliver Twist. Your Dad sounds like my kind of guy. Sounds a lot like my own Dad. But, when handling firearms, that's the only way to be. I hadn't seen this story. Sorry. But this speaks to safe storage of firearms. The "heat of passion" has time to dissipate whilst you're fiddling with a locked cabinet to get at the guns. I agree. I have no problem registering my rifles, except for one thing. The MNR won't honor the hunter-training certificate which I earned by passing an MNR course, because they say it was too long ago, so they won't give me a FAC. I don't see time as a factor. Safe handling of a firearm is safe handling of a firearm. That hasn't changed, and I'm certainly better equipped to appreciate the potential harm of improper handling now than I was when I was sixteen, at which age I tok the course. If I had got a hunting license every year after passing the course, it wouldn't be a problem, but, as stated in an earlier post, I don't hunt. They want me to pay around $600.00 to take the course again. I refuse to. So, no FAC, no register. Doesn't bother me, though. My guns are safely locked up. The ammunition is hidden elsewhere. Again, I agree. But while you make your argument in a logical manner, a few others have spouted rubbish. I suppose it's no worse than comparing marriages to mayonaisse Now come on, they can also be used for maiming Evidently you've never seen my ex-wife drive (DISCLAIMER: Some comments in this post may not be as funny as I think they are. Especially the last two)

Yes, right. A bunch of scared untrained people shooting up each other. How many would die by the "good guys"???? Even trained police officers sometimes hit their own personnel during shoot outs with the criminals. End of story. Think before you type eh Et-tu, CAESAR: 2 replies to this...... 1) The whole tenor of the post you chose to quote was meant in fun, but..... 2) In that same post I also mentioned firearm safety training and infered that it be mandatory for gun owners. But the particular line you quoted was a silly response to a silly argument. "Shoot-em-uppers". It's like saying we should ban automobiles because someone could get on a busy highway like the 401, and cause several deaths, along with their own, by deliberately causing an accident, which, on the 401, usually evolves into a multi-vehicle pile up in less time than it takes to say. I hope that explains that, eh In all honesty I see little reason to carry a firearm around on a regular basis. I certainly don't carry one, but I enjoy target shooting, and I take some small comfort in knowing that if it became a necessity, I could feed my family by hunting. (For the record, I have done little hunting in the past 20 years because I do not see it as "sporting", the animals simply don't have a chance. But I do have some skill in that regard, and edible game is plentiful and easy to bag in my part of the country.)

This argument is wrong on at least two counts. Do tell. Oh wait, looking a bit further on, it seems you did tell:) Congratulations, your mother must have been so proud. I know mine was. Agreed, but this hardly relates to SSM. After all, do you think that people are going to start doubting the validity of your marriage simply bcause someone who is gay has also claimed rights to that word??? You and your compatriots keep saying that, but no one ever seems to present a convincing argument as to HOW they are affected, nor HOW the meaning has changed. The meaning remains the same, ie; two people who have plighted their troth for life. The argument is not over the MEANING but rather WHO should be entitled to the use of the "M" word itself. So, if you please, tell me HOW hetero marriages would be adversely affected, rather than repeating the same old tired, traditional blather. I agree. And it seems silly to me that there is all this bother simply because a small, disenfranchised minority wants to be able to say "Hey, I'm married, and this is my spouse". And ultimately, that's one of the problems here. One reason gay activists want to use the word "marriage" is to obtain "respectability". They want straights to respect them. It could be argued that something everybody wants is the respect of their fellow man, but I don't know if "respectability" is the issue here. Commonlaw marriage is now legally recognized. A friend of mine who let his girlfriend move in with him for a couple years found that out the hard way when they broke up. He used to own a house. Not any more, although she is quite comfortable living in it now. Well, someone has to use it for something. Like anything else, it's a tool. But in this we agree. I don't feel the charter need to be invlved at all. But then, I don't believe this should even be an issue. IMV, live and let live is a great way to run things. The Golden Rule, if you will. But, some of us believe we should tell others how to run their own lives, "for their own good" of course. And now, many of us are telling gays that they can live together, but they cannot use the "M" word, because that will somehow hurt the rest of us. But as I stated earlier, no one has, as yet, pointed out HOW it would hurt us. And that is the whole point of my statement above. I agree. There will always be people with bigotted opinions. We are all entitled to our own stupid opinion. You, me, everyone. But I do not try to force my opinion on anyone else. I do not try to force my beliefs or lifestyle on anyone else. But, gays ARE having someone else's views forced on them when a large portion of the population is saying "You cannot use the word "marriage" to describe your lifelong commitment to each other". Which way do you want it, AUGY, can't have it both ways. The government, like you and I, are free to voice an opinion on bigotry. You are free to say you disagree with SSM. But to actually try to prevent it is forcing your view on loifestyle on the gay population, which in your own words, is wrong. Again, you can't have it both ways.

I agree. No one can reasonably claim that they need an RPG for sporting purposes, or for self defense, at least not until the Hell's Angels start driving tanks instead of hogs. Easy solution, shoot him. That's why they're called "accidents". If people were saved by gun accidents, then they wouldn't be accidents. (I know what you mean, but it was too god to resist) I have no problem with a registry, but don't try to take away my old M-1, or my Enfield, or even my little .22 repeater. Hollywood makes movies that they think will sell. It's all about money. If people were not so fascinated by violence, there would be no market for the movies. But there is supposedly a moral to every story, and the gratuitous violence is usually a means to an end, ie; the bad guys lose and the good guys live happily ever after, or until the sequel, whichever comes first. How many people have lost fingers while operating a skilsaw??? An intelligent person learns how a tool works, and what safety measures to use before operating it. If I shoot myself in the foot, it's my own stupid fault. I was being taught firearm safety by the time I was 5 years old. It ain't rocket science. Any idiot can learn firearm safety simply by reading about ten pages of text. If they choose not to do so, then they deserve no more sympathy than the guy who cuts off his own fingers. This is why people have kneecaps. If an intruder does not identify him/her self immediately upon request (halt, who goes there), take out the kneecap, then ask questions. How many people are killed by drivers with road rage??? Your example merely show a need for proper education and storage of firearms and ammunition. Well, if all the employees were armed, the shooter wouldn't get very far. "Oh look, a man with a gun shooting at us, I guess we better kill him". End of story. Perhaps the shoot-em-uppers would think twice. And that self-satisfied sense of security will last until your home has been broken into. Just a bit of info here....it is illegal to own a handgun in Canada unless you are licensed specifically for handguns. I am not. I could, however, for about $400-$700 get a pistol within 24-48 hours with a simple phone call. Anything from a PPK to a Glock to a nice little ladies' .25 cal pocket-pistol. It would be an unregistered handgun. For about $1200, I could buy an unregistered M-16. Just about anything in between is readily available. This is in a city of about 65,000 in Northern Ontario, not NYC or GTA. Here's a touchstone for you, if there are bikers in your town, there are unregistered, illegal firearms for sale. If legislation is passed banning firearms, does ANYONE seriously believe that bike gangs and other criminal organizations will suddenly get rid of all their weapons??? If you do, your naivete is beyond comprehension. On the other hand, if a burglar KNOWS that a particular homeowner is armed, the likelyhood is that said criminal will proceed up the street a bit and try breaking in someone else's house.

Probably not.

The percentage of women that actually have vaginal orgasm is low - what less than 29%. There is a high probability that you might not achieve an orgasm Then I'd just have to be like the Little Engine that Could; "I think I can, I think I can", and keep trying until I do

Okay, you asked for it.... Wierd as it may sound, for a long time I've wondered what an orgasm feels like for a woman. A lot of women sure make a lot of noise while having an orgasm, so it must be something pretty special. So yeah, if it were possible, for a day, to inhabit a woman's body, you bet your bottom I would. Me, and some sort of sexual device, to test drive the female orgasmic threshhold. Would have to be a device as I don't think I could get it up with a man, but then again, women don't have such pressures as being able to "get it up". All that "performance pressure" is strictly a man's cross to bear. Hadn't thought of that before. Gee, I guess men don't live perfectly ideal lives either.

RB: Your intelligence is made obvious by your ability to articulate your thoughts so well. But I think you're going off the deep end a bit. It woulkd have been more fun to quote your last few posts and shoot thing down point-by-point, but I'm gonna keep this particular post simple. You have made sweeping generalizations about what "men" want, and how "men" do this and that to subjugate women in various ways. And you've gone so far as to accuse "men" of brainwashing women so that all women will aspire to be the perfect beauty queen for mankinds, while we "men" walk around farting, belching, and scratching our enormous beer-guts. I for one take umbrage to your generalized statements. First, if all men were the way you paint us, then every woman who was ugly, or fat, or crosseyed, or bowlegged, or you name it, would remain single her whole sad life. Go to a wedding, or a funeral. Count the number of beauty queen types you see there. Take note of how many of the other sort are married. Case closed. No one is FORCING women to buy into the whole beauty thing. No more than anyone FORCES you to buy a Coke rather than a Pepsi. If INDIVIDUAL women are so weak-willed that the media makes them feel inferior, then that is each INDIVIDUAL woman's problem. I am mid-forties, balding, below-average height (5'7"), of average weight and build. I don't kid myself that I am handsome, although my face hasn't frightened any women or children, at least not recently. I haven't tried Hair Club for Men, nor have I tried Grecian Formula, despite the ads showing how the use of such products would cause me to sweep women off their feet. All the many advertisements for Axe or Old Spice have not made me rush out to buy their products, even though every commercial shows a pretty girl being attracted to the guys who use such products. I am what I am, (perfect in every way ) and a new shirt by Calvin Klein is not going to turn me into an overnight Cinderfella. I accept this fact with good grace. If you're not happy with your physical lot in life, then you should think about therapy of some sort. But do not sweep ALL men together into to your little conspiracy theory. It just won't wash (much like my perfect self on a Sunday morning )

Well, I wouldn't mind living closer to the ocean, and in a warmer climate. Need a place to tan, man Gotta bring the ocean levels up about 900 feet to get it anywhere near me, so we better start melting those ice caps now. Bring on the heat, I say. That's why I drive a V-8

I could see this, if we stipulated that the word "married" were to mean "bankrupt" or something. But under the SSM proposal, tell me exactly how this would change YOUR marriage. Would you no longer feel a commitment to your wife??? Or she to you??? Please just explain how this would change your feelings toward your spouse, because that is what marriage is all about, the relationship between two people. Why, thank you, EUREKA. That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day. I'm simply too tired to argue this morning. But in the words of Arnold, "I'll be back". Have a good day, folks

Interesting little site. The only problem, IMO, is the absoluteness of the questions. No allowance is made for either having no opinion on the question, or for variances depending on circumstances. But still, kind of fun. Economic Left/Right: -2.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77 Approaching the area inhabited by Nelson Mandella and the Dalai Lama, but a bit closer to center. I guess I better buy a new pair of sandals.