... you had a lot of time to think about that, mic, didn't you .

Then with all due respect, how do you even know the debate was slanted in anyway?

I didn't watch it either, so I can't say anything else.

I think the family would offer a compelling argument why that person should live - hopefully an argument that comes out in consultation and deep thought... but in the end, the only person who has a right to control your life is you.


I was under the impression you meant any desease that impacts on someone's ability to think clearly.

My bad.

Right. At the RNC only the Republicans are voting, and while a majority may like him a stronger base despises him. Can you imagine what will happen if the Evangelicals don't vote, or worse vote for Democrats because Guilani or McCain got the nomination?

The party would split in half, garunteeing Democrat control until they get their act together, which could be a very long time.


I used to think that... but even though the RNC is a ways away MANY questions are arising about each of their's view on abortion... and even more animosity.

I'm thinking Thompson (which scares me considering he really hasn't actually DONE anything) or maybe even Romney, if people can get over the fact that he's not a "regular Christian".


Precisely.

As for your question, no. Does this discourage the search, though? No.

However, until positive proof exists, believing it to be true is innapropraite and presumptuous.


Can I prove with data? No.

However, an investigation which supplies propper analysis and tests shows that you are a human. The scientific method has been put to the test and my "hypothesis" that you exist is as close to fact as fact can get.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary, aside from the fact that we have never met face to face? What evidence exists that you are not real?


The next step is to realize that there is no positive proof to say that God exists and worshipping a figure who may or may not be real seems unwise.

Actually, according to your original post, it WAS about Bush.

"Wonder why this is so important? Remember how you liberals accused Bush of being AWOL but cried like little sissies when Kerry's service was put to question? Well it seems that democrats have a problem with making up military careers not only to pad their resume but also to cheat taxpayers out of our money......crooks and liars...the democRatic way....."

YOU said it was important and mentioned Bush first. We just commented on your topic.


WHAT!? A Democrat lied? Say it ain't so.



I hate when we go through these stupid threads. ALL politicians, regardless of party, lie to save power. In a week we'll have a post up here about a Republican in a similar situation... so why do I bother...

This has been something I have liked in the past, but the rumor is that this tax would be, like, 30%.

note: I don't know this for sure.


Very good points.

*applaud*

And welcome to IAP.

I read Chomsky and I haven't found anyone who writes to his contrary. If Coulter makes an innacuracy it's usually on the net in some editorial. I haven't found such editorials about Chomsky.

Do you have any?

Note, I'm asking this out of pure honesty. I really haven't found any.


I don't understand why "radical Islam" was never a real part of our foreign policy in the past. Suddenly it'll be Armagedden if we ignore them? Plus, are you the kind of person that thinks "if we don't fight them there we will fight them here"? Cause if you do, I ask that you analyze the conflict in Iraq a little bit better. You do know that Iraq, while full of potential terrorists, is mostly just Shiites fighting Sunnis with us in the middle?

We planted ourselves in about a dozen foreign conflicts pretending to be helping everyone involved, which earns us about 2 dozen new enemies that want to hurt the US.

Tell me how we are safer.


You do know why Iran did these things right? Do I have to retell American pushing the Shah to power? A Shah that nearly bankrupted their country and refused to do the will of his people?

Again, I'm not saying we deserved anything they did, but if you insist on forgetting the past, you're doomed repeat it.


Says you, but I see a dangerous pattern emerging where the US is only satisfied if it is at war with somebody. My guess that once the ME is "calm" we'll pick the Chinese.

Hell, we're already playing games with them.


The feeling is mutual.


Yeah, cause the Muslims, especially those radical types, respond to violence SOOOOOO well.

 

Again, are you prepared to repeat history because you refuse to learn from it?

Oh my God, illy, I can't argue with a single thing you mentioned. Not a bit.


I hate Emo music... but my iPod is full of it. I hate the prepubecent voices that most of those singers have, but the lyrics and the melody, I think, are pretty good.

A pro-choice candidate will NEVER get the nomination. It simply will never happen. It'll cut the party in half between the radical pro-lifers and the moderates...

... you would still not have any nickels because you didn't actually debunk anything.


You mean like in an actual war? Are you dim?

The ME has been in a constant state of war since the break up of the Ottoman Empire. What are you talking about?


You give them too much credit.

Until September 11th, Muslim radicalism was a footnote in national policy. Is it any surprise so much goes on when you're not looking? Now we're looking and it's suddenly the end of this country.

Why? Cause the Communists are gone and the US needs another group to bully. This time it's the Middle East.


I support America and American interests. Iraq does not fit into that equation and neither does Iran. Afganistan did because of their involvement in September 11th, but it's apparent the government doesn't care much about that place anymore.

*I* care about this country. It's everyone else who wants to tie our defense down across an ocean and still from the future generations to pay for it that doesn't.

Darn... I didn't know.

Oh well. I'll check the highlights.

BALDAR! I was wondering when you would finally join us!

If I feel compelled to smoke a cigerette (the urge has taken me over once or twice) I prefer Malbro Reds.

Camels taste like... well, camel poo...

I already said what happened.

Suddam turned his attention on Kuwait and stopped pressuring Iran. Read my sig to understand why the US jumped to defend Kuwait but not Iraqi citizens.


I'm a little confused by your point. Could you clarify?


I think you're wrong.

You don't see Middle East countries attacking Italy... or Sweden.

Why? Cause they take great pains to avoid becoming involved and infrequently sell weapons, especially at the quantities in which the US is dishing them out.


I'm not a total isolationist. I recognize that trade and information sharing is VITAL to US defense and never said anything to the contrary.

It's support Iraq to fight Iran I don't like. Or supporting Turkey to fight Kurds I don't like. It's supporting Jews to fight Palestinians. It's getting involved in conflicts that are older than our country that I want to stop.


NSA reports that bely a strengthening anti-American sentiments in the Middle East, an increase in terrorist sympathizers and the migration of terrorists to train MORE cells says otherwise...