[amalie]: i dont belive in euthanasia, but i dont belive in keeping someone whos mostly dead and never wil be bether alive either. but as ive already said its not upp to me to decide.

[Cat0132]: But that man doesn't seem to even love her anymore, he's just tired of paying her bills, that's what disgusts me. It is illegal though, to "put someone out of their misery" I'm not sure why, but doctors who give people in pain a painless way to die are often sent to jail. It's a touchy subject and it breaks my heart to, but I'm not so sure if I could be able to just let someone like my brother go if there was a chance he could come back, do you see what I mean? I love him so much I couldn't bare to have him die, without letting him voice his opinion just because some doctor believes he cant make it, do you see it my way now?

[kduncan]: I don't believe in euthanasia either.

[Cat0132]: But do you understand my point? I don't believe that just because a doctor believes that a baby won't live, and I don't even give them a CHANCE not even to breathe, not even to let a doctor see it when it is outside of me, that isn't right, it's not right at all.

[kduncan]: No I don't Eldheler. I couldn't live with myself if I forced a person to stay alive if they were in pain, just because I would miss them.

[Doormat]: whoa....lots of comments in the last 5 hours....and to quote myself, 'I don't attack people on their opinions and beliefs, I challenge them', [Cat0132]

[kduncan]: Obviously youre not old enough to understand that compassion sometimes comes at the expense of personal pain. Sometimes you have to love enough to let something, or someone, go. Hopefully, someday, you learn that lesson, difficult as it is to learn.

[Cat0132]: I'm not saying because I would miss them, if they had a chance I would give it to them, unless he told me (by some FREAK accident) before that if he was in serious pain, unable to voice an opinion that I would let him go then I would, but you dont even give a baby THAT and you kill them before then can even see the world. Yeah, sorry, we commented alot didn't we? I wasn't saying you were attacking me, I was just quoting from a funny skit...trying for a bit of humor, but I guess you dont get SNL in Canada (or do you? wow, I'm wicked curious today), and I do see your point, and I hope you see mine as well, but for now I must leave you guys, and I have got to stop watching this wiki page very

[amalie]: actually i was totaly against abortion when i was your age, but whit time one learns more and gets different perspectives

[Cat0132]: soon because I have drivers ed and history fair, a job and school so I cant spend hours here anymore... and I DO understand, but I believe you should give a child at least a chance at life, doctors can be wrong (trust me on that one...) and I have loved someone enough to let them go, it was really hard but I havent loved like that since, don't take me as a typical 16 year old, I don't think like them, ick, so many of them disgust me with their complete immaturity (espically the guys...*twitch*)

[kduncan]: She really doesn't understand, Amalie.

[amalie]: hehe, well theyr 16, not that they change that much whit age (the boys)

[Cat0132]: Well you obviously don't know me very well, as I don't know you very well, so I wouldn't make judgements like that, and i'm dead serious when I say I don't act like my age, why do you think one of my good friends is 7 years older then me?

[kduncan]: Not all guys are total twits, my bf was in college when he was sixteen. Yeah.. he's quite brilliant. But then he'd have to be to keep up with me. ;)

[amalie]: i havent made any judgements, its not my style

[amalie]: yeah, well..ok not all boys

[Cat0132]: I wasn't acusing you Amalie, I see you live in norway, I want to visit Finland this summer, I was wondering how cold is it in the summer?

[amalie]: that depends on the weather, some times its cold and somtimes its werry hot, we walk around i sandals, t-shirts ...like everyone else

[Cat0132]: oh sweet! thanks well I'll be going now...

[amalie]: your welcome

[kduncan]: Eldheler, if you meant my comment about you not understanding, I'm making that comment based on what you've said in this forum. If what I've seen in this forum accurately reflects your opinions, then I stand by my statement.

[Cat0132]: Then go right ahead, and base me on one page, thats really shallow it's like basing someone because of what they do with one group of people though they can act completly different with another set, I act completly different with other people then I do at my computer, and even more drasticly different when I am left 'alone' to muse, which is basicly all night since alot of times I suffer from bad insomnia

[kduncan]: I think you mean about six or seven pages. I'm basing my perceptin of you on your own words.

[Cat0132]: Well I mean within this Wiki, words don't express very well, espically in semi-formal political talk, typed, where you can show no emotion ( :) <- that, for instance shows NO emotion) it is still shallow, you can judge a person by how they act with there parents, but I can almost guarantee you that act differently when with friends, if you find someone that doesn't then I will be completly blow away. 

[kduncan]: wups.. I was worng. The discussion I've had with you goes back sixteen pages.

[Cat0132]: I mean within the wiki, and I also didn't write the 16 pages, I think my fingers would fall off

[kduncan]: heh.. I'm as completely blunt and honest with my friends as I am with everyone else. What you see is exactly what you get.

[Cat0132]: You act the same around your friends as you do with goverment officals? policemen? your parents? if you are you are deffiantly one of the few, and no wonder you don't understand me.

[kduncan]: I said the discussin goes back sixteen pages, not that you personally wrote sixteen pages.

[Cat0132]: p.s. that is American to the core *high five* lol...

[Cat0132]: yes but when I said page I meant WIKI PAGE, have you not read my last two comments?

[kduncan]: I don't put on fronts for anyone. It's not worth my time or energy to pretend to be someone , or something, I'm not.

[Cat0132]: it's not that I pretend I'm someone else, it's just the way I am, doesn't help that I am manic, it's just I act differently with different people, around my friends and even people I dont like, basicly everyone of my 'peers' I act the same, the way it comes naturally, a bit of a clown, online I'm a bit cold (though it depends on where I am) and alone...I'm just weird...I think to much...

[kduncan]: No, American to the core is often to say one thing and mean another. hmmm.. you said not to base you on one page. This discussion has not been one (ie, this) page.. but has continued for sixteen pages. I put that in in case anyone who popped in on this ONE page didn't think this was all I based my perceptions on.. it was the past sixteen or so of discussion.

[Cat0132]: well, what being American was SUPPOST to mean, oh, ok well I meant within this wiki...yeah...just making sure you didn't not catch that or something.

[kduncan]: Here's a challenge: I told you what the 10 priciples of the Green party are, what are the principles of the Republican party? Because, quite frankly, I've looked, and they're not spelled out anywhere.

[Doormat]: ah.....the grammar/puntiation/spelling errors just jump at me...call me a spelling nazi, but words spelt wrong AND capitalized does not make a good combo.

[amalie]: actually the spelling here is pretty good next to some people ive talked to on elftown

[Cat0132]: You and your sis are spelling Nazis lol, all well, the Republican party has changed ALOT over the years, they used to be considered liberals, and now they are considered conservatives, it's always changing, and while they change the people change parties (when a party changes so much they no longer agree- at least if they pay attention) Neither Rebuplicans nor Democrates have 'principles' like the Green party, and if they ever did they are outdated (and yes, the Green party will change wether you like it or not) but I am not part of a party, so therefore I can't tell you what 'Republican principles' are, but feel free to ask a party leader, I would love to see what they have to say.

[kduncan]: You're saying.. that Republicans have no principles??

[Cat0132]: How can I speak for a party I am not a part of? Much like how can I speak for Muslims if I am not Muslim myself.

[kduncan]: I gotta say, it was worth it to stay up late just to hear a Bush supporter finally admit that Republicans have no principles. Thank you.

[Cat0132]: Depends on what you call principles, but ask a Republican not a slightly right independent, though most will tell you Republicans tend to have more "moral values" yet that depends on what "values" and "morals" you have, but the Green party is going to change so much eventually (if it lasts long enough) it will no longer be what it is now, it happens with every party.

[kduncan]: No, the values Greens hold are rather timeless, I think they're keepers. And please tell me which of the ten Green values are immoral, or perhaps "less" moral.

[kduncan]: Is she really?

[Cat0132]: I'm not describing your principles, I'm describing how Republicans might describe themselves, but trust me, Green is going to change, everything changes, you can't dissprove that. And it is far to late I am going to bed, and Hilary...*shiver* I can't imagine her as President, She must have been so happy when Kerry lost so she could run...she's wanted to for so long...

[Tiezu Star]: yup

[kduncan]: I've heard she probably will be the candidate the Dem's put up next election. Unfortuantely she'll have the unpleasant task of cleaning up the colossal mess has Bush made of everything.

[Tiezu Star]: i no but their r peolpe sayin we r not 'ready' for a female presidant

[kduncan]: I guess we'll find out in four years.

[Tiezu Star]: yup yup and im old enough to vogte so im voting!! yay XD

[Sven Welkenson]: Who cares about a female president. If she gets elected that just means Bill is back in the house.

[Doormat]: ummm i'm surprised that the word owned never came up in this "little" discussion....oh well its a rapidly changing world :D

[Tiezu Star]: hu????

[kduncan]: Who says she'd be eleceted or not eleceted simply because she's a female? Hopefully we're a little beyond that, but I guess we'll find out in four years.

[Dil*]: ...who ever thinks of it that way is just sexist scum.

[Tolmeni]: Quoth Canadian parody shows: "I bought the election fair and square!" Too true.

[Rondel]: The last several pages have made for very interesting reading. I'm going to try to restrict myself to one comment, though, and that's on the abortion debate; I've seen [Cat0132] going on right and left about "the baby" this, and "the baby" that. Yet NOWHERE has there been any mention of the woman (a person, with rights) whose body is to be dedicated against her will to the incubation of a dividing cell simply because it has "unique" human DNA. (FYI, human DNA is not unique -- which is why DNA tests have a margin of error. Generally, a DNA fingerprint will be shared by at least 2 people, and that's not allowing for twins.) If that cell is viewed as a human, then according to the law,

[Rondel]: it's not alive; since it doesn't make human brainwaves (and can't, not until considerably further along in the pregnancy), which are the demarcation of life and death in human beings. A brain-dead human is eligible for organ donation, because they are *DEAD*. A fertilized zygote is not a person; it has the potential to become a person, but then again, as cloning technology progresses, so do most cells in the human body, and my bone marrow does not have independent rights under law, nor do my ovaries. Not every fertilized egg (zygote) develops into a person (as several miscarriages have taught me). Some implant, but don't develop at all (a "blighted ovum"), and require removal <MORE>

[Dil*]: nice, you share similiar views to me, but you have more info.

[Rondel]: (a D&C -- to you, an "abortion") for the sake of the woman's health (I know, it happened to me). Yet even THAT procedure would be illegal if we considered the rights of a fertilized egg, even one incapable of developing into a baby (much less a healthy baby) as more important than the health and well-being of the living human being in whose uterus that blighted ovum is implanted. Talk about human rights all you want with regard to abortion, but PLEASE remember that the "mother" (a term I am hesitant to use for a nulliparous woman -- one who has never born a child) is a human being with rights, and the gamete is NOT. I have seen not one whit of concern for the rights of the born, from you.

[Dil*]: ....you should see the debates i have at abortion discussions...they go in this long, painful, loopy cycle.

[Rondel]: So where is the concern for the 14-year-old girl pregnant by incest, who in the absence of legal abortion, will face the kitchen table and "skills" of the neighbour down the street, to cover up her father's misdeeds? No, that's not a hypothetical situation, that's an example from my own family, an incident that happened slightly BEFORE Roe vs. Wade. Where is the concern for the disabled woman whose born child will suffer the loss of her mother, if the woman is forced to continue a pregnancy that she sought desperately to avoid, because it will kill her? For that matter, where is the concern for the to-be-orphaned child in this situation? I see NO compassion in this stance on this issue.

[Rondel]: I've seen (and had) debates similar to those, [Dil*], and these days I tend to just post my views on my personal site, and avoid the debates. I can't afford the emotional impact of facing that much unconcern for people, REAL people, whom I personally know and love. Every one of the situations I have mentioned is taken from my own life and/or social circle. This is NOT a dispassionate political issue for me -- it's a tally-sheet of human devastation, and the fact that people would care more about a fertilized ovum (when a third of all fertilizations/pregnancies end in miscarriage) than about real living breathing suffering people just appalls and disgusts me.

[Dil*]: you should make a wiki....cept' cut out the comments box if people piss you off.

[Rondel]: Oh, and one last comment I can't resist; [Cat0132], if you're having that much trouble communicating your views, did it occur to you that perhaps you'd have less difficulty doing so if you were to treat your studies of your own language as important, given that it's the only means you have of communicating your ACTUAL views to others? (Apart from direct observation of your behaviour... ...but then, according to your own statement, that wouldn't do us any good either, because you have other views and behaviours, we just need to immerse you in the appropriate social setting to elicit them -- a behaviour known as mirroring, and a symptom of psychological dysfunction/personality disorders.)

[carrot_queen]: so much hate in this world, so so much. its saddening to see the person you should be joinging against the war on terrorism is a person you despise more than the guy who killed over a thousand of your fellows on september the 11th. president bush is doing his best for the american poeple, and its saddening to see that you dont want to help him. there is no war without civilian casualties, and the iraq war has them, it is inevitable, but the fact that a large minority of poeple who want bush out of power are using THAT as an argument against him is not only naíve, its rediculous too

[Rondel]: Um... many of us *are* "joining against the war on terrorism" - but perhaps that's not what you meant? Because Bush is FOR the "War on Terror" (a laughable thing to say, if you think of the people cowering in their homes as he carries out his intent to bomb THEIR ENTIRE COUNTRY "back into the stone age", apparently "in order to liberate them" (from what, the ability to have any culture higher than a stone age civilization?)...), and it would be hard to join him "*against* the war on terrorism", as you advocate. As for our *relative* feeling about Bush and the people involved in killing thousands of people on Sept. 11, 2001, you have no basis on which to judge; we have spoken ONLY re: Bush.

[Rondel]: not about the people who caused the tragedy. Also, [carrot_queen], can you explain on just what basis you think there should be a war against Iraq? There's no evidence connecting Iraq with the tragedy of September 11, there's no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and the people are living in fear, suffering far worse than they did with Saddam in power. So, even granting for a moment the hypothetical concept that I think that "the War on Terror" is a good thing, why do you think I should be in favour of Bush's ongoing military aggression against Iraq and the Iraqi people? If the war is supposed to justify the casualties, what (in your opinion) is supposed to justify the war itself?

[FiSHr.]: what about palestine

[kduncan]: whoa.. carrot_queen, that's a intersting statment to make concerning the fact that Hussein played no part in what happened on 911, in fact Bush admitted as much a few months before the recent elections. Please explain, carrot_queen, how invading another country is in the best interest of the American people. It's been proven since the invasion of Iraq was initiated that there was no WMD program in place, no WMD have been found, no link with the terrorists (or with bin Laden) has been found or proven. We were told that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, that fact has since been proven to be untrue, ie: we went invaded a country based on a lie. The reason for the invasion has since

[FiSHr.]: what about palestine

[kduncan]: changed, and we're now told that we are "liberating the Iraqi people". Did you know that martial law has been put in place in Iraq. We're not calling it martial law of course, but restricting citizens rights, movemnets, ownership of assets, and having the military in control is martial law whether we call it that or not. The US is in Iraq for one reason: it benefits a few powerful entities financially.. and that's the only reason.

[kduncan]: Cryptic_vampire, you keep asking about Palestine, can you be a bit more specific in your question so that someone can address it?

[Dil*]: Nobody benefits from this war against Iraq except a couple of large, war based corporations. For example: haliburten, and the fact that cheney is the boss of it...or an important company CO

[kduncan]: Cheney's really not (officially) part of Halliburton anymore. However, he is being paid far more by Halliburton as part of his retirment package than he is being paid by the citizens of the United States, which begs the question: With whom do his loyalties lie? I'd wager that his loyalties lie with the people who are paying him more, and it's not the people of the United States.

[Dil*]: ..i'd bet the money.

[carrot_queen]: can i just say that iraq are now free to build their own civilisation ona basis that the american army have now given them. they have the freedom to pulltogether if they so wish, and create there own country and government without the threat of being bombed or executed by their own leader, the reason the war is still ongoing is because of the people trying to fight for allah, not because bush is a power hungry leader

[Dil*]: ...Err what? Why the war is dragging on has nothing to do with anything we were talking about.

[Doormat]: tell me...they fight for a reason, so what does bush fight for....? money?

[kduncan]: Iraq had their own civilisation, in fact Iraq had one of the oldest civilisations on earth. Iraq was one of the most liberal middle eastern nations, so much so that Hussein was hated by the Saudi's (is it any surprise that the Saudi's were very much in favour of the US invasion of Iraq?) and that Hussein was reviled by bin Laden. A note is due here: the Kurds that were battling Hussein's forces were largely Iranian Kurds, not Iraqis. Is it any surprise that we now find our service people dieing enmasse at the hands of these same people? The Iraqi people are not fighting for Allah, who happens to be the same god as Christians worship.. but under a different name.. the Iraqi people are

[kduncan]: fighting intruders who invaded their country. Tell me, carrot_qeen, you don't say where you live in your Elftown house, but suppose a country invaded your homeland, crushed your buildings, arrested the male members of your household though there was no evidence they are engaging in any terrorist activities. Suppose children in your family were maimed or killed in a wave of "shock and awe" bombings, and that your parents (or you) now have no workplace to go to, and thus no income to speak of. Would you welcome them with open arms? Or would you fight against them in any way you could? To sit back in our easy chairs and say, "Those stupid Muslims, don't they know we're trying to help them?"

[kduncan]: is really a bit presumptuous on our part.

[kduncan]: DiabloJr., I've posted a link before.. actually very good viewing.. I'll post it again so you can look at it if you're interested. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm It should answer most of your questions. Bush has not sent the US spiraling into a war which cannot possibly be won for his own personal benefit, rather there are several people that benefit, and several corporations. I learned long ago that war is profitable.. and we're seeing this. Things blown up have to be rebuilt. People injured need medical attention (to the benefit of US pharmaceutical companies). Economies have to be restored.. to the benefit of foreign economies, and of course we all get the

[kduncan]: benefit if Iraqi oil that was heretofor illegal for us to purchase (though some American oil companies did so anyway).

[Tiezu Star]: look at the binoculors and the book he is holding . . . it wxplains EVERYTHING!

[Tiezu Star]: omg this is funny as hell, i will post pictures of bashin bush . . . he has an epty head and all he thinks about iw war -^.^-

[Tolmeni]: Teehee. South African political cartoons. My mum's from there.

[bluefarie]: awsome pics ppl....where did u get them???

[Rondel]: [carrot_queen], you said "the reason the war is still ongoing is because of the people trying to fight for allah" -- so is it your view that religion (including Bush's Evangelical Christian beliefs, which he freely admits are at the heart of his presidency) should have no place in the decision to fight a war? Because from here, it looks like you are discriminating by creed, and I don't believe that a people asserting their right to believe as they do, religiously, is enough reason to "bomb them back to the stone age". And, can you explain how the Iraqi people are supposed to rebuild their society, when they have no infrastructure or control over their own lives, in the face of soldiers?

[Erykun]: thoughs pics are halarious and it proves bush is an idiot

[Rondel]: [kduncan] has made an excellent point about the real reasons for the war; I want to make it clear that I agree with her on those, and not with your contention that the war continues "because of people fighting for allah", but even as an inaccurate contention, it has aspects and implications that truly horrify me. Freedom of religion is one of the tenets that Americans are (or were) supposed to believe in, not grounds to justify an extremely devastating war. If that were the reason that the war was going on, the US invading a foreign country whose inhabitants were willing to defend themselves in the name of the god in whom THEY believe is an act of invasion, not a justification for one.

[kduncan]: I would like to see Bush and Cheney questioned separately about the war in Iraq and about what happened on 911, and I'd like to see it without Bush wearing an earpiece as he was in the Presidential debates. Bush and Cheney never should have been permitted to testify together, and in private, to the 911 Commission. Why is it that Bush's handlers won't let him speak on his own? Do you think they're afraid of what he might inadvertantly say?

[Tiezu Star]:

[kduncan]: That's sweet.

[Dil*]: ..it's kinda sad cause' it's true.

[Tiezu Star]: i no. . . hey [Dil*] i noticed but u are A LOT of places I am . . . hmmmm . . . LOL

[Dil*]: ....no surprise..i watch over 140 wiki's..o.O

[dominoe]: cool

[Maurer's conclusions]: That can be annoying, when you have been away for a while, and you sign on, and have tons of new wiki comments or changes. It happens to me at least...

[Dil*]: yep, i hate it sometimes.

[dominoe]: yep

[bluefarie]: that's funny....^

[De Vierde Macht]: I'm glad i dont live in th eUS

[Shee A'beanne Alainn]: Me too!

[Maurer's conclusions]: Ditto.

[Doormat]: compre

[Mitsune]: Ah well, Shee we live in Canada and we have our own problems... ;)

[Peregrinus]: Everybody does, methinks.

[Mitsune]: Unfortunately... corruption is rampant...

[ddsfsfdsfd]: Bush is the worst piece of shit on the face of this earth...He's Hitler in an idiot form

[amalie]: yupp

[Tiezu Star]: hey should i make a wiki of bush bashin pics?

[Shee A'beanne Alainn]: YES...and send me the adress imediatly...lol

[Erykun]: bush is trying to get rid of gay marriage

[Shee A'beanne Alainn]: that the one good thing.....

[Tiezu Star]: well, not really, im not starting a fight, just gettin in my 2 sence. he is taking away people's rights. . . well that all i wanna say, if ya wanna debate, message me, ne way, i'll get working on that.

[Shee A'beanne Alainn]: alright you have fun with it then...and post it when your done...

[dominoe]: cool

[bluefarie]: awsome...

[kduncan]: By pushing for a constitutional ban against gay marriage, Bush is infringing on the separation of church and state that we are guaranteed. If he wants to ban civil unions, that's one thing, but banning (or allowing) gay marriage is the job of an individual church, not the federal government.

[Maurer's conclusions]: There will never be a separation of Church and State in a country that was founded by religious fundamentalists... By the way, a Californian atheist tried to sue the State, since his daughter was forced to say the pledge of allegiance, which goes against the idea of separation of Church and State.

[Peregrinus]: You know, not all the founding fathers were religious fundamentalists.

[Blue Fish]: some ppl think some of them were wiccan but that highly doutfull!

[Peregrinus]: Believe me, they weren't. Most of them were Freemasons.

[Goldice]: does it matter? does it really matter what religion people believe themselves to be? i cant belive you lot are being so shallow

[kduncan]: No, goldice, it doesn't matter.

[kduncan]: Ertarkano, the issue in California was that the Pledge of Allegiance contains the words "under god", and that is what the father took issue with. The pledge itself doesn't violate the ideal of separation of church and state, but those two words certainly do. There's been a drive in the US to have those words removed from the pledge. They were not in the pledge as it was originally written, and were only added as recently as 1954.

[Peregrinus]: How is that being shallow?

[bluefarie]: b/c the little hippos will eat u..

[Duredhel]: Hmmm, probably not my place to say anything since I am not american but maybe I can pitch in as a neutral observer, i was under the impression that the founding fathers were quite the opposite of religious fundamentalists, you know, back in the day the constitution they wrote was refered by the world media as a 'godless constitution', and yes most of the founding fathers were masons (hence the pyramid on the 1 dollar bill, the pyramid is a central simbol of masonry)

[kduncan]: You're correct, Duredhel. The founding father's realised the importance of religious freedom; after all, the very reason most of the earliest Americans came to the US from Europe was to escape the persecution they'd experienced in their homelands. In their wisdom, the founding fathers realised the importance of fully separating the affairs of the various churches from the affairs of state. It's interesting to note that more than a couple of the founding fathers were athiests.

[Maurer's conclusions]: I stand corrected. I hade forgotten about the pyramid and the eye. The Latin phrase below it (I can't remember it) has some Freemason connection as well.

[Peregrinus]: It is "e pluirbus unum," meaning "from many, one." And I believe strongly in the idea of seperation of church and state, and I'm a Christian.

[Dil*]: ...I believe strongly in seperation of church and state too. When religion gets into politics, it just gets ugly.

[Peregrinus]: Exactly. I wouldn't want a protestant Christian government that was oppressive towards me because of my faith, just as I wouldn't want a Bhudist, Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan, Mormon, or Catholic government. Besides, I happen to believe that religion and faith is a choice and nobody can force anybody else to believe something (or not to, for that matter).

