Bacchus

I know, but i felt cheesy If you can't breed you're useless? wtf...rofl, you just found out about puberty, don't ya?

wow, what is your problem with that? I mean look at your argument: 1)A marriage is a union between a man and woman (that's presomptuous. There's nothing such as a "natural law" regarding marriage) 2)A gay couple( same sex) isn't made of man and woman 3)thus they can't unite 4)therefore they can't marry. That's so out of the blue i'd have to say you're somewhat of an integrist. By the way, GG on being biased... common law marriage is still marriage. next time you quote something, be fair, quote it completly. Religious beliefs...pfft. Try believeing in something useful for a change. ps.: Just in case you wnated to argue words again, here's the 1297 definition of "marriage": people...not man...not woman...people. As in Human Beings, full fledged...with rights, dignity and free will.

Not everyone speaks english in this world Bargeld I saw a short do-*BAD WORD*-entary about this yesterday. In fact, low/mid range artists (those selling under 500 000k album for exemple) are usually under the thrall of their label. here's how it works: A label pays for production cost, living charges (house, food, etc), promotion, touring, etc. Then the artists needs to repay the label. Real life exemple: Nirvana was a small band of losers then a major label noticed them, makes big promotion, lotsa shows etc. If you remember correctly Nirvana's first album sounded like crap, the songs were good but studio works was cheap. Nirvana's label did lotsa cash but Nirvana as a band did 30k. period. ~too lazy to find a link, i'll do it if you want~ What if...? Nirvana used the internet "piracy" to sell albums instead of labels? Now, capitalism is all bout making money , legal money...true. But a lot of artists these days feels that the sharing network can be harnessed to their advantage. in fact, it's one of their main advantages against big, control freaks label. here'S a fun quote from Jay-Z: "Music INDUSTRY is suffering from file sharing, music isn't" I don't have an opinion yet, but that's just another way to ponder it.

i think i lost it...can anyone recap for me plz? What premises? political "scientists"? politics = 2? eep ~runs off a cliff~

When US is against another country domestic policy, like Iraq's for exemple, it either put A LOT of pressure (like cuba for exemple) or "invade" or else. When another country criticize US domestic policies it's all a question of traditional values, good politics and right of sovereignty. And your answer are always on the "victim side"...i mean it's always because US was losing the deal, being poorly treated or misunderstood. True. what is arrogant is saying that US have rights over a foreign country policy under certain cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. "watch it kids, if papa doesn't agree, he'll ground your "sovereignty" rights". Ail, get your facts right. US wasn't after terrorists in Iraq, it was about WMDs..which were never found. Iraq = terrorists...where does that come from?

Ail, the environment IS in dire needs! MAybe not from our point of view, it may not be that visible right now but it doesn't mean either that the world isn't polluted. The point is companies are lobbying against ecological regulations. Those are restraining the comp. growth and more so, would require some major structural changes in existing factories. So those comp. lobbyists are "buying" their way through politic avenue...the overall objective being: No regulations whatsoever. that's the point of "liberalism". But it has been shown that it's not working well with the environment... Try impleting new rules for oil companies (the biggest pollutors) when the almost all the Bush admin. is coming from the oil industry. It's not even hