Tiq

put the old map up. then at least some ball players come on every few weeks. that's the best you can hope for.

Currency doesn't matter. Quebec has poutine. Quebec by itself owns America and the rest of Canada. Tho I do love the States, mainly the Midwest

Maybe it's just me, but these days I feel like the season are kind of shifting. Winter starting later, and ending a little later than usual, and summer starting a little later than scheduled as well. I've heard about all the evidence of global warming and stuff, but personally speaking, I don't think the winters are getting any warmer. Now this summer was kind of up and down. The last two weeks, it has been raining, but prior to that it was hot as !@#$%^&*...maybe i'm just overspeculating Anyway about the theory. It's really interesting, but I think I will cling to what SeVer said instead of think about what kind of !@#$%^&* can be expected in the future

How ambitious and gutsy of him.

I've tried to make my own; complete rubbish compared to the real thing

No thank you. Instead I think I will satisfy my tastebuds by eating the ever popular poutine, available in Quebec. MMMM MMMM

Quebec is one of the best places in North America.

People like this make me a firm believer in natural selection.

This thread is lame.

Yeah. French is way more respectable than Emo. Emo has My Chemical Romance and the Dashboard Confessionals. France had Napolean, and currently has the adorable Audrey Tautou. France ownz.

Isn't that always the case in this forum?

These are the statements I come to these forums for. It's either Lincoln or Washington for me. Washington set the standard, Lincoln preserved the Union. Few have done more for their nations.

Just to be clear, I am distrustful of all groups. ESPECIALLY the ones that I am in. You know me Greased, do you really think someone like me is a good reference when it comes to searching for any type of group? But that's besides the point. Although I am distrustful of all groups, I will say this: I am far more distrustful of larger, more powerful groups, than I am of smaller groups. In fact, that is how the founding fathers of the United States looked at things. Refer to federalist paper #10. I do not recall the author of that particular paper, (John Jay, Madison, or the other guy) but it is clear that they were far more in favor of small groups than large groups. Regardless of the intent of large groups, when a few people are in control of such large groups, then corruption is always a possible next step. Anywhoo, I've said all I want to say about that. Is the author of '1001 Ways You Didn't Know Jessica Alba is Hot But Were Afraid to Ask' the same guy who wrote "What Do Bret Michaels and Tommy Lee Have in Common? The Pamela Anderson Chronicles"? If so, I will most definitely look into it. His characterizations were memorable and plot twists original.

Yes, individuals make up groups. But the point I am making is that things like religion are better left to solitary individuals who do not seek to influence or manipulate the behaviors of other people looking for something to believe in. All I said was "I can't remember the last time a religious groups had a positive impact on society." Although I am flattered you took my lack of good memory as something worthy of a drawn out argument, I am also quite perplexed as to why you keep referring to religious individuals who have done good in society. I never denied that religion can be used for good in the hands of the right individuals. But I have always been skeptical of groups as they often tend to fall into the mob mentality. Psychology 101: An individual in a group is prone to following the group mentality regardless of an misgivings he or she may have about the groups actions. The individual will, in my eyes, always be more practical, thoughtful, and reliable than a group. Are there groups who have done good? Sure, you pointed out a few. But when you are talking about individuals and groups as though they are one in the same, I can't bring myself to agree. There have been good individuals who have led groups, but if those same good individuals asked the group to do something that is irrational or violent, then the group would have probably done just that. In fact, groups would probably prefer to create conflict. It CAN be righteous conflict, but the righteousness of groups often gets lost in the violent and irrational behavior of groups gone wild. Even good groups abuse their power. You can't deny that MLK Jr. had to do some manipulation; if he had not gotten the people willing to face the attack dogs and hoses of Bull Connor, then people would have remained blind to how blacks were being treated during peaceful protests. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really trust any groups. The good or the bad. Because it is so easy to get manipulated when you are in a group. Particularly, large groups. As far as I'm concerned, the things you are talking about me condemning (religion, etc). Those are ideas, not groups. Ideas are more complicated than groups and harder to condemn or accept either way. I do condemn some ideas in Islam and other religions, but I also accept some. When it comes to ideas, I don't believe in taking the good with the bad; I believe in taking the good and abandoning the bad. However people choose to follow those ideas is up to them. Can I say that I condemn people whose interpretations I see as wrong, or intellectually dishonest? Yes. Should that matter to you? No. So I don't see the point of asking what I condemn and what I accept. I'm going to be really careful of what I say in these forums. You people nitpick so much and take everyone's word seriously to the nth degree. I might have said "I don't remember the last time I've seen Jessica Alba look hot" and y'all would interpret that as "OMG, ARE YOU SAYING JESSICA ALBA HAS NEVER BEEN HOT? HERE IS 784 REASONS WHY SHE HAS BEEN HOT, AS TAKEN FROM THE BOOK "1000 REASONS WHY JESSICA ALBA IS HOT." I think if I had said "there has never been a positive result from the actions of religious groups", then I would understand why you're arguing. Maybe if I go back and edit...

Perception or not, reasonable folk would be able to recognize good and evil if they were presented with the facts. The German people were blinded by the Nazi propaganda, and those that WERE aware of what was going on in the camps were in denial. Hitler was only an example that evil exists.

John Paul II was an individual, not a group. Perhaps you are referring to his fan club? Mother Teresa, individual. The Reverend was also an individual. The thousands of religious denominations do help the poor, sick and hungry. But I am talking about the large groups. The religious right, the crazay characters behind the Crusades. The 3 people who you listed had influence over a large number of people, yes, but that is because they offered their own INDIVIDUAL interpretations of the bible. Furthermore, I do not think MLK Jr.'s campaign for civil rights was really a religious crusade...more of a political/human rights deal. I started my earlier by saying "Religion can provide good guidlines for individuals", and you respond by listing religious individuals who have done good. It's not really a "read between the lines" type thing, it's a "read the entire post" type deal.

Secession was inevitable. If you remember, there had already been a prior secession by a southern state...I believe it was South Carolina. So secession had been in the works long before Lincoln took office. Admittedly, everyone underestimated the South. But a northern victory was almost inevitable, as Lincoln was not going to budge from his position for anything. In a war of attrition, the South had no chance. It's easy to look back now and highlight mistakes he made, and that luck is a factor. But in such a dire situation, it is almost impossible to succeed without luck. At the end of the day, it was Lincoln who managed to preserve the Union, and that is arguably the most important thing any president has done. You can say that other people would have done it, but Lincoln was the man who actually did it. You can look back at key battles that the southern generals gave to the North, and form "what if?" theories. You can question his choice of generals, but they managed to get the job done (albeit with luck on their side, and a massive cost of life). The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed more strategy than anything. I'm not saying the man's a saint. He was flawed, and perhaps a racist. Secession happened under his watch, but that does not necessarily make him the cause of secession. There were a variety of factors that sparked secession, leading all the way back to the drafting of the Cons!@#$%^&*ution. In the end, Lincoln did more to preserve the Union than any previous president, and any president has after him.

Religion can provide good guidelines for individuals, but I can't remember the last time religious groups have had a positive effect on society. Somethings are just better left to interpretation, and individuals ought to interpret things like religions for themselves. But of course, someone is always going to feel the need to force their beliefs on other people, and so we will always have religious groups. Besides, wasn't it Jesus who first hinted at separation of Church and state? I think it went something like this: "Let that which belongs to Caesar, be given to Caesar. Let that which belongs to God, be given to God." Rough paraphrasing, but you all get the idea.