helloooooo. ok so i decide

I think your first problem is the fact that you're watching MTV for war coverage. I hope that was a joke. But I'll comment as soon as I'm done making my latest journal post. Was that supposed to be "talking" war? instead of taking war?

Spork.

I am for the war (big surprise there). Saddam has been in power 12 years to many. I am glad that President Bush had the testicular fortitude to stand up to the French and see what had to be done. Thanks to Britain and Spain for their support.

Were we supposed to sit around and wait for Saddam to finance another terrorist attack? Were we supposed to wait until he killed thousands of his OWN people with chemical and/or biological weopons?

There comes a time when you have to say enough and root out the evil. Not to wait and take retaliatory actions but to take preemptive actions.

MTV is so fickle. After 9-11 they ran specials on why attacks were wrong. But then, after support continued to rise and we did begin attacking, they changed and started supporting the war and giving reasons why. I HATE MTV!

Genesis 1:30
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so

yea, its supposed to be talking war, but i have no idea how to edit these posts, and yes it was a joke.

so i am wondering, people say, why the urgency now? is it because its related to bin laden? because saddam has been like this forever right? i dunno ..

Well, here goes... I am opposed to this war. If you know me, that should come as no suprise, you know how us long haired VW driving Oasis listening hippies are. ;) So why do I think it's a bad idea?

Okay, so, IMHO, there's no real justifiable reason to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. Several reasons I've heard floating around are that "he's got weapons of mass destruction", "he's not disarming", "he's connected to the 9/11 attacks", and "he's insane." So I'll take it from the top...

Weapons of mass destruction. Okay, so this includes nukes, biological and chemical weapons, AFAIK. So where are they? We know he's got no nukes, inspectors couldn't find any evidence of fresh biological or chemical weapons, and the Bush administration has shown no conclusive proof of their existence, merely some phonecalls and spy photos that anyone will admit could easily have been faked.

Some say he wasn't disarming. Well, Iraq destroyed about 50 of their "al shaigheorgegnrt" or whatever they are missiles before all this started. They were STARTING to disarm. With more inspections and UNIFIED (I can't stress that word enough, I'll get back to it) opposition from all UN members, chances are he would have destroyed more weapons. So he might not have been disarming rapidly or fully, but he was making a step or two in the right direction.

The Sept. 11th attacks. Okay, now this HAS to be a joke. NO EVIDENCE that has been released that connects Saddam Hussein to the attacks. NONE. Sheesh. You'd think he'd masterminded the whole thing the way I've heard some people talking about it. This point isn't even really worth arguing.

He's Insane. You know, I think I agree with this. This guy just has a few loose screws in his head. But so what? It's not like he's the only insane leader in the world (I question Castro's sanity often, who else but a madman would allow the genocides seen in warring African nations, and I don't even want to get STARTED on N. Korea.) He's evil to his people? So are all those other leaders, and more. Are we invading THEIR countries and deposing all of them? No. Why not? North Korea is a frikkin' timebomb sitting over there. they hate us just as much, and they've got nuclear capabilites. And we haven't touched them. Talk about being a hypocrite.

So what that all boils down to so far is pretty much a bunch of rumors and almost no hard facts. The administration of this country is asserting that they are right, without proving it. It's like writing an editorial without facts... Ms. Kandle would chop their heads off in an instant. ;)

Now, I said I'd touch on this 'UNIFIED' issue, didn't I? Okay, so it pretty much goes without saying that there's strength in numbers. If the entire UN would stick together, that's one hell of a front for Saddam Hussein to go up against. But right now, the UN is split. And that's part of the reason Saddam didn't DO anything, because of all the bickering going on there. Of course, the war has already started, it's too late to do anything about that. But a week or longer ago, being unified might have prevented this.

Another thing... The whole point of the UN was for all the countries to be able to sit as equals and decide what to do when issues arise. Now, the Bush administration has pretty much said "screw you guys" and gone off to do what they want. Why? Because we're the biggest, and we can get away with that. But we shouldn't be able to. Basically we just set one HELL of a bad example, that being big means you don't have to cooperate with smaller countries, you can just do what you think is right.

Supporting our troops? Being unpatriotic? Ha. I support our troops. I want them home here with their families, instead of off in a desert halfway around the world. I know they joined willingly and it's the risk they take, but I feel that right now their lives are being put in danger for no good reason. I support the troops, not the administration. And anyone calling anti-war people 'unpatriotic' or telling them to move to Iraq or anything like that just... astounds me. How can you be that stupid?

Whatever happened with Bin Laden? Can you say "distraction"? I knew you could! ;)

Tony Blair... well, Blair is Bush's lapdog and shouldn't be in office. Sheesh.

I'm almost tempted to touch on how I think religion plays into this, but that's just opening a big ol' can of worms that I probably shouldn't.

I'm kinda rambling... sorry. There was one or two other things I wanted to mention, but they've slipped my mind... I'll be back with them, don't worry. :)

So, basically. There's no proof (in my mind) that Saddam is doing anything more than not cooperating rapidly, I think our attention could be much better spent somewhere else *cough*N.Korea*cough*, and I think that the UN is there for a reason, and like it or not, we should be working with them instead of just shrugging them off.

my 2 cents... I await replies.

--Fiend

wow.

ok but see thast the only thing ive been hearing all along. i dont know too much about the opposing side. i guess .. hm .. blkwjbalkhe war sucks.

opposed.

.end.

as long as Saddam is in power, he will continue his uncivil acts. Therefor, war was inevitable, to give him the punishment he has deserved for over 12 years.

unification? wasn't the UN unified 12 years ago. Twelve years ago when we first told Saddam to get rid of his long range missiles and any ability to create chemical and biological weopons.

Granted, we know that Saddam doesn't have the ability to CREATE nuclear weopons. However, there are enough nukes floating around the black market from the fallen U.S.S.R. to provide Iraq with whatever nuclear ability that they wanted. And we know that Iraq has those chemical weopons.

I'm just saying that a unified UN can still be ignored and stalled. After 12 years, it was about time SOME country decided enough was enough. And in my opinion, America was and is the most able bodied country to accomplish this mission.

God Bless George W. Bush and our troops. And may God bless America.

Yeah, the UN was unified 12 years ago. But they didn't keep pressure on Saddam, they assumed he'd stay good. All we need to do is keep an eye on him and tell him to stop when he gets out of line. But he was left to his own devices and he started having his fun again. A mistake was made that shouldn't have been, but it doesn't mean it couldn't have been corrected.

As far as I'm concerned, this administration has shunned the UN and moved us into a state of conflict that shouldn't have been reached unless ALL OTHER OPTIONS were exhausted. And that doesn't mean just giving Saddam an ultamatum. What's the point in international law if the person with the biggest guns doesn't have to do anything they don't want to?

Like I said, don't get me started on what I think about how religion ties into this. Yes, that includes "God bless America." ;)

--Fiend

See, the problem I have with Iain's arguments, and hopefully he can finally be the first to solve this problem for me, is that nobody has been able to refute that Resolution 1441 is the international law authorizing force against Iraq. Nobody has been able to give me a reasonable answer on what an alternative definition of "Serious Consequences" is. I ask anyone to please define a meaning for Serious Consequences other than war. What is possibly not as bad as war but still a "serious consequence." AND THAT WAS A UNIFIED ruling by the United Nations, including France that said if Saddam did not disarm he would suffer serious consequences. And don't try to tell me that telling him to go sit in the corner or a slap on the rear-end for being bad is serious consequences.

--Spork

I'm not sure who I'm responding to now, but it's whoever posted this:

"as long as Saddam is in power, he will continue his uncivil acts. Therefor, war was inevitable, to give him the punishment he has deserved for over 12 years."

Like I said, if his uncivil acts are justification for an invasion of his country and toppling his administration, then why aren't we invading several countries in Africa, North Korea, or other such countries? For example, Kim Jong-il (North Korean leader) has ties to terrorism (he supposedly [accoring to his relatives] ordered the bombing of a Korean airliner that exploded in 1987), has an ACTIVE nuclear weapons program, will have the ability to launch a missile to the continental United States by 2005 (predicted), and treats his populace like shit (Most of the country lacks any heating or lighting, food is scarce, and the winters are freezing... plus his actions on the armament front have led to the cutoff of global aid, FURTHER hurting his citizens.)

Basically, North Korea is just as much, if not more of a threat. And our administration is (basically) ignoring them. They've been misbehaving just as long. And their leader is just as crazy as Saddam. Inspections could have continued in Iraq while our attention was shifted towards defusing this North Korean situation, thereby keeping a general level of peace in both countries and helping both of their populations. Instead, we're bombing the shit out of one and ignoring the other. pardon me if I feel a wrong decision was made.

Oh, next time, post a name, okay? I don't care who you are, but not knowing who you are just kind of makes you a pussy as far as I'm concerned... nothing worse than arguing anonymously.

--Fiend

We're not ignoring North Korea. In my opinion, North Korea wants to be considered a world power and not just an "axis of evil". So, they're doing all this "naughty" stuff to get world attention. As far as I can see, that's all they want. And we're not going to give it them.

Also, we have a carrier task group off of South Korea that is "running practice war games" Could it not also be there to keep a close eye on NK? One task group may not sound like a whole lot. But a carrier task group consists of:
1 Carrier (that contains a few hundred sailors and possibly seals or
other special ops, 80+ war planes)
1-2 Cuisers (each can carry around 20 Tomahawk missiles)
1 sub (which can move around anywhere underwater nearly undetected and
carries torpedoes and missiles)
and a few other support ships. I'm just saying that we're not blindly ignoring NK. We're just not giving what they want and that's attention.

Yes, I do agree that more should be done with getting rid of their Nuclear programs. Maybe a UNIFIED UN should consider it. It's not only America that has been less focused on NK, I have yet to hear of any UN concern with them. If there have been, let me know and I'll change my argument, I'm not above that.

And about the religion. Are you thinking of this as a Christian nation taking out the evil Muslim nation? Please, forgive me for asking God to bless this nation and it's troops and leaders. Would you be bring this up if an athiest president had brought us to war? Please let me know what you're talking about. If you dont want to talk about that here, please e-mail me. biggdawg@insightbb.com

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day

But if we don't pay attention to North Korea, one day we'll wake up with a nuke in California because they still want that attention. I personally don't think it's about attention, I think Kim is a psycho who seriously wants to get these weapons and USE them. But that's just my opinion. Regardless, there's no exuse to not spend more time defusing a situation that most people agree is a ticking timebomb.

The religion thing which I didn't want to get into... basically I think that Americans as a nation seem to think that God is on their side. Not just this war, but all the time. It's on the money, in the pledge, 'God Bless America' is an everyday phrase... I just don't get it. The nation as a whole seems to have this idea that they're God's nation and he/she/it will protect them from everything, so that they can do whatever they want. And that kind of contributes to the "Arrogant American" that the rest of the world sees you as. Personally I don't even believe, so it's not like that bothers me, but the whole attitude that seems to go along with that, an attitude of arrogance and... what's the word I'm looking for... righteousness that goes along with it that irks me. It's just something I've been observing more and more recently. I don't think I got that across very well, actually, but hopefully you see what I'm saying?

--Fiend

Well, it was mentioned that one of the reasons for the war is that Saddam is a bad leader. There is no reason why the US should feel obligated to change this. If Bush or anyone else is going to say that they are doing this to help the people of Iraq, they are full of it! Those people probably would love to see him out of power, but do you really think that they want to see people die for it? They're going to see brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, parents, children, and friends die and for what? To see their country be defeated? If you ask anyone in Iraq, they would probably say that they would rather see their country win this stupidwar, than see it demolished(even if it involves seeing Suddam in power for a few more years). Even if you think that them loosing the war is in their 'best interest,' I'm sure that they would rather see Iraq be victorious, than see some other country come over beat them up, and make their counry the way someone else likes it. They don't want to be controled my outside influences, it's thier country, not mine, not your's, and not Bush's so what makes him think that he can make anything better by this course of action?