[Dil*]: buddhists are pretty good, and so are wiccans...they don't try to push their religions on people.

[Peregrinus]: That's true... in most cases...

[Dil*]: That's something i've noticed.

[Peregrinus]: Yup...

[Dil*]: have you ever heard of a buddhist holy war crusade? I think not.

[Peregrinus]: Hehehe... that's rather comical to think of...

[Dil*]: yeah lol.

[Rondel]: "Eeek, the Jains are attacking, the Jains are attacking"... <giggle> It just struck me as particularly funny... given the effort they go to in order to avoid so much as stepping on, sitting on, or breathing in an insect. I do have to admit that I find more war-like tendencies in the theology and/or practise of certain religions, as compared to others. So I find the idea of *members of* those religions in political power more worrisome than I do those whose religious beliefs do not believe in the idea that a war can be a holy act, sanctioned by their deity or other central religious element. But I wouldn't want to see any religion enshrined in government, regardless...

[dominoe]: right>

[Rondel]: ...but on the other hand, I believe that people should be able to have the government that they want and believe in, and if the entire population of a country wanted a religious dictatorship as their form of government, it should be their right to have one, even if the government itself is not democratic. I was thinking about this just recently, because "Democracy" (regardless of whether or not the government is actually a republic) has become a figure of worship in the US, and one on whose behalf it is considered "meet and right" to start or fight a war -- even if the people "on whose behalf they're fighting" do not want it.

[dominoe]: okay

[Typical Cracka Behavior]: I say vent your anger. Riot. Show the government you care. Dissent is patriotic.

[Peregrinus]: How true. Unfortunately, democracy is all too often a "tyrany of the majority", I find. And about the whole people who believe in holy wars thing, I have to say, that's just certain individuals' interpretation of their religion. There are many who don't think that way.

[Tiezu Star]: hey i started the pic page . . . i got it finished for now

[sk8er_chic_321]: OMG! Guess what I heard? The people in Ohio voting on the little electronic poll thingy were pressing Kerry and it checked Bush >:( I hate bush!!!!!!!!!!!! AHHH

[Tiezu Star]: were did u hear this

[Rondel]: It happened to many of the electronic voting machines, it's been all over the news to the point where there are references to it in tech-related comic strips ( http://ubersoft.net/ -- see news section and last 3 strips), and it happened to both Democrats AND Republicans. Here's an article which specifically includes coverage of the problems in Ohio: http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/story/0,10801,97293,00.html More concerns about evoting can be found here: http://www.computerworld.com/news/special/pages/0,10911,2825,00.html Incidents in Florida are described here: http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/story/0,10801,97072,00.html

[Rondel]: Net result: " Electronic voting machine problems caused more than 4,500 votes to be lost in one North Carolina county during Tuesday's general election, and gave U.S. President George Bush more than 3,800 extra votes in an Ohio county, according to reports by The Associated Press", for those of you who don't want to bother following through on the links.

[LoL, mate]: I happen to hate George W. Bush. I can't express my hatred towards him correctly, but if I could, I would!

[bluefarie]: holy crap....what is all that writng about??

[PixieStickChick]: I just found something quite interesting. This was one of the AOL headlines. The artice is: http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?id=20041112100709990010  And one of the mentioned links is: http://www.ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm

[Peregrinus]: Fucker!

[PixieStickChick]: Indeed he is

[Blue Fish]: like I said we got the terd sandwitch again

[bluefarie]: yes, yes...  terd sandwitch?????

[Peregrinus]: sounds about right.

[Blue Fish]: haha it was on south park about 2 weeks ago...and the "Terd Sanwitch" was Bush and the "Giant Dosh" was Kerry!lol

[bluefarie]: oh...ok...

[punk_princess]: Bush is an idiot. Yeah, I know others have established this, but I wanted to say it too, alright? Maybe, like some people pointed out to me, I shouldn't say anthing because I'm not American and have "no idea about this country", but when my country (the UK) is involved in the stupid war and people of my country are being killed as well I think I can say something. I told the person that and then they flicked their stupid hair and walked off with their one braincell (I do not like this person...or Bush^^) Yeah, he killed loads of people...I HATE HIM FOR THAT! But I respect the service men and women who went to war and are fighting for chimpy, because they were just following orders....

[Peregrinus]: Hehehe... chimpy...

[bobbina]: hey im new here too!

[Black_Dragon_123]: Can I join?

[Goldice]: bobbina have you been added? yeh i'll add you black_dragon

[bobbina]: yeh ive bin added look at the list im one from the bottom. why?

[Goldice]: yeah i know you are now because i added you earlier. and i asked because you said you were new so as managment i checked whether you were on the list, you weren't so i asked if you wanted to be.

[bobbina]: oh rite sorry. wires crossed . lol.

[Black_Dragon_123]: SWEET!!!

[bobbina]: got it then?

[Black_Dragon_123]: heh... I'm a member!!! ^^ w00t!!!

[bobbina]: sweet

[Black_Dragon_123]: yeppity!!!

[bobbina]: welcome!

[Black_Dragon_123]: heh...

[BarleySinger]: I don't know. I think I would respect a general who refused to support an unjust war, more than one who just went along "only following orders" like Hitlers generals. Blind allegiance is not a positive quality. At Neurmberg (sp?) Germany after WWII the Nazi generals and such were sure that the fact that they were "just following orders" would protect them. It didn't.

[Goldice]: glad you both happy with being members. dont worry about crossed wires

[bobbina]: thanks goldice.

[Goldice]: happens all the time. with disasterous consequences i found out the other day

[bobbina]: wot?

[Goldice]: dont owrry it wud take 2 much explainin

[bobbina]: oh ok

[Goldice]: can i ask.has anyone else been unable to answer the poll as you don't agree with any of the answers?does anyone agree with me that it should depend on the mothers state of mind. not if the child is going to be disabled because, personally, id feel lucky to have a disbaled child

[bobbina]: yeh i agree with ya on that.

[Goldice]: kugy i aint having a go at you but it wont let me send messages so it turned into a public thing. if the mother is deemed unfit to look after her child and they were afraid she was going to hurt it then yes, because they can force it under the mental health act

[Lord Kügenheim]: Anyone with any other options to add can message me anytime they want. Im not really in the "deep thinking" mood right now and i dont think i was when i made it so thats the best i could come up with.

[Goldice]: i wasnt having a go darling but it wouldnt let me message yesterday

[_____________]: Bush Rocks, You guys suck, and so does Kerry! WOOHOO! FOUR MORE YEARS! Thankyou and Goodnight

[Tiezu Star]: Lord Kugenheim, plz delete that message

[Tiezu Star]: OH! INTERSTING STUDY! there i believe 20 countries, like major countries, that the citizns took a poll and these were the standings . . . 19/20 wanted Kerry to win, the other one was Poland wich bush won by only 2% . . . and also those countries didnt hate the U.S, just BUsh, but now that we relected him, people in those countries now hate the U.S for re-electing him . . . wow . .. 0.0 i luv CNN

[_____________]: I am just stating my opinion and I think that is perfectly acceptable. You all are doing it as we speak, not just dissing our president, but our country. If you were out into the position of president of the US, how do you think you would react? Especially during a time of war like this. Bush had not been in office but for seven or so months when the attack on our country occured, so golly guys, give him a break. You are discriminating against him just for having an opinion. Would you rather have a robot with no mind at all for president? I'm sorry, maybe I over-reacted a bit, but to diss a man with such honor, in such a difficult position is cowardly and cruel.

[Tiezu Star]: alright, hes hated around the world, hav u hear this, canda is trying to get this passed, wen his term is up and he goes fishing in canada, he will get arested, and so far, its getting passed, very few people like him around the world

[_____________]: It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks of him, what matters is that America is united and supports him and his descision he made as the representative of our counrty.

[Peregrinus]: America is united? Who the hell thinks that?

[amalie]: honor...? what honor? hes destroying the world, its ww2 all over again..only now its the muslims that are being hunted

[PixieStickChick]: United America? *rolling around the floor laughing... looks up* Oh were you serious??