I'd like to see proponents of "Gay Civil Rights" address Emporer of Ice Cream's reply. It also puts an end to debates over whether or not being homosexual is a 'proper' civil rights issue or not.
There is the Natural Right, enshrined in the Constitution, to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. But there is not and cannot be a Natural Right to participate in a social ritual which, by definition, is not natural but artificial and contingent upon the existence of a set of social circumstances which are them
I wasn't saying they choose to be gay, I was saying they choose to display it. Do people who are straight "choose to display" that they are straight? Why should one group of people be allowed to express themselves, but not another?
We won WWII and do not occupy Germany, Italy or Japan. Now? No. But we did. It's also worth noting that After the Six Day War, Israel offered the Palestinians (at that time Jordanians and Egyptians) their own state, in exchange for recognition and a peace treaty. They rejected it, likely fear
"This is the site that touched off four years of KILLING when Ariel Sharon visited that site." People still believe this? It was a bad decision, no doubt. But people who think that that act cauused almost five years of violence don't understand the situation.
"the Israelis need to take their army out of the West Bank and Gaza, dismantle their Jewish settlements and build their wall along their existing border" What border would that be? Israel doesn't have a border with the West Bank. It has an armistace line.
My dictionary defines murder as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." Moral or not, isn't the death penalty, by it's very definition, lawful?
Citizen Larry Kuperman: "There is no question that Islamic Jihad is a Palestinian terrorist group. The announcement claiming responsibility for the act was made by a Palestinian. Yet Israel has said that Syria is in part responsible for the act." My understanding is that Islamic Jihad's Damascus-based leadership
That's the reason for this post. Maybe you have not seen it, but many people are getting sick and tired of the same old political games. Also remember we are loosing the FDR generation by the minute and the MTV generation are not as active in
OK, I actually checked out the web page in depth. Here's what I found: Currently, Democrats are 42%, Republicans are 33%, and 25%+ are "other." The "JANUARY 2004 REGISTRATION TOTALS", where I assume you got your numbers from, only contains about 30 states - missing, for example, are Illin
I'm skeptical of those numbers. They point to the change not being in the last ten years, but between late '02 and early '04: Totals January 2004 were : Dem. 27,301,951 (34.82%) <TABLE cellpadding=8
I think it's silly to vote for or against someone based on who supports him rather than make up your own decision based on your own mind, but ... couchman: Iran: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-iran-us-elections,0,4375343.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines <TABL
Despite what officials say, I think it's a bulletproof vest. Either that, or his duracell battery.
Oh, and Hezbollah was involved in Khobar Towers in Saudi arabia: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese were indicted Thursday on charges of murder and conspiracy for the 1996 bombing that killed 19 American servicemen in Saudi Arabia. The indictment alleges that the suspects were directed by Iranian governme
zieinobia: "HazB allah of South Lebanon also doesn't transfer any of its operation outside South lebanon or Lebanon borders" That is incorrect. From http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/hezbollah.html#Q6 Hebollah was responible for: "# the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, which featured the famous footage of the plane's pilot leaning out of the cockpit with a gu
Actually, this is how the system has always worked - electors were originally devised to allow the electors to use their own initiative when choosing who they should cast their EV for. Some states have put fines to dissuade electors from voting for someone other than the winner of the state, but it's still legal, AFAIK. This is hardly the first time it' happened -
"I would still like to hear his answer on "what inaccuricies"? To me it sounded like he was saying that you said something incorrect." I pointed out that enkydu's post had inaccuracies. I said nothing about Texas Wahine's post.
"The purpose of my reply, precisely, is that your comments were not addressing the article that I wrote . . . " So I'm not giving your post enough attention? "the purpose of this blog is to honor our soldiers" Regardless of the purpose, are you saying that no one should be allowed to point out the innacuracies that other posters post?
"Did you even read the article? " Yes, I did. I also read enkydu's post, and I pointed out several of the statements that were either incorrect or that I disagreed with in his post. Are you arguing that Germany did not declare war on the US before the US declared war on it? Are you arguing that Eisenhower did not send mil
"Germany never attacked us: Japan did." Germany declared war on us after Japan attacked. We first got involved in Vietnam under Eisenhower, IIRC. As for "crippling" Al Qaeda, tell that to the Spanish, the Indonesians, the Australias, the Turks, the Kenyans, etc.
"Most people who make less than $30,000 a year do not pay any federal income tax. " That sounded fishy to me. I checked on an online tax calculators ( http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tools/quickcalc/2003_quick_calc.html ), and someone (single, no deductions) making $30,000 pays about $2984 in taxes. Someone making $20,000 pays $1484 in taxes. You have to go down to $7800 not to pay income tax - bu
" There is no hard evidence, but going off the US's track record with arms development and the viability of the technology, there is probably at least one "world-destroying" nuke in existence, and Israel is rumoured to possess one as well. Basically this is a nuke sufficiently large that when it goes off Earth will be blown out of orbit, freezing/burning everything. So it is in everyone's best interests to ensure that noone who has this technology does
" not destroyed...the arabs in this hypothetical dont have nuclear weapons...but theyre going to be overrun." Should we have used nuked the soviet union if they had only nuked half the country? If they had "only" nuked the UK? If they had just invaded West Berlin? I'm not about to play that game. But last I checked, conventional weapons were pretty damned effective at destruc
Solitair - I suggest you look up what happened in Jordan in "Black" September in Jordan, 1970, and then keep in mind that Jordan is by far the arab country where Palestinians have the most freedom and prosperity. It's not that these countries are represive against the Palestinians because they're arab countries, it's because, at this point in time, these countries are represive dictatorships (or represive monarchies) where massacres of thousands occur
"india and pakistan have acknowledged having nuke weapons as of 1998. they have not signed the npt tho so they are not subject to oversight. " Israel has not signed the NPT either. "refusing to admit you have nuclear weapons seems like a somewhat less than effective deterrent technique" The important thing for deterrence is that the governments of the neighboring states are aware of Israel's nuclear capability - which they