-reality

So, reality, you're mad that America is predicting what the Iraqi people want. You're doing the same thing in your argument. You're making conclusions about what ALL the Iraqi people want. Many Iraqi's are happy that Saddam is being taken out of power. So practice what you preach and don't make like you know what the Iraqi people want.

Ok, well my two cents:

I am neither for or against the war, what happens happens and that's how history is made. Whether good or bad, stuff IS going to happen. I am in no way going to go out and protest a war however. If you look at our leader you will see that war is inevitable. He is entirely to gung-ho to be leading America, and he will NOT listen to the american people no matter how many protest or not, if that hasn't been made obvious enough then go protest some more. And who are we to say what the Iraqi people want?!? We havn't ever had a dictator rule our country and we've never been anywhere close to the position that they're in, there's no possible way we can get into their minds and see what they want.

Another note on protestors. Why cause more drama in America then there should be. We are at war, and we don't need to anything more to worry about at the time. I'm about to go out and protest protesting. ;)

i think im going to agree with jordan. wars are going to happen anyway ..

I pretty much agree with everything Jordan just said about "shit happens" and protesting. I also think that people REALLY need to stop posting anonymously, that is very immature, and I will find you. YOU WILL FEEL A WRATH SO TERRIBLE THAT THE SHOCK AND AWE CAMPAIGN WILL LOOK LIKE A DISNEY MOVIE IN COMPARISON TO WHAT I'LL DO TO YOU. Just kidding. Besides, neither side of the argument that's been done anonymously has been very good anyway, so I guess they have reason to disguise themselves. I want Grant's opinion on this one, as one of our future Navy Seals. I mean, it could have been Grant running that oil platform capture mission we heard about on the news.

-=S=-

As my first act of magic,

So, reality, you're mad that America is predicting what the Iraqi people want. You're doing the same thing in your argument.

Bigg Dawg, you wrote this didn't you.

Spork.

Back to what Fiend was talking about. Christians should know that we are not God's nation, He already has picked that one out. But this country was founded by believers in the Trinity. It should only make perfect sense that God should be a big influence on this country. Also, Christians shouldn't feel that becuase God MIGHT be on our side, we are allowed to do whatever we want. Christians, and therefor a Christian Nation, should know that God has set laws for us and when HAVE to follow those laws.

Any religious arrogance comes from the blindly relgious zealots. I hope that I am not one of those. I realize that this nation is far from what God would like it to be. Most arrogance, in my opinion comes from America's remembering it's greatest acheivments and forgetting (nearly) its defeats. Almost that feeling of invincibility.

Religion may give many troops, and our leader a sense of safety and reasurrance. But I don't see where Bush being a Christian has brought on this war. Again, the arrogance is not only brought on my religion, but by many other factors.

Secondly, I completely agree with Jordan on one thing and disagree with him on another. Protestors need to stop causing so much drama like stopping rush hour traffic in Chicago. They are only demoralizing the troops and becoming another problem Bush has to deal with when 200% of his attention needs to be on the war. However, I do believe that people should stop protesting. People need to voice their opinion, just peacefully and sensably. We should never just follow our leader when we dont agree. That would soon turn our country into a dictatorship. If you disagree, protest, just reasonably.

Genesis 2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array

yeah, i was on the run and forgot to sign in, my bad. had to reply to reality

Bigg Dawg, you aren't a zealot, you're well educated about your religion. People don't seem to realize there's a difference. ;)

--Fiend

On a side note, here's the blogger of an Iraqi in Baghdad (don't ask me if it's real or not, I just find it very interesting.):

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/

actually, i like all the points that travis from dismemberment plan makes. you can see his argument here. especially the "no blood for oil" argument. i think its completely ridiculous, and its even more ridiculous when xriotx says it. at least i dont think the wars for oil .. i think the people opposing the war are actually for oil. aaaugh oil is a dumb subject.

For those of you that think the UN is a good idea, read George Will. He's a columnist for the Washington Post and he wrote a fabulous article detailing the lack of effectiveness of the UN.

Also, I do not think that the failure of the UN can be blamed on the United States, Britain, or Spain. These three countries tried every available measure to get the UN to understand their stance. And, in fact, 10 (I REPEAT, TEN) countries on the security council were willing to support them. However, FRANCE threatened a veto. This power caused the nations on the security council to step back and not support the US because they felt that supporting a resolution that France would veto anyway would piss off a minority of their population. The failure of the UN should be placed squarely on the shoulders of France and no one else. The UN is a old and tired organization that is operating under 1945 ideals in a 2003 world. The fact that France, a country that spends hardly any on defense (not that it would matter anyway, they couldn't defend anything with all the artillery in the world), can control the world is simply outrageous. France should learn a thing or two about loyalty. I guess they simply forgot their 2-week surrender in WWII. I guess they forget that appeasement and over-patience didn't work back then, and doesn't work now. Russia and China opposed the war, and they had every right to do so, but it was France's blatant hatred of the US that caused this division of the UN.

When we win this war we'll hand over reigns of the "new" Iraq to the UN, and we'll see how willing France is to accept this challenge. Much like North Korea, France is a pawn in the international community. They do not have the population of China. The military means of the US. The clout of Britain. Or any major resources to speak of. France is a country that would not defend itself in a time of war, and has shown itself to be overly patient with evil dictators that are hell-bent on power and control.

As for North Korea, they have shown little hostility to other countries as compared to Saddam Hussein. They want to be a player in the world's stage. I'm not saying we should ignore North Korea, however, diplomatic solutions are highly more likely to work with them than Iraq. For 12 years Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at the UN, and raised a defiant middle finger. I, for one, hope that finger was raised as that Tomahawk missle slammed into his bunker.

I applaud JLew. You basically summed up all my mumble and wordy ranting into one elloquently written post. Brilliant in all arguments.

I have a really hard time justifying this war to myself, much less to anyone else. I also have a hard time believing that every single person in those "other" countries has poor feelings towards the U.S., it is just presented to the American public that way by the media, as I am sure it is presented to them in regard to us. Saying that every Iraqi person hates America is a gross over-statement. The Iraqi government requires every able-bodied man to fight, there is no choice. Refusal to obey this order means death. Although refusal to enter battle doesn't procure such harsh consequences in the U.S., it could mean being cast out as "unpatriotic." This is totally unfair. Being patriotic means having pride in your country, not pride in war.
As for a repeat of September 11th, I do not think that is possible. I don't believe that the Iraqis have the means of producing such devestation. They have no nuclear weapons that we know of at this point. Also, we must not confuse the two conflicts. The Trade Center attacks were made my AFGHANISTANI terrorists, not Iraqi, who were part of a religious extremist organization. There is no proof that Iraq had anything to do with what happened that day. Also, it is not true that all Muslim followers hate the U.S. and want to kill everyone. The Muslim faith is divided into two sects, one extreme, and the other, well, not. Hussein has no ties to the terrorists group which produced September 11th. But say, what did happen to Afghanistan? Funny how they just kind of dissappeared off the radar...
I don't believe that waging war on Iraq will help as much as people would like to think. Honestly, the government is after Hussein and that's it. However, due to that whole thing we call the law and that politics stuff, it is not a very good idea to simply have him killed. So, I suppose they are going to beat the heck out of Iraq and hope that he dies in the process. This will bring an incredible amount of casualties from Iraq. There is no "could lose their lives," they WILL lose their lives. Women, children, the elderly, the common person will be the real losers of this conflict. The political leaders are all going to just snuggle up in their bunkers while their citizens perish. I understand that it is of the utmost importance to protect our leaders, but that is just what Saddam is going to be doing as well. This war is not going to be fought solely by intelligence officers. It's true, they are volunteers, but they are also people and I would personally like to have them all safe at home.

In all actuality I don't think the war is a good idea because war is, in a word, evil. No one seems to know anything for sure in this fight, on either side. As for Saddam, I don't believe this war is going to be the end of him. He always seems to somehow wriggle through the net. We need to get out of this violent mind-set in which we as a people seemed to be intrenched. We are playing his game. Ridding a place of hate has to start somewhere. Wage peace.

bassoongirl09

However, your argument falls short in the fact that the war is, in fact, against Hussein and his regime. I think it is clear that the allied forces are taking all the steps necessary to ensure minimal civilian casualties.

The leaders of Iraq cannot stay held up in bunkers for that long. Are they going to stay there and one day 10 years from now pop out and say "SURPRISE!" I think not...The war is similar to the Taliban government. You probably cannot say for sure that all the leaders are dead or captured, even bin Laden is still questionable for that matter. However, I think you would have to agree that the leadership has legitimately changed hands and that Afghanistan is a safer place for everyone.

I wouldn't say that most people habor ill-feelings toward Americans. I can see how some would feel that we are impeding into their lives, but we are not doing any harm. Once the regime of Hussein has been beaten we will hand over government to a legimate leader of the people. We showed we could do it in Afghanistan, I hope it will work here.

There's one big thing that I think the people against the war fail to acknowledge. That's the fact that both sides of this argument, the pro war and the against war sides, are for peace! And that both sides don't want war, don't want death, both sides see the terror that is war, and I hate how the against war side (might as well call them democrats) accuse those in favor of being murderers, or not for peace, what have you. The actors at the oscars REALLY annoyed me because they all had those peace signs and they were like "that's all that matters right now." But those in support of the war want peace as well. Nobody is for war, but this war is necessary. I think Colin Powell said it best in an interview I saw on TV that was given BEFORE the war, about 2 weeks before in fact. He was asked on his view of war and he said something to the effect of "I've been in wars, I've fought in wars, I've sent troups into battle, I've seen men killed, men that I've sent into battle have died fighting for me, and I don't like war, but I'm a soldier and I fight it when I have to, and I give my best" and it really was one of the greatest things I'd ever heard.

You're all forgetting one thing....

fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. ;)

--Fiend

wow, I dont' think that's logically sound at all .... but it's damn freakin' hilarious!

Chirac said today that France would veto anything the security council did to allow the US and Britain to control the future of Iraq. Like I predicted, France lets everyone else fight the wars, and then reaps the rewards. I guess since that multimillion dollar oil contract feel through with the start of the war they would get their hands on some afterwards. Kind of a bitch to have the tables turned on you now, eh, France?

Ok, I'll give anyone a cookie to name ONE war the French won without the aid of Americans. The list of French wars is long, and they havn't come out victoriuos in a single one. You can't count the French Revolution, because technically they did lose. Anyway, my main point of this post is to say that war is in no way evil. Sure, it usually involves an evil side with evil tactics, but the true gist of war is not evil. We are not attacking Iraq to be evil Americans. Afghani's during September 11th were not being evil in any way either. You have to remember where they were coming from. To them, they were performing an act of God allowing them into Heaven. No matter what you tell them, that was NOT evil to them. This world is just one big view of perspectives, and no one is able to tell us which view is right. We, as Americans, can't dictate what is evil to others and vise versa because their views are different. We can't say they're wrong as Christians and them bash them for not beleiving in our God, that's pretty hypocritical. And while I know society in general can be very hypocritical, it doesn't mean it's right. Hell, chances are I'm being hypocritical in some fashion in this little rant. Oh well though, I'm just trying to say that war, in general, is not an evil act.

I can't name one.

At risk of being torn apart for it, I am going to take some comments back and I am also going to readdress a few things I said that clearly just didn't come out right. First of all with the "war is evil" comment. Maybe that word has a little too much religious connotation. When I wrote it, I didn't mean it to sound that way and I am not in any way a religious zealot. How about "War is bad," is that ok with everyone? Now then, though it is true that America is fighting this battle with good intentions, look at what it is doing to our feelings about France, for example. A couple of months ago, people might have said, "Well, yeah, they're ninnies, but oh well," but now comments seem a little more angry. Also, I'm sorry, but I can't get past the outstanding civilian casualty numbers. It just makes me sad. So though this war may have good intentions, you have to admit that you also have to take into account the consequences of such an act. It just makes me wonder if hey wouldn't be happier as they were, rather than so many dying.
As for the actors at the Oscars, I think making statements like that is in very poor taste. The Oscars are about movies, period.
Despite my stance being mainly liberal, Colin Powell is one of my favorite political leaders of all time. "I've been in wars, I've fought in wars, I've sent troups into battle, I've seen men killed, men that I've sent into battle have died fighting for me, and I don't like war, but I'm a soldier and I fight it when I have to, and I give my best." I love this.
"fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. ;)" This is wonderful as well.
I suppose I am overly romantic in my ideas about peace at times, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Of course everyone wants peace, there are just different ideas as to how to go about acheiving it. On that note, I am interested in knowing if anyone has any alternate ideas about how to acheive peace in the middle east. So how's about it kiddos?

Krista aka Bassoongirl09

Krista, war is NOT bad! It may be fought for bad reasons at times, but beleive me, we would not be where we are today if it wasn't for war (Hell, we'd be British, and we'd all be like Fiend.....).

War is ALWAYS bad. The ends just don't justify the means. Killing people should NEVER be an option, no matter what. Even that God I don't believe in knows that.

And dammit, there's nothing wrong with being British! ;)

--Fiend

alright Bassoongirl09 I agree with you that death is a bad thing. But, when you look at global politics, and I hate saying this, you have to look at the lesser of two evils.

1) Let Saddam stay in power and let him abuse his people. For instance, gas them to death if they rally against him or his regime. What do you say to Saddams killing thousands of his own people; men, woman, and CHILDREN?! Were we supposed to wait till he did it again then go in and slap him on the wrist as we have before.

2) Attack the Iraqi GOVERNMENT, not the people, the government. Yes, there will be civilian casualties. That is inevitable. However, the numbers are greatly reduced with technology and tactics.

So, yes, innocents will be killed in war. Why?! BECUASE IT"S FREAKING WAR! It is not a video game. And you pick the lesser of the two "evils". You could let Saddam go untouched and have complete control of his people, and we know how he treats them. Or, we get him out, with minimal innocent losses.

I'm not sure if I was a clear in that little spiel as i wanted to be. However, you get my gist.

Oh, by the way, Fiend. I think I found what many zealots use to get their arrogance.

Deuteronomy 1
29 Then I said to you, "Do not be terrified; do not be afraid of them. 30 The LORD your God, who is going before you, will fight for you, as he did for you in Egypt, before your very eyes, 31 and in the desert. There you saw how the LORD your God carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place."

I think that they take this, and other verses in the Bible quite literally. I admit, I do too. For instance, I do not believe that Genesis and Exodus is all one metaphor, I believe it all happened as it said. However, I believe these verses to be talking about our spiritual battles, carrying us to Heaven, and not physical ones. But, you can see where they are coming from. Just thought I'd try to throw some more light on it.

Ok Fiend, not sure if you were serious but let's just take a look at this hypothetical situation here:

We've got ourselves a dandy little dictator coming to power, let's just nickname him Zitler. Now, Zitler has an anger management problem and doesn't like this race of people called the Bews. So he decides to throw millions upon millions of them in ovens, thus killing them. Now, hypothtetically speaking of course, let's say we didn't go to war with this Zitler and we just let him kill person after person, because you know that once he is done with the Bews that he would come after everyone else next. By killing Zitler and all of his followers, you are saving countless numbers of people and ridding the world of a variable death machine. And, since you say that killing people never justifies any end, your saying that we should not have stopped him. Remember who Zitler is, and how many followers he had, and the power he had amassed. No amount of negotiations would have worked. The world TRIED negotiating with him, time and again. I think the ends very much justified the means there.

Yes, remember Zitler. That's a great quote ... "Remember Zitler"

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/

Yeah, I wasn't really being serious. Sometimes, war is unavoidable. Of course, that's just because humans SUCK ASS. Seriously. War is never right, but it can be less wrong.

Eh, whatever, I drive VW's, I'm a dirty hippy, don't listen to me. ;)

Bigg Dawg, that certainly seems like it could be where they get it from. Totally off topic, but I love how the Bible has so many interpretations. It's just really interesting. Like you said, you believe Genesis and Exodus happened just like that. Personally I don't believe that, and I don't think it's ever going to be possible to comprehend where matter came from, so I hardly ever concern myself with it. But I believe that most of the stories in there happened one way or another. Like, Jesus, he was real. Do I believe he was the son of God? Well, that's kind of hard considering I'm agnostic. ;) But the miracles and such really interest me, just because I wonder what REALLY happened. But hey, that's just how I view the Bible.

Anyway, this is the longest discussion I've ever seen on TheSpork... good job, guys. ;)

--Fiend

I think we need to try and reach 100 comments, that would rock. I totally don't want to start another random tangent comment though, Fiend, you're good at that. Start somethin up again so we can keep commenting.

Is Saddam really as bad as Hitler? I don't know about that...but hey, they're both nuts and that's what matters. I was just trying to say that though war may sometimes be necessary, it is always bad. Ever since that whole forbidden apple thing, humans have been kind of screwed and seem to be determined to destroy themselves and one another. All we can do is try to be the best people we can, and you know, I really do think we are getting better. If you compare today's youth and times with those of the past, I think there is a lot more acceptance and less violence. There have always been gangs and other little groups of random bad kids, but it seems to me that we're more aware of what's going on and what the right thing to do is. Also, racism doesn't seem like as much of an issue. But hey, maybe I am just naive to all the bad situations in the world because of where I live and where I go to school. So what do you all think, are we better or worse?

Krista

OK, sorry to tangent, but who are you krista? I established at school that you're not Krista Hauss, so which Krista are you? Actually, I dont' think I know any other kristas.

Spork

Actually I would argue that Saddam is as bad as Hitler because given the same circumstances they would act in the same way. Plus, Hussein used chemical weapons, and I think we would all admit that Hitler would have too if he had them. Heck, he was working on nuclear weapons during WWII.

Secondly, war is, simply, not always bad. I think the adjective you want is tragic. People, die, yes, however that is a consequence of war. We knew that going in, but is a few lives that we accidently take worth the thousands that Saddam takes each year? I, for one, think so.

BTW, I think we are better off today. We've gone a couple decades without any major (i.e. WWI, WWII, etc.) conflicts in the world. I think the Cold War proved that although countries still have hostility towards each other most situations can be diplomatically resolved.

Ok, I guess I have some explaining to do. I was talking with Anna Chai about the Iraq situation and she sent me a link to this posting and told me I should get in on it if I wanted. I like talking about politics so I had no reservations about chiming in once or twice. I hope you don't mind and I am sorry if I freaked you out. No one has ever really heard of me at Manual it seems, but I'm a YPAS geek, so I understand. Actually, I have no idea who any of you are either...hmmm...Anyway, thanks for letting me participate.

Krista Lucas

oh, no, dont' worry about it! There's no problem at all with you posting, I'm glad! It's actually great to get voices on here other than the 5 people that check this site regularly. Keep it up!

And yeah, haven't heard of you, if I can ever find my yearbook I'll look you up ... but yeah, if you want an account to login with just email me at spork@thespork.com and give me the following information:

UserName
Email
FirstName
LastName
AOL ScreenName

If not, cool, but it can be conveniant, you don't have to sign your name, you can use HTML, you can edit/delete any posts you've made, and you have the option to autologin ... rawk.

Spork (John Hanauer, in case you didn't know that already)

JLew = Justin Lewis, I was in your spanish class last year (Luis Luis)

and your english class last year to think of it...

It's your favorite custard buddy Krista, Jordan here.

If I didn't know what you were talking about that would sound gross

Funnnnnnnnny. We work together at a custard stand guys. Don't know what Justin was thinkin.

I know you do, that's why I said that I knew what you were talking about. Otherwise...

Is it that starlight custard? Oh, and ... yeah, just to pretend this thread is still about war, I'll just throw in randomly here --> "Support our troops!"

Spork.

Yes it is Starlight Custard. And to throw war back into the fray, we had a woman come in last week telling us our prices had been jacked up again (although they havn't been changed for at least a year) because of the war. I continued to tell her, yes m'am, we do import most of our custard from Afghanistan, and all that burning of custard fields has sent prices through the roof. Needless to say, she was not amused.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Fun at work abounds!! Everyone should work at a custard stand. The food fight last night was exceptionally endearing (did you ever get that short cake out of your ear, Jordan?) Marvelous. And John, I am sooooo dissappointed that you don't remember me. Just kidding :) I think the only way you would know me is through Josie or Emma or Ashley Rainey, I don't think we have ever had a class together. I'll be sure to wear a name tag to school from now on :) Luis Luis, of course. Memories of Señor Smith's class with forever be imprinted on my memory. Maybe :) As for Mrs. Sanders...oy...Anyway, keep the ID's coming if you will, it would be nice to know who I am talking to.

Peace.
Krista

P.S. I just thought of something, you can go to my site and see if you recognize me from a picture I have at the bottom of the left column. And no, this is not shameless advertising for my own site...not at all...

http://krista830.blogspot.com

I fixed your double post ...

I do remember, and I was thinking to myself "I think she's the one that almost came out to dinner with us prom last year" but I didnt' want to look like an ass and so I wanted to get a year book and see who you were to double check. I still haven't found my yearbook, but the site did help!

I don't know who else to identify here ... jo=joanna chiu, fiend=iain clinkingbeard, biggdawg=bigg dawg, kat=ballard girl named Kat ...

Yeah. I want free custard, does everyone ask for that? subquestion: does it annoy you that everyone asks? (everyone would ask me for free stuff from best buy) subquestion: does anyone actually get it when they ask? subquestion: do you get free custard for working there? last subquestion: do you get paid well? oh wait, subquestion: how much?

Either jordan or krista may answer.

SPo.

Ok, I'll try and answer these in order. Hardly anyone actually asks for free custard, but we do have a couple of regular con-artists who try to weasle their way out of custard. It doens't annoy me, and I'll gladly give away free custard under one condition: Joe or Mark can't be there. They are very by the book when it comes to money and I can't give anything away when their there. Considering Joe is the owner and Mark is the only manager we have right now, it's a rare moment when they both aren't there. I'll be sure to give you a call John if they're ever not there. We get as much free custard as we can imagine, and I know it doesn't make sense, but don't ask, both Mark and Joe are very......strange. Pay isn't that great (we all start at 6.00) but you hardly have to do anything, and you get to have a lot of fun, so it's all good.

yeah, I know how that works ... I always wanted a job where I could get and give away free stuff. Best Buy was decent, I got discounted stuff, and I could buy stuff FOR PEOPLE with that discount off the clock (it was always fun to leave the state to visit friends, and take them up to best buy and let them shop away with my discount, and then I walk up to the register and I'm like "yeah, and this is with employee discount" and they're like "oh, you work here?" And I'm like "no, in a louisville store" and they're like "you come up to chicago to buy 150 dollars worth of games and movies you could get back home?" and I'm like "yeah, it's all apart of the 'bonified gift' category in the employee handbook" and they usually just say "dude, I don't care if it is or it isn't, i hate this place anyway").

Random tangent.

Yeah, well, as long as you don't walk up to the drive-thru on foot...
And yes, that's me, the almost prom girl :)

Krista

P.S. Jordan is the dish-bitch!!! BWAHAHAH!!!

My job owns you all... damn straight I'm a janitor. ;)

--Fiend

Fiend, take a line from Half-Baked and call yourself a master of the janitorial arts. And Kritsa, if I remember correctly, you were the dish-bitch last night. ;)

I'm a "Building tehnician" on the payroll...

--Fiend

Touchèe, Jordan, but we all know why you're Mark's favorite, don't we? Hehehehe....

Krista

alright, going back to the original tpoic of this post, war

we have taken the capital. WOO HOO however, we can only guess the fate of Saddam and his sons. Hopefully, we got him and he wont be able to order any more deaths or laugh at any more torture sessions. That man was sick and evil, no getting around it.

Now, may I ask for your opinion on post-war Iraq? How much voice and power, if any, should the nonsupporting countries have in creating the new government and treaties and etc etc? France is licking their lips at getting more oil, even though they did jack to help us. I think Russia is trying to play low after we found their weopons in Iraq. But, should we hold a poll in iraq and ask them what form of government they want? Would they be educated enough in the different forms of government to make a smart descision? What do you all think?

P.S.
on a side not. I was reading my Bible today and read mark 16. The NIV has a break and says that the most trusted and ancient manuscripts and other writings does not have Mark 16: 9-20 If this is so, where did it come from? Anyone know?

I think that any country with ideas should throw them in at the UN, but i don't think certain countries coughfranceandrussiacough deserve a share of oil/weapons/etc.

Bigg Dawg, I think I have an answer to your question. A lot of the versions of the bible came from word of mouth and older manuscripts, greek and latin versions that eventually were translated to german/english/french/etc. I beleive that King James had his squires/monks or whatever you called them, the guys who translated the bible, add in extra verses to appeal to his people. Those might have been some of the verses added in. Don't take my word for it though....

To Bigg Dawg...This comes from one of the Bibles in my house...

"Although vv. 9-20 are omitted from two of the oldest Greek manuscripts, they do appear in other old manuscripts, as well as in the majority of Greek manuscripts from all over the ancient world. Many scholars conclude, therefore, that any reading attested to by the majority of ancient manuscripts is likely to be part of the original writing of the Biblical author."

Also, you may find more information on the debate here

To Jordan...Mark was not passed down by word of mouth. It is the writings of Mark, so the debate is whether the passage was written by him. See the above link for info on that.

On the war...screw the UN. They wouldn't support us then, why should we let them have controls now? Are they going to supply the billions of dollars necessary to re-build Iraq and get the country back on its feet? The UN failed its test. Why should we let them share in the rewards? If the agreement is that I get out of the final with a distinguished portfolio and I get a novice, who is going to argue that I still get out of the final? No one. The UN had its chance to do the right thing. Let them complain.

Not debating what Mark is, which is the writings of Mark. But versions of the Bible, including Mark, were retranslated time and again. Things were kept out and added in during each translation. Corruption of society back in the day. I am in no way saying that Mark is anything except the story told from Mark.

On the UN thing Justin, you're walkin a fine line. The UN didn't screw anything up, we (meaning the leaders of America, not the majority of citizens that I know) went against what the UN wanted. America screwed up if anything. While I don't disagree with the war, America and Britain have been getting big-headed and rebellious. That in no way justifies what they're doing. Sure, we did take Iraq without the aid of the UN, but we still need them.

OK, I followed JLew up until the protfolio final comment. WTF?

Hehe.

Spork.

Heh, spork...lol...

In my opinion it was the failure of the UN, not the United States. There were 10 votes (reportedly) lined up to go into Iraq qwith military force. However, France (and Russia for that matter) threatened to veto any resolution that would be brought before the Security Council. It seems to me that one (or two, maybe even three) country(-ies) stopped the United Nations from working. Then they had the balls (or lack of) to accuse us of doing this for oil, our own wealth, etc. However, it was France and Russia (even China slightly) who had billions invested in exploring Iraqi oil fields. It seems to me that they were only interested in oil. And oh yeah, who made the weapons that the Iraqis were using...::cough:: France ::cough:: Russia ::cough::

The French and the Russians had everything to lose from a war with Iraq which were the primary reasons they threatened to veto. They were the cause of the failure of the UN. They stopped the will of the Security Council to protect their own interests. The failure of diplomacy rests squarely on the shoulders of France and Russia (and on the left shoulder of China :-) ).

And by the way, the majority of citizens you know probably were against the war. The majority of America did support the war. (Check the latest polls - I think its 80% now...)

Ok, so 80% of americans are for the war, and i'd put my money that about 3/4 of that 80% are either patriotic to the point of ignorance, or their just snazzy republicans that follow anything their king does. Most people with any sense are against the war or at least against our leadership at the time.

Just another note. Not that I'm against republicans or anything, I just think they tend to screw things up. Look at America during the last three presidents. Bush Sr=decline. Clinton=Prosper. Bush Jr=More decline.

Riiiiiiight.

Well since we are looking at history lets really look at history.

The recession of the early 90's was turned around by a Republican congress (Senate and House) that was elected along with Clinton. Last time I checked, Clinton didn't pass the budget. Clinton moved the Democrat party to the right if anything, and hum...it seemed to work.

The recession started during Clinton's presidency. When a Democratic Congress existed. A fact I find very interesting.

And while we are comparing history lets look at wars. Bush won. Clinton, well, lost (see Black Hawk down). Bush won (twice - Afghanistan and Iraq). Now you can't tell me that Somalia is any tougher than Iraq. Clinton was stupid and engaged troops in house to house fighting, which was much more dangerous. For all those that think Bush is stupid he knows how to win wars.

I would agree that Clinton's presidency was financially prosperous. However, he was...oh yeah...IMPEACHED! There have been only two presidents to ever been impeached (although Nixon would have been). Looking at all the other specifics I would place all the praise on Clinton, nor the blame on the Bushes.

And by the way...if Democrats were actually loyal to their party they wouldn't be bitching that they don't control the White House, Senate, House, and most other federal offices. I'm not saying that you have to strictly follow party lines, but don't not vote then complain. Wonder why most people are registered Democrats yet turnout seems to be in favor of Republicans.

And patriotism is something that should be valued. It's what drove the country through every war (save Vietnam) that it has ever fought.

I'm tired of typing so I'm not going to continue.

whoa whoa whoa

Most people with any sense are against the war or at least against our leadership at the time

so are you (Hybrid) saying people like me or JLew or Bill O'Reilly or Powell are dumb? Are we merely puppets who are following a man from Texas, our "king", with no opinions of our own? Personally speaking, i believe that I have a lot of sense and I agree with the war and with our leader. I dont think that we (Republicans and 80% of the American population) are lemmings that are following each other over a cliff.

You say you're not against Republicans, but you try to blame us for all the problems America faces. I'm not saying that we are perfect and that we haven't screwed thigns up before. But look in on your own party before you place the blame squarely on us.

See what I mean?!?!? You guys take this shit wayyyyy to seriously. Yes, a majority of republicans follow Bush like he is a king. That doesn't mean all of them! Big Dawgg, I know for a fact that you don't, but I think Jlew does, and many a folk would agree with me on that one. Not trying to be offensive, god knows I love to piss people off. And let's talk about wars Justin. Holllllly lord!!! The Bush family won some wars!!! Yeeeeehaw!! Those were the two biggest excuses of wars ever. I'll fully agree that Clinton made some big time mistakes in times of war, but HE made the mistakes. Bush is just leaving all the decision making to his fellows at arms. That is the best plan to take, I'll give Bush that much. He doesn't know how to win wars, he simply hands the wars to others and has them win them for him. And Clinton passed the budget as no president has before, after what he was given from the first Bush reign he didn't have jack to work with, but he turned it around. Ok, on to patriotism. Yes, it's a great thing to have, until you turn into one of those people that drives around with American flags on your car only supporting your country because its now become a fad. Patriotism is good to a certain point, when it becomes ignorant. Once again, you guys take what I say and multiply it ten fold. Well I'm done for now, but Bigg Dawg, not putting you into this fad, but a lot of americans are lemmings that would gladly follow eachother off a cliff.

I follow what Bush says to a T? You're full fo shit Jordan.

And by the way...it's kinda funny you never even adressed the fact that a Republican congress actually passed that budget. If you look at the Constitution, Congress passes budgets, not the President. So let's give credit where credit is due, eh?

It seems to me that every time you try to speak you dig yourself deeper into holes on this one. You fail to respond to most of my points (mostly because you know shit about this stuff so you can't argue) and then you make up random stuff and speakly vaguely as to not give the impression that you don't know what you are talking about. I think most people that actually know me would agree that I knwo my stuff and I form my political opinions based on it, not what Bush says. I don't go conservative on every issue, but most, yes, I do. However, at least I have a political position. Saying you're a moderate is mostly just a cop out because you have no idea what the political landscape is. I have much respect for people like Shel and Kendra, who are Democrats, and know their stuff.

And the patriotism as a fad, is sad, but true. However, at least these people aren't making it 10 times harder to win and backing their troops, even if it is only a fad. I have no problem with people disagreeing with the war, I don't think they are right, but the right to disagree is their perrogative (Lord knows I've done it enough). However, the fact that they continue to make personal attacks on Bush and accuse the administration of killing .5 million babies (::cough::Michael Moore::cough::) is crossing the line. We may have gotten into a war you don't like but that doesn't mean you can't support the men and women that chose to fight. 80% of Americans support the war...that's an astounding number, bigger than most wars previous.

And agreeance with the Administration does nt constitute lemmings...

Haha, there's no arguing with stubborn people. One thing I want to know Justin: clarify to me why you go conservitive on most points. Why are you republican? What do you see is the advantages to being a republican? This I would like to hear. And by the way boy, no need to get angry. This is all in good fun.

And by the way, you're right, I have no idea about politics, but growing up in a very split family (my father is extremely conservitive and my mother is extremely liberal), I've seen both sides, and I just tend to agree with my mom most of the time. All this ranting is me trying to heat some people up, and I've got that down pretty well.

OK, first of all, Jordan you're wrong on a few points. Before I begin, I'm not being picky either, and I'm certainly not diehard conservative myself, I can be moderate on a lot of issues, and dont' take any of this personally.

Alright, first, I was going to post this last night after your first comment, but I didn't have time. Justin Lewis is one of the best republican's at our school that I know simply because he does know his shit, and he doesn't just follow the party line. Read his website, often times he'll throw something in there and everytime back it up. He can back up everything he says, which is better than I can do. I can only back up my statements half the time, and so when I don't have support, I keep quiet.

(In fact, I'm not sure if anyone in my government class pays attention, but when we're debating something in foster's if I can't support myself, I don't say anything, I just keep quiet, simply because I dont' have proof of what I'm saying (even if it's my opinion). The sad thing is that I dont' need support for anything I say because the only democrat in that class that ever gives support for their statements other than "Bush is an idiot" is Tyler Kirtley, and he's an aide. At least i know to keep my mouth shut if I can't back it up.)

I think it's important Jordan that for the third time now you've failed to acknowledge that Congress passes the budget and that we had a Republican Congress during Clinton's supposed budget success.

Next, I'd like to point out, that while peope give Republican's credit for sticking to a party line whereas Democrats are divided constantly, I think there's one area where all democrats unite and it works to their advantage and therefore they deserve credit. And that's in the persecution, slander, an misrepresentation of Republicans. Sophomore year I asked Emma Essock-Burns why she was a democrat and she said "because Republican's are only for money" and I think that's ridiculous for many reasons. First in that Republican's aren't for money, not all of them in any way, and second because it was extremely evident that it's just something she'd grown up with. Constant bitching from her parents and she was brainwashed to think "republican's are bad, they're only about money."

This sort of addresses the 80% numbers but more so this supposed fact, blatant fact that supposedly everybody knows, that there are more democrats in the US by far than Republicans, and we swear guys it's true, it's true, it's just they dont' go out to vote and if the democrats ever got out of their house and voted they'd win by a landslide. Bull. The term democrat is so vague these days. because it's true, they're totally divided, and what makes this worse is that half of those democrats are only democrats because they've been spoonfed this notion about how Republican's are bad, evil, corrupt people, and only the rich are republican. The people that are supposed democrats that don't vote are the ones that couldnt even tell you what it means to be a democrat, what the dividing issues even ARE, or what changes are even being proposed.

Talk about following party line, the democratic party line is to paint the ugliest picture possible of Republican's so that people will be forced to go democrat. Jordan, you tell everybody in my government class to stop regurgitating everything Mr. Foster says and to also support what they say, and then I'll start reconsidering my statements. Democrats use the same support for everything "Republicans are just for the money" or Republicans are all rich ... or Bush is an idiot.

Then there's the obvious double standard set for every republican, an especially for Bush. Clinton went to war without the UN and nobody said a thing. But for Bush, he got a lot of shit from Democrats and so he took it to the UN and gave them plenty of chances. And then when that didnt' work (because inherently it would have continued to fail, diplomacy as a solution for Iraq, and there was nothing Bush could do) and so when Bush goes to war (and at least he tried the UN, Clinton didn't even do that) the double standard was raised and Bush got shit. But what about in clinton's term the numerous bombings of military sites in numerous countries without declaring war, without going to the UN, without much of anything other than a news brief the next day that the US had bombed this building here last night while we were sleeping? And also, I dont' think clinton was calling the shots on the bombings either, so you can't really say it was Clinton's mistake to send the troops into urban warfare. What you CAN do, is blame Clinton for (1) appointing the idiot that sent our toops through urban warfare and (2) not spending enough on defense and (3) approving a dumbass plan like sending our troops through urban warfare. Oh, and I love Blackhawk Down, great movie :-P.

I don't know, there's more, but I've written a lot and it took a while and I forgot some of what I wanted to say while I was writing the other stuff.

haha, see bigg dawg. we'll make it.

Why do I go conservative...

Fiscally their plans seem better to me. I value the importance of self-independence. The basic philosophy between the two the how the money is distributed. Democrats believe that the government should take in the money and start social programs to help those people that don't have as much money. I, and the Republicans, believe that it should be our personal reponsibility and perrogative to give our money to those we wish to give it to. It is a fundamental difference. I just simply believe that I should get to decide what happens with my money. Personally, I don't like welfare systems because I think they contribute to laziness and it gives people the impression they can do nothing and be taken care of. On the other hand, I think Social Security is a good program because you have to earn it. If people get out in the job market and work for what they have I have no problem with Social Security paying them once they retire (the same applies to people who get injured, etc.). Also, I don't really agree with privatizing social security. First of all, logistically it's hard, and secondly i think the system we have now can work with some fine tuning. But overall, I think more money that I get to keep is more money I can invest on the things that I want to invest them in. This is true for any income level (not just the rich). It's my philosophy that people should get to spend their money how they want to, not how the government says to. If I want to give my money to charity, fine, that's my choice, but I don't think the government should tell me to. This philosophy may come off to some as greed, but I see it as the difference in where the decision is made. For the Republicans, the decision is made at a personal level, while the Democrats think it should be made at the government level.

In terms of defense/war...I feel the best detertent to war is a large(r) standing army. Some of the brightest people in our country work for the military. We should protect our country, freedoms, and economic interests at all times. And, yes, this may include such conflicts as Iraq.

In terms of socially...Democrats are obviously a little bit more loose (hence the name liberals), but my opinion is one closely related to religion. (Before I start to hear the groans I want to say that this does not mean religion has to be tied to the state. However, a religious person cannot help but be affected by his or her beliefs in every decision made. I would definitely not want to attach a religion to the US and create a religious state because I think that would destroy what America is, but it doesn't mean that I can't think that the morals and rights of wrongs of religion cannot be applied). For this reason I think such things as legalization of marijuana is wrong, cross/flag burning is wrong (mostly because it is done to intimidate), and others things like same-sex marriages are wrong.

These examples are the main differences between the terms conservative and liberal. I just think that the conservative opinion is right on most of them (Notice I didn't say Republican, I said conservative). Because the Republican party identifies itself with these ideals, I mostly tie myself to that party. Therefore, I am a Republican.

Satisfied Jordan?

what did you mean by your latest post jordan? I think the big long post was anna...but I'm not entirely sure.

What did I mean by my last post? If it isn't obvious by now I'm totally clueless as to how our government is run, and I'm not even that much of a democrat myself. Don't really concern myself too much. But being bored over SB i decided that I'd try and get to 100 comments on Jo's post. Look about halfway down where I tried to rally everyone to getting to 100, but no one really cared. Needless to say, I knew i could anger at least you into bashing me with comment after comment but I never thought anonymous people would join in :) Bigg Dawg liked the idea and thought I should try tickin someone else off but I'm all out of things to say. Only 15 more to go though so maybe I can start some random religious conversation which I actually know something about....

whoa. I liked the idea of this post getting enough reasonable debate to reach 100+ comments. I do not, however, believe that commenting merely for the purpose of getting there is a good idea. I like arguing and take meaning from the EDUCATED arguments people make.

Now, I know that you asked Justin why he was a Republican, but I would like to throw my two cents in if i can.

First of all. I am conservative, almost extremely conservative. Most all of that thinking comes from being a Christian. I am against same-sex marriages (the whole lifestyle for that matter. Not person, mind you, just the lifestyle. and thus, it is obvious im agianst gay rights, but thats a whole other post and comments there). I'm against the slaughter of innocent unborn babies, err, i mean, abortion. But, again, that all comes from being Christian, which engulfs my life and my thinking.

Now, are the democrats conservative like me? No! So therefore I go with the Republicans on many issues. I do, also, agree with Justin and the Republicans in wanting people to be independent of the government. If people can work, they should work. My mom is a nurse for Hospice and Palative Care of Louisville. Basically she goes to people's homes who are dying of cancer. She sees whole families living off of the government. They are all, except for the one dying, capable of working and earning a paycheck and supporting themselves. However, they can just sit back and eat up all the money that we put into social services and not give anything back. So I'm all for making some changes in social services and etc.

So, I am not Republican so i can say that I'm republican. I'm not Republican because my parents or my biggest influences are Republican. I am Republican becuase I am conservative and Republicans more often than not vote conservatively.

And the benefits of being Republican? I know this will never happen. But I long for a time when what is popular on MTV (orgies, lots of sex, alcohol, drugs, etc etc) is not popular. I long for a time when morality (and I do mean Christian morality) reigns. Cause right now, I can't even watch MTV without getting sick. I dont see how people can live that way. I really can't stand Chrstina Aguilera. Could someone please put some clothes on her (another part of my conservative side, i prefer woman who like to wear clothes. i can't stand bikini's. sorry, random tangent)

yeah, so that was my two cents of a rant. or whatever you want to call it. I dont write as eloquently as JLew, but I hope you all get my point.

One of the things that gives me hope:

Mathew 5:10
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Sorry guys, that big long anonymous post was from me, I fixed the error (the entry had my userid as -1 instead of 1 ... I wonder if that's a bug or if I just got logged off by the timeout cause I took too long to post? I dunno, regardless, it should have put it as 0 if such was the case). I was posting from school, so I couldn't autologin (but I still entered my credentials).

Yeah, let me read the other entries and catch up and maybe I'll comment. Oh, and Jordan, I fixed your double posts for today (that's twice now heh ;))

S

Hah, sorry John. I'll try to avoid that.

Oh come on guys, 12 more.

bush is a wanksta

War: Everyone Wants It (Except Smart People and the U.N.)

Well, I haven't posted in a while and it has taken me a considerable amount of time to catch up, so...

First I will address welfare and social security. I think with welfare (and I know this seems unlikely and impossible) there needs to be some way to make sure that the people who are receiving funds really do need the extra support, some kind of system and processing or something. Social security, however, I do think is a good idea otherwise it would be very difficult for some people to ever retire. Privitizing it, however, seems like it would lead to too many mistakes.

Defense is definitely a necessity, however I think we have failed to find that balance between too much and too little. We need to find some way of determining at least relatively how much we really need and limit it to that to prevent excessive spending. Having an economially weak country is just as bad as having one that is militarily weak.

Now we get into moral views. First of all, I will say that I don't not come from a enthusiastically religious background. My parents wanted to give me the choice of choosing whichever religion, if any, I felt was right for me. However, this does not mean that I do not have beliefs. To explain those to everyone would take pages of posting and I don't want to do that to you all, nor is that what this posting is about. Now that you know where I am coming from, I will say this:

As for same-sex marriages, I think gay couples have every right, just as everyone else does, to live however they wish to live. Discrimination against them is just like discrimination against blacks or Jews. I will not budge from this belief. They are a people just like any other group and they did not choose to become what they are, I believe it was chosen for them. However, I do respect everyone's beliefs and I understand why so many are against such a lifestyle due to religious backgrounds. That is fine, but I can't help but think it is slightly ignorant. What they are doing is not hurting anyone and heterosexuals are just as promiscuous, if not more so, than homosexuals. Everyone seems to connect them with a disgusting, filthy lifestyle, but that is simply not true. I am sick of stereotypes and I wish people could take off their blinders. Why is it against God? Maybe I am just not clear on the issue from that viewpoint, but every time I hear someone say they are against it, all they say is it is against their religion. That is fine, I just want to understand why. Someone please fill me in, I would appreciate it.

The legalization of marijuana is NOT a good idea. I have had more friends than I can count on all my fingers and toes that have been smokers and a good majority of them have turned out to be lazy, lying, unproductive people. I am not saying that all smokers are this way, and maybe it was due to another character flaw, I am just stating what I have seen happen. Also, marijuana most times does lead to harder drugs. I have had friends that work two jobs so they can have enough money to buy opium. All they do is get high. They don't care about their friends anymore, unless they are smoking buddies, and they usually end up going through a terrible change in character and personality. I haven't seen it end up well a single time, and I don't think I ever will.

Cross and flag burning...this is a tough issue. I, personally, find it very upsetting and wrong, but if we took away people's right to demonstrate in this fashion, we are simply further limiting the freedoms that America is known for. I have watched as freedoms, even in this past year, have been taken away and it scares me. After the September attacks, people of certain ethnic origins were taken away and put in prison with no explaination and no way of getting out. I don't care what anyone else says, that is just plain WRONG. I compare out current government (this is NOT Bush-bashing) to those of others around the world and I am finding some frightening similarities. We did not vote on whether or not to go to war; like I said before, people were put in jail without right to fair trial; and we have also currently been having problems with excessive racial profiling. I really hope we continue to keep the freedoms this country was founded on, otherwise the U.S. could become a pretty scary for some.

Abortion is another touchy subject. There are times when a mother's life is at risk, but then which life should be sacrificed for the other? It is a very tough decision for anyone to have to make. I, however, no matter what the situation, even if I got pregnant tomorrow, would never have an abortion. I look at it as one of the worst mistakes a woman could ever make. There are always families looking to adopt and I can't help but think that every woman, no matter who she is and what her situation is, would regret taking such an action. I just can't imagine murdering my own child. That's just insane.

In closing, I would like to say that I wish people would have more respect for the ways in which other people live. Just because they are not like a certain group and live differently, that doesn't mean that anyone is high and mighty enough to have the right to go in and change their lives for them. If they ask for help, that is a little different, but otherwise I believe it is up to that person and to God to take them where they need to go. I don't believe that God makes mistakes, only people are capable of that. Also, everyone should try to educate themselves more about just about everything: religion, politics, economics, etc. This would improve our quality of life to an unimaginable degree and possibly change our world. Even if you are a staunch Christian, that doesn't mean you shouldn't learn about and study other religions. It doens't mean that you have to change your personal beliefs, though you shouldn't be afraid of that either, but more than anything it will help you to understand people better who are different.

Thanks for reading and listening to what I have to say.
Peace.

Krista

I just wanted to respond to your gay-rights section. A recent study put out (I think by the University of Colorado) has evidence that homosexuality is a lifestyle, and thus, a choice. They contend that people aren't born gay and that given certain circumstances it is quite easily for them to change. Therefore, I don't believe that they should be given special rights based on a lifestyle. If someone wanted to lead a lifestyle of drugs, sex, and alcohol, they are probably gonna get busted sooner or later. My point is that we don't have to make laws against gays, but I don't think they should be given special rights based on a lifestyle choice they made.

ok, i do agree that having a homosexual lifestyle is a choice, but there is a chance that one can be born with a natural 'urge' to want the same sex. Children can be born dependant on alchohal and drugs, but taking them is still a choice. It seems possible that people can be born with a natural inclination towards the same sex. Based off that alone, I don't think they need special rights, but since they are still oppressed frequently in today's society, I beleive that they deserve some special rights.

Alright Justin, before you take what I said and blow it up let me clarify. When I say oppressed I don't mean like blacks in the early 20th century. Lots of little things still go on though, like people won't hire someone if they find out their gay (and yes I know that's illegal, but people still do it). Gays in the military and all that go along to. Grant and I had a little convo at lunch the other day about VMA (Virginia Military Academy) and the Citadel, where if gays were to attend they would literally get the shit beat out of them until near death. Now while that's not oppression to the point that law after law needs to be passed that affects them, it can still affect someone who is gay. Some special rights do need to be issued to stop this. And while some already are, people don't always obey them, we can't do anything about that.

On the topic of being dependant on something at birth, that is proven. My best friend's mom runs a foster home and has two adopted children, both dependant on cocaine. That doesn't mean they take the drug, but they have to take pill after pill to control themselves. It came about because their parents were both cocaine addicts and the trait got passed on. Now, I'm not saying that a gay mother who bears a child will have a gay child, but the genes could be worked to a point where a child has needs for the same sex. Not trying to say all of them do, as that survey said, it is a choice for most, but I don't think it is a choice for all.

I'm sure there's something here that's worthy of you bashing me for, so feel free.

There is nothing much to argue. Until something can be scientifically proven we do not know whether homosexuality is a lifestyle, or in fact a gentic trait. Therefore, it is a fundamental difference of opinion. I believe that until we can prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait that we shouldn't offer special rights to gays. It is simply not logical to extend special rights to people that make a certain choice. If I choose to take drugs, then why should anyone offer me the right to not be arrested for drug possession?

arg, i tried posting twice at school and it never loaded. dang.

I fail, Jordan, to see the connection between a chemical dependancy given to a child by the mother and homosexuality. Baby's who are born with an addiction to cocain or alcohol are a result (usually) of their dumb ass mothers who decided to drink or do drugs while pregnant. So using your argument, how do you explain gay kids coming from straight parents? Or straight kids coming from a gay mother or a gay father? I see no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. It is choice, whether an unconscious or a conscious choice.

As far as what I think of homosexuals? I love the person. After all, they are a human and a creation of God. It is the pride that they have in their sin that makes me sick. If a person is gay, but regrets it and repents for it, they're cool. Homosexuality is a sin, and like all sins, can be forgiven. I do, also, believe that people can become straight.

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

I just can't stand Gay Rights, Gay Pride, or all those Gay Days. So you dont think my a hypocrite, I feel the same sickness towards people who are proud of being theifs, or people who are proud of slandering God's name. I feel the same illness in all acounts.

Hey, I'm curious, why is homosexuality a sin? (3 more, come on...)

--Fiend

if I could, I would also like to respond to a few of Krista's comments.

Abortion.
I am 100% against abortion. I see no reason for the slaughter (if you knew some of the procedures, you would call it a slaughter too) of innocent babies. People argue "What about rape pregnancies?" This is hard to talk about becuase I'll never have to experience it. I cry for people that are put through this Hell. However, the child had no say in the circumstances of it's conception. The babies should have to be murdered for something that was beyond their control. "What about when the mother is at risk?" When that case arises, look at both people as individual people. Figure out who has the greatest chance to live, and go on from there. If the mother has the greatest chance to live, so be it. That is not abortion, that is saving one life instead of losing two. But dont jump to save the mother without considering the baby as well.

Cross and Flag Burning.
I find both VERY NAUSIATING AND VERY OFFENSIVE. The cross burning is offensive to me as a Christian. I don't know all the symbolisms given to cross burning, but none of it can be good. If I can't do certain things becuase it offends certain people, why is cross burning allowed? It certainly offends me. Flag burning is just dumb. Usually it is used to oppose the government and one or more decisions it has made. But burning the American flag represents the destruction of EVERYTHING AMERICAN. the american people, the government, our culture, everything. it is just dumb.

thats my two cents.

Ok, Big dawgg, im not saying that there is any connection between the two other then you CAN be dependant on something from when you are are born. Me and Jlew had this discussion for an hour and a half today and got nowhere, but I beleive that it is possible for you to have a natural urge to be attracted to someone of the same sex. After all, you are born with a natural urge towards women, so why can't that gene that causes that be reversed every now and then to make one attracted to someone of the same sex. Yes, Justin, your natural selection argument, but remember that some genes mutate and cause many random problems of their own. That's how I ended up with cancer so it is possible that some rogue gene can exist giving someone a natural inclinmation towars enjoying partners of the same sex.

Anyway, congrats to the next person....

I was just thinking about this... when we're concieved, and when we're in the womb, everyone starts off as the same sex. So TECHNICALLY, we're all homosexuals. ;) But seriously, is it okay for, say, two men to kiss? is it just the whole sex part, or what? I'm curious. And no, I'm still not gay, don't worry.

--Fiend

(and that's 100, folks... next target, 125!)

we're not the same sex, we just haven't developed any of the body parts that determine our sex ... but we've still got either the xy chromosome or the xx chromosome deal going on in our genetic makeup ... it's all about the sperm

It IS all about the sperm.......

Okay I've been away at work and a party so I missed a lot of points so I will attempt to go back.

I agree with Bigg Dawg on his homosexuality comments. And to Fiend...homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so. Just as it says not to murder, lie, etc. it also says that homosexuality is wrong. That's all I'm going to say from now on in this topic.

Abortion - Totally against. Rape...things happen, and yes, they are targic and a hard reality, but why does that make the baby any less important? I have never been put in this situation (and I pray that I never will) but I think that the baby was conceived for a reason beyond what you, me, or anyone else can explain. Things happen for reasons, and God has a magical way of making the bad, good.

Cross and Flag Burning - Now, the Supreme Court just ruled (wow, someone with factual information) that a law banning cross and flag burning if meant to intimidate was constitutional, meaning that they could be prosecuted if found to be guilty of intimidating. My question would be, when is flag and cross burning not meant to intimidate? There are plenty of ways to speak out against the government or religion. But why does it have to be torching something that group holds sacred? I would like one of those bleeding-heart, save the 1st Ammendment in every way possible people to tell me how flag and cross burning is not meant to intimidate. All it took for Martin Luther was to nail his theses to the door of a church, hardly the equilavent of cross burning but it seems to me that Luther has made a lot more (positive) change. (Wow, more factual information)

Back to Fiend...John is right, you have XX or XY at birth, determining your sex. And last time I checked, scientists haven't proven a sex drive in developing babies. Anyway, anything to do with sexual acts toward a person of the same sex is construed as homosexuality in my book. But I guess I can't speak for all, but I think that is the stance that the church would take.

That is all.

Ok, first of all, I can't believe such intelligent beings as yourselves are writing such crap. People do not choose to be gay, why would they? Why choose to be discriminated against every day of your life?? Every time someone comes up to Starlight who is "swooshy," there are comments made by everyone else on the staff, "Oh my gosh, did you SEE that guy?? He was FLAMING!!!!" You know what kids, you are truly ignorant. I understand that jokes are funny and not meanst to be taken seriously, but it doesn't keep it from compounding the problem of discrimination. Why would anyone choose to live like that? People every day, people like you all, try to make homosexuals feel bad for who they are. That is wrong. And how dare you even suggest that it is "easy for them to change." Do YOU have any experience being gay? So how do you know it's easy for them to change? I would be willing to bet that if you took a poll of gay people and asked them if they would choose to change who they are, many of them would vote "yes." I am not saying all, and I am not even saying a majority, but even one is enough proof. If that one person wants to change, but can't, that is enough and I know that one person is out there, I know a few myself. For once, your argument is not supported and I for one think you are full of crap. I would also be willing to bet that you don't have any close homosexual friends, or even aquantances, but I can't prove that. Being gay is not a crime, nor should it be, though drugs are and should be. However, in instances where people are discriminated against for who they are or what they believe, those people need protection from those who want to hurt them. Sound familiar? For people who are gay, there are groups out there who will burn their house down, beat them almost to death, and commit such egregious crimes that you might find their actions hard to believe. Believe it.
This is for Big Dawgg: You said that as long as gays regret what they do and who they are and repent, they are ok with you. What if I were to say, I don't like Christians, but as long as you regret that you are one and repent, it's ok with me. How would that make you feel? You can't change who you are, nor would you choose to, and you shouldn't, so why should ANYONE ever have to feel ashamed of who they are? That is rediculous. I am simply lost for words. Also, you still haven't explained to me why homosexuality is a sin. Just because you are uncomfortable with it and you don't like it, doesn't mean you can just make it a sin and *presto* it's done. If I am at fault and for some logical reason it is one, please let me in on it. However, I do agree with you on your abortion and wrongful protest sections, that's exactly what I am saying.
And Jordan, I am sorry, but I don't think you can compare homosexuality to crack babies :) However, I am not saying it's impossible because I don't know for sure, but if you do find a connection, let me know; that would be very interesting.

I am sorry if I came off very defensive and hypercritical at times, but I feel very strongly on these issues and I don't take them lightly. I still think you are all great people and I have enjoyed debating issues with the group. I am never one to have harsh feelings towards someone for what they think or feel. I respect different choices, or in same cases lack of choice. I just hope that one day all of you will be able to do the same.

Krista

Okay, so where in the bible does it say that homosexuality is a sin? I'm not saying that it doesn't, I'm just saying that I don't know where it says that, and even though I've got a copy (or even two, I think) of the book floating around my bedroom I don't want to read through the WHOLE THING trying to find that, you know what I mean?

I, for one, believe that people don't choose to be gay. Well, some people might (why? I don't know, but they're out there), but I believe at least some just aren't attracted to their opposite sex and are, instead, attracted to the same sex. Who knows, not enough is known about the issue to argue based on much more than opinion right now.

Flag and cross burning... you know, cross burning is definitely meant to intimidate. There's not really any arguing that, thanks to the Klan. And I really don't think it should happen, and if someone wakes up to a burning cross in their front yard, I'd classify that as a hate crime. But burning the flag... that's a different story. I don't believe that it's meant to intimidate, I believe it's only meant (at least when it occurs in this country) as a method of protest, probably against the government. Yeah, I personally think that's taking it a bit too far, and I'd never do it, but I'm not against it. If people feel that's the only way they can protest or if they're really THAT ANGRY with this country, I'm not going to stop them.

Abortion... eh... I really don't want to get into that argument, I'm still not sure of my own personal opinion on it.

--Fiend

Krista, I'm somewhat in agreeance with you about the gay issue, but me and Justin had this talk for an hour and a half and got nowhere, so I'm not going to try and argue anymore. And you have to understand the Starlight crowd guys: Corey is an extreme Christian who likes to have a good time but doesn't curse, sin (as best as he can, etc.) He is very against gays, but when he jokes about them, he doesn't mean it to all seriousness. I beleive the only time anyone has ever cracked a joke on gay people was the time when the two cross-dressers came up and I mistaked them for women at first. Now, I'll befriend gay people, I have many gay friends, my half-brother, one of my best friends in the world, is gay, but cross-dressing just kind of creeps me out.

And being gay is more then a choice. You don't just wake up one day and decide that, 'hey, im gay'. It doesn't work like that. Something deeper does happen, regardless of what you want to think. Simply put, you just don't wake up one day and say I like the opposite sex do you? No, you feel something about the opposite sex that makes you attracted to them.

Man, I wish I had to time to comment on everything, it's my site and I spend the least amount of time here. This discussion is awesome, by the way, 100+ comments is amazing, thanks guys. I'm thinking of new ways to turn this into a discussion site.

Cross-burning: more than certainly absolutely meant to intimidate, and very much a hate crime ... freedom of speech means it's ok for the christian's to practice so we leave them alone instead of burning flags ... freedom of speech should not mean we protect the cross-burners for persecuting the christians and exercising freedom of speech.

flag-burning: definitely more metaphoric and symbolic of protest against the government ... I don't support it, I think it is stupid for all the same reasons mentioned above, but i like the idea of flag-burning as a means to intimidate is wrong (yay supreme court) ... I think there are times when it can be found that someone was burning a flag to make a statement and therefore freedom of speech

the homosexual topic: OK, I believe, that being gay is a product of your environment. Basically, I'm a proponent of tabula rasa (blank slate) by my man Voltaire. If you were to take a male infant and raise it as a girl, and maybe even tell it that it needs to like guys and not girls, i think the kid would end up a homosexual. I also, though, believe that there are extreme cases. I think that there have probably been a few cases of guys just deciding to be gay on the spot, because their mind works a little differently than some (also a case of tabula rasa) and were raised to be slightly unstable in some areas (perhaps their need to be different, ie, if the world is saying everybody is straight, than they'll be gay to be different). I think there are probably gays out there who are confused and are really heterosexuals. I also think there are gays out there who aren't confused, who are genuinely gay and will stay that way.

I do have a few gay friends, I don't judge them, I think they're fine people. I do think homosexuality is wrong by the bible's standards, and it's found in some passage that says "a man shall not lay down with another man as he does with a woman" or something like that. I don't believe in the persecution of gays, in any way, but I also don't believe in gay marriages.

I don't believe in the practice of not hiring someone because they're gay (or black, or female, etc), but I dont' support affirmative action in any way, I think it hurts business. If you have a gay man who's more qualified than a straight man than the business, if it's smart, will hire the gay man. If you have as straight man that's more qualified than a gay man, then again, the company should hire the more qualified and in this case it has to be the straight man.

As far as cracking gay jokes, the way I see it is that even gay people crack gay jokes. When people laugh at gays like the case of Starlight, to me I see that more as laughing at someone's shoes, or someone who's fat, or someone's hot green "tokyo rider," etc. It's not meant as hate, and sure there are cases where some people do mean it as hate and that's totally wrong and horrible. But simple fun doesn't hurt.

A funny story, a friend of mine at best buy walks up to our ops manager (homosexual) and says "look at that girl ... she's hot enough to even make you straight" to which the manager just turns and says "hey, look at that guy over there, he's hot enough to make you ... oh wait, you're way too young for him" It was funny, and it just shows that you can have fun with it (from both sides). The two of them would always have little conversations like this, and neither side meant any harm.

I don't know, I guess my writing is getting less and less coherant because I'm kind of trying to stall from doing this essay for a scholarship. I should probably get to work on that.

Spork.

Alright Krista...I'm not sure that most of your points have any factual information to back them up but hey...let's see if I can argue them anyway.

Why would people choose to be gay? To stand out and get attention. Why do people joke around and get in trouble is class? They know they are going to get punishned yet they do it. Homosexuals want to feel different so they think that sexual preference is a way to attention. If that's not enough for you then why do people do crack and smoke marijuana? There are several reasons and several consequences, yet they still do it. Just because there are severe consequences to something does not deter people from doing it.

Secondly, so far there are studies to support the theory that homosexuality is a choice. The only arguement that it is innate is the fact that you can't prove its not, which is a flawed arguement.

Third, religion is a choice. I wasn't automatically a Christian at birth. If that was true then what would be the point of making choices. Based on your system people would already be chosen to be Christian or not, which is proposterous.

I'll leave you with this note...Early Christians were persecuted, put to death, and tortured for their beliefs yet they continued to believe even under these threats. It was their choice to be a Christian. It is a gay's choice to be gay. They live with persecution (and I'm not saying it's right) and it is their choice to do so. (Please don't misconstrue this to mean that homosexuals are going to perservere and rule the world, I am just pointing out the fact that many people make choices that put them in serious dangers, homosexuality appears to be one of those choices)

I wanted to add that perhaps there's something genetic in the attraction to the opposite sex, and therefore something genetic in the attraction to the same sex perhaps, but the way I see it is that the mind can do wonders, even override genes. A friend of mine's brother got cancer and died, and ever since for the past ten years the living brother hasn't grown hair. His mind had psychologically done something to where it simulated the treatment for cancer and all his hair fell out. He knows he doesn't have cancer, he knows his mind is doing it, but he still hasn't grown hair since his brother died. I think the same thing could be said for homosexuality. Someone could make "the choice" (no, it's not instant, but the tabula rasa could lead up to homosexuality) and override the genes that make him attracted to the opposite sex. I also think someone born with a high level of estrogen who turns out flamboyant could override his genes that make him attracted to the SAME sex.

Being a man of science and reason, while I dont' know if it's been proven, I could see how genetic mutations could have a child born with the attraction to the same sex, but the case would have to be very rare, and there are too many gay men to support that all of them are victim to this. It's tough, and I think a lot of psychological and genetic research will probably be put into homosexual studies over the next decade or two. We'll see what happens.

PS - is my site running a little slow? seems like it ... perhaps it's too many comments on this page?

this is in response to justin's comment:

i'm not saying that i disagree with what you said, but i don't follow the logic of "i need attention... I'M GONNA BE GAY!" that doesn't connect. if that way of thinking is the actual cause, then why are there so many gays "in the closet"?

and i agree that religion is a choice... to a point. i'm sure that you were exposed to your current religious beliefs over and over again by your parents when you were growing up, and that socialization stuck. i suppose that technically you chose to stick with it, but i don't think it was a real risky jump.

and back to the homosexuality thing... just let people live their lives. more than likely, it's not going to affect you anyway.

and another thing while i'm here. there are many persecuted groups... but i don't think they can all be paralleled to the early christians.

"Why would people choose to be gay? To stand out and get attention."
--JLew

Where the hell is your 'factual information' to back this up? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. No one would simply choose to be gay to stand out. Scenario: Oh, I don't have any friends, maybe if I was gay I'd stand out and get some friends. Don't think it works like that. Where's my information to back this up you might ask. I have none, it's common sense.

Dani Shuck told me the other day that I have my religious beleifs simply because I wish to be different. The same beleifs I've had since I became sick, I did simply for attention. Listen, I got my beleifs after having a little run in with death, I had all the fucking attention one could hope for. I didn't change everything I beleived in for attention. I changed everything I beleived in because my life took a drastic twist and opened my eyes.

Now certain things people will do for attention, and many people will say that their athiests and what not for attention. I am not an athiest nor did I change my beliefs for attention. You have no idea how pissed I was at her for saying that, and you [JLew] are acting just like her by saying that.

My first post. Makes me nervous. I know I'm going to go back and read this and seem/feel/realize that im an ass. But that's ok.

Iain- There are numerous specific biblical references to homosexuality (Romans 1: 26-27, Genesis 19- Sodom, Leviticus 18:22). It's in old and new testaments, but i don't think Jesus says it. Anyway the bottom line is its a sin, and its pretty... unequivocal. The bible says it's a sin/abomination/.

Justin- Justin, Justin, Justin . And I think Big Dawg too (I don't have the attention span to read all these). God I dont know where to start (there was the lord's name in vain- save me a spot on the hell bus with the gays). OK, someone said it was illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. Absolutely wrong. In Louisville there is a Fairness Ordinance to prevent this (not sure how it faired with the merger), but in the rest of the state it's completely legal. Ok now for some science (don't worry jesus types- its not evolution)- .

1) Brian Gladue, Simon Levay, Laura Allen, and Roger Gorski (brilliant psychologists all): "The emerging neuroanatomical picture is that, in some brain areas, homosexual men are more likely to have female-typical neuroanatomy than are heterosexual men." They also have unusually similar fingerprint patterns to females-Hall and Kimura. Lesbians also have more male anatomy- Byne, et al.
2) Twins, even those raised apart, have a high chance of being gay if the other twin is (about 50%). This demonstrates a biological factor to homosexuality. - Bailey, et al.
3) During a critical stage of fetal development, homosexual boys have been shown to be exposed to an abnormal level of female hormones. (Ellis & Ames 1987, Gladue 1990, Meyer-Bahlburg 1995). Also, studies show abnormally similar spatial abilites between gay men and straight women, suggesting different hormonal development. Gladue and 3 others- im tired of writing the shit nobody will read.
4) Most psychiatrists (sorry guys- they know more than you, or me, on the subject) "believe that it is nature [god?] that predisposes homosexuality, not nurture [or society]"- Vreeland et al. I obviously included the brackets.

Alright I know thats boring, and I know it won't mean anything to you (we can probably quote studies back and forth) but there are a few dozen scientific explanations for homosexuality.

Why would anyone choose to be gay (as Krista pointed out)? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and for some reason the right needs to keep saying it, hoping that if they yell loud enough nobody will notice the inherent ignorance and hatred in such a comment.

Here's a thought Justin- why don't we assume it isn't a choice? We'll just be nice and fair to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, until proven otherwise. I'll never respect people who cloak discrimination, or even judgment on issues like this, in religion. If you want to dislike, you're going to, but dont bring billions of Christians in with you- you're giving them a bad name.

Ok so the religion thing. Here's some fun stuff, courtesy the West Wing. How about selling daughters into slavery (it's fine- Exodus 21:7)? While we're on the fundamentalist thing, have you ever worked on Sunday Justin? I hope not. It's punishable by death (Exodus 35:2).

I know I won't change your mind. It's been my experience that ignorance is perpetuated despite empirical evidence, especially when religion is concerned. I'm not worried because the American public is becoming more and more supportive of homosexuals, and I know I'll soon be in the enlightened majority. But I hope I've given you pause at least (and Big Dawg too).

How about that for factual information? I come from a moderately well-educated perspective, and I pretty much resent the implication that such a position is incongruous with liberalism.

(John- this site might not be as worthless as I thought..... kidding of course).

I look forward to replies.

-Marc

(If I feel like I'm not just blowing hot air, maybe I'll comment on more).

I knew you guys would blow this way out of proportion. I was listing several reasons why someone would choose to be gay. How can you not say that some people are gay just for attention. Those people that are flagrantly gay. The people that march is gay pride parades. They are not doing that to get attention?

I'm not saying that everyone is gay to get attention. But you can't completely rule it out as a possibility.

And by the way Danielle, it is I that am arguing that we shouldn't pass special rights for gays. If you say just leave them alone, then let's do that, not make special rights.

Justin, if ya could, send me a link or somethin to this study on homosexuality. I wanna know how they went about 'proving' that homosexuality is a choice. And John, my comps runnin slow too when I open this page.

Ok, clarify that then. It sounded as if you were accusing all gays of doing that. Those flamers that are gay to the extreme, they do it for some attention, but I think they still like the cock. And technically you can't rule anything out as a possibility. Anything that you, Danielle, Krista, Fiend, etc. argue all could be a possibility no matter how small.

Alright, I know I'm posting a lot at once, but all this new stuff keeps popping up on me. I'm not going to rant, just wanted to thank Marc for backing up many unanswered claims and I wanted to quote Dogma:

Bartlbe: Sins change my friend. I remember when eating meat on a Sunday was a hellworthy sin.

Loki: Yeah, but the good ones never change.

::shakes head in disbelief::

No understands my point. I am not saying that we should discriminate. I'm not saying that I hate gays. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't extend special rights to gays. You all want to write laws that appear to work two ways, but only work one. If a heterosexual fired a homosexual, the homosexual would probably win a lawsuit brought, whether or not he could prove that he was fired because of sexual preference. It is the implication that sexual preference was the reason that automatically convinces a jury. However, if a homosexual fired a heterosexual do you think any court in the US would find for the heterosexual? Of course not! That would be politically incorrect because that would somehow imply that the homosexual was in the wrong.

Even if you have no respect for people that actually have religious beliefs Marc, I do. I'm not discriminating against anyone. If I owned a business I wouldn't fire someone because of their sexual preference. I don't believe that employment should be based on that. It should be based on merit. I resent the implication (or out-and-out accusation) that I am discriminating against anyone. I'm not saying create laws against gays. Where do you ever find where I say "down with gays, fire all their asses and send them straight to hell"? Huh?

It is incredible to me that I am being accused of discrimination. It is proposterous. You should be ashamed of such an accusation.

And by the way...no, I actually don't work on Sunday. Check my schedule at Target...I work fridays and saturdays. They have calld me several times to come in and i've said "no." I am at church for more than 6 hours on Sunday (between evening and morning) and there repeatedly during the week for mtgs, gatherings, etc. If you want to bash Christianity, fine, that's your perrogative and I'm truly sorry you feel that way. But you have absolutely no right to question my faith.

Jeez, I'm going to stop typing because this might not be making much sense, and now I am angered by several accusations towards myself.

Another comment from me. This one is based in opinion. I know, it's refutable, which is what makes my argument with Justin possible, since he's presenting opinions at this point too.

Youre right Justin. The ones in parades do want attention. They want attention for a cause- the cause of equality, and equal opportunity. you think the blacks marched in parades in the 60s for attention? because again youre right, they did. and despite what someone earlier said (krista?), there is a distinct parallel between gay rights and african american rights. blacks were killed for being who they are, and werent allowed jobs or rights because of it, and the same can be said for homosexuals. matthew shepards (sp?) death is a modern lynching, and there are those that would discriminate against potential employees because they are gay- dr hyman of louisville (not making the name up), who filed suit against the fairness ordinance, because he thinks discriminating in jobs is fine.

if by special attention you mean special laws to protect gays, i cant think of something i favor more. killing homosexuals because they are gay does occur, and i think there should be "special attention" for those who commit these kinds of crimes. and if nothing else i hope theres a "special" place in hell for them.

i know this site is usually just semi-serious, and again i know i probably wont change shit with this post, but i obviously care intensely about this issue. gays deserve rights for reasons i listed earlier, and they march to get the attention of the ignorant, and that includes you and it includes bigg dawg.

i really am incredulous about your comments earlier. for you to attack those who want the rights promised by the government you claim to revere so fervently is wrong. for you to act like thats not a valid grievance, or like they want to be hated, is just ... misguided to a monumental degree.

im getting angry, which will get me nowhere, so im going to stop. again, hope i showed people something that, oddly, doesnt seem to have been mentioned.

-Marc

OK, first of all, sorry for the slow load times. BUT YOU ALL WERE THE BASTARDS THAT WANTED 100+ comments, NOT ME!!! But i'll work on a paging system to split it up into every ten or twenty comments. or maybe by text length (ooohh, that would be impressive .... 25,000 characters (25KB / 56kbps (5KB by FCC regulations) per second = 5 second loads? 128Kbps = 16KB/sec = 2 second loads for cable/dsl) ... (everyone make note that this is factual evidence, providing numbers with my post (subnote: it has nothing to do with the real topics at hand (subnote: it is the first time I've provided facts, even if it has nothing to do with the real topic (last subnote: I am a damned hypocrite, if this is the first time I've provided facts with an argument (see big long rant about 20-30 comments up))))).

Second, we should all commend marc for the first factual/cited evidence, lord knows I'm too lazy a son of a bitch to do it myself [and therefore a damned hypocrite (see big long rant about 20-30 comments up) ... (look I'm nesting parenthesis within brackets ... everyone awe over my godliness [oh shoot I just broke a couple sins ... but it was a joke, meant to lighten the atmosphere ...])].

Third, let's all not get mean here. Again, I'm probably being a damned hypocrite for my outward rant against the democratic party (see same big long rant about 20-30 comments up).

Fourth, because I obviously need a fourth point to add some balance to this pointless post, why don't we all have an orgy? We'll invite the whole senior class, no one will be discriminated against (because this is america, and this post is about discrimination of one kind or another), and this way, with countless numbers of both sexes, we will all be considered bisexuals and this way the world can live happily in unity. Think about it, everybody could be there, in a massive shirtless, pantless, naked embrace, one big happy family, in this warm cradling sensation, rocking back and forth singing proud to be an american while trying to make your way over to the section of the crowd that one guy or girl is currently (depending on your gender and sexual preference) who you'd always dreamed of seeing naked. I mean, supposedly this happens a lot in college, massive orgies, I mean mr. taylor heard it straight from a girl who came back to louisville with the sole intention of revisiting him, because he's the perfect man (brown hair, blue eyes, five nine and a washed up never was has been). This is america, ladies and gentlemen, this is america.

Spork ---> not really a proponent of the orgy, I was hoping everyone got that ... was just again, lightening the mood

ah i cant keep up! its great.

i tend to do this. i made a mean remark to justin, didnt justify it, and so the purpose of my comments is lost.

you do discriminate. saying people choose to be gay is discriminating, because it provides justification for their persecution, and thats intolerable. saying they arent mistreated because of who they are is .... well if not discriminating, at least wrong.

so heres what i want you to get from my first post. i have facts too. and they say gays are born gay, and my gay friends would second that from their own experience. i have a friend who tried to kill himself over his homosexuality, and thats why i have no respect for the opinion gays choose. its wrong, and it discredits homosexuals and their struggles.

you missed my point and i blame myself, so im sorry. another example: its not about that you havent worked on sunday, and its irrelevant if you have. surely you must like or even love someone who has worked on sunday? do they deserve death? my point is that is an outdated verse.

wow the christian thing is... surprising. i thought the fact i mentioned the bible would help my cause. i dont dislike christians, and i respect many of them. i DO NOT respect those who claim to present their views as being representative of all christians or, as you or bigg dawg said, "the church", especially when they include intolerance, which is what "gays choosing" means. my church believes gays are born that way and deserve to be treated as such.

im done for tonight. im tired and i have to wake up for church, where im taught to love my neighbor and accept people for who they are.

-Marc

(PS- why do people keep saying/implying that burning crosses is anti-christian? i agree its a heretical action, but it was started by christians. it was a way of using religious justification for their racist beliefs, which the bible absolutely doesnt endorse. i hope people understand that.)

Hey it's Boomer, John's friend from Chicago.

I am liberal, I'm most certainly not a republican, but I dont think there's even a need for political lines to be drawn regarding the subject of this war.
I think what I say here: http://www.geocities.com/oprfranter/usa.htm basically explains how I feel that participation or self-identification with the current politcal system and/or its factions is basically a moot idea.
However, I'll try to keep my thoughts on the war logical and concise, and I'd like to see anyone present a cogent argument refuting what I say or arguing that my reasoning is insufficient for invasion.

There are terrorist cells across the world who want nothing more than to kill, mame, and instill fear in American people, and embarrass the United States' government in front of the world. They will use whatever means necessary to create civil unrest, panic, and economic difficulties for the United States. The social problems we already have, like drug abuse, poverty, lack of medical care, gun ownership, and countless others will only be made more unbearable when terrorist attacks induce the United States into a panic-stricken state that will hit our economy the hardest. It will cause our congress and president to take irresponsible, uninformed, and sweeping actions that will create even more domestic and international unrest and distrust. Therefore acts of terrorism must be avoided and/or minimized.

At some point in the last 12 years, Saddam Hussein had enough weapons [of mass destruction] to supply 100 terrorist networks for 20 years (That's my own personal estimate, who knows how correct it is, but even if its just 1 terrorist network for 1 year, do the stakes change?) You have heard the statistics about the thousands of liters of anthrax, etc. I hope we find as many weapons as possible in Iraq because the less we find, the more he has already sold. That reason alone is enough for us to go in there and remove him from power and destroy whatever weapons we find. In addition to that, he's a ruthless, inhumane dictator guilty of just about every "bad thing" we have a name for.

I fear we may be too late. So far, there hasn't been any luck finding W's of MD. We haven't found Saddam Hussein, and I don't know if we ever will. People may say it's still early, but honestly, a war like this is already decided before it starts. Most of the cards have already hit the table by the time the first bomb drops. Good luck, USA, you're going to need it.

-Boomer

Thank you Marc, you have said everything I have wanted to say but not have been able to. I tend to get caught up in emotion and not clearly state what I wish to impart.
Now then Justin and Big D, I am very sorry if I was too harsh with my comments. This doesn't mean I am changing my views, but I also don't want to be a hypocrite and discriminate against anyone or make anyone feel badly about who and what they are. You are both great, intelligent guys and I respect you both a lot.
Alright, I too am going to church this morning and I must go. Everyone have a wonderful rest of the weekend and I'll see you around.
Krista

It's funny, I think everybody here has church in the morning.

Thanks Marc for posting, you make me a smarter man (I'm so sorry to sound like foster here), even if I dont' agree with everything you say.

Thanks Boomer for posting, but I told you to read the last 10-30 comments not the first 10-30, we're kind of off the war topic now.

Don't worry, I'm only thanking them because they just got into the thread today, for the first time, and that's cool of them. Jordan, Krista, Justin, Bigg Dawg, Fiend, Jo, basically anyone who will take credit for what they post, thanks for this discussion as well. You all rawk my sawks so hard it hurts.

I'm going to bed.

Spork.

PS - Go(d/sh) this takes forever to load, even for my computer behind the network (I get a 100Mb stream!). When it loads slow on my computer, I know there's a problem.

Ahhh, almost to 125 Fiend. The sad thing is, Boomer's post through me way off, and he's responding to Jo's original post. That's how far off on a tangent we've all gotten. And now John's off talking about senior class orgies! ;)

ehehe

dang, a few days have gone by and this post has gone from 104 to 124 comments. I am so far behind it isn't funny. I've read all the comments I've missed, and I have really missed a lot.

Marc, I have the upmost respect for you. It is nice to have someone who knows a lot of facts to back themselves up. I hope that I can become a better debater or arguer (if that is a word) from going up against people like you.

A few comments to cathc up. Marc, about going to Hell for working on the Sabbath, matt 12: 1-14 Mrk 2:23 - 3:6 Lk 6:1-11

Now, I am sorry if I came across as a bigot, as a person who hates gays and thinks that they can change as easy as i can decide what I want to do for the day. I do feel enlightened by Marc's references to the psychological studies. Kinda makes me rething some things. But I still believe that homosexualtiy is not a perminant state of mind/being. I dont remember if I've stated:

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it

I am angered, also, at when people feel the urge to kill people because of their preferences or race or whatever. I may not agree with everyone and everything, but I in no way want to "purge" my society of people. hmmm, purging society becuase you dont like certain people.... sounds familiar.... HITLER AND NAZI'S!!! I am with you all on that. However, I agree with Justin in the hiring of people argument. I dont know how to say anythign new. Whatever I say on this subject would just be echoing myself. I want everyone to be treated equally, but I dont agree with forcing people to accept anbother persons decision. Call me whatever you want. I love all souls, I jsut get trouble from what people do with the gift that God gave them: life.

dang, there was so much I wanted to comment on, but after reading all the back posts and writing what I said above, I've forgotten most of what I wanted to say. Dang. I do, however, want to thank you all. With all these educated arguments, I could not help but spend a lot of time in inner reflection. I love questioning myself and what I believe in. And you all have made me do that. I came out of it still a Christian, probably a stronger Christian. And I would ask all of you to help me break all habits that I have. If you catch me cussing or negating on what I say, let me know. It is the little things that slip that cause me to stumble. It is Easter right now, and I'm not with my family. Some of my reflection has given me a bitter taste with big holidays. I'll celebrate Easter later alone in my church around midnight tonight tonight, same as i did for Christmas. But again, thanks you all. And whether or not you'll accept it, may God bless you all as you are all in my prayers.

I'm all for the Senior orgy. Just take away the nudity and sex, and the obvious alcohol and drugs, and I'm all for it. Just tell me when.

I'll try to read this post more often to keep up and voice my opinion more. I was just very busy this weekend and did not have a chance to read it all.

I guess I'm the only one here who DIDN'T go to church this morning? Heh. And Bigg Dawg, you can take away the sex but the nudity's got to stay! ;)

I'm actually at work right now, so I don't have time to read through all of the new posts and see what I want to reply to, I just saw these last few... I'll get around to it eventually. This makes it 127... what are we going for now, 150? or 175?

--Fiend

again, responding to justin:

i'm not saying that we should pass "special rights" for gays, but i think that there should be some protection for them so as to not have crazy people fuckin' up their lives. i don't think there's anything "special" about protecting people.

i'm not accusing you of discrimination. i know you better than that. you just have a bad way of expressing your tolerance.

and marc--you need to comment more. you rock my world.

Hey everybody, continue the thread at the new post here:
entry 807
This post is ridiculously long (sorry, I think 129 comments is enough, our modems can't take it)

Spork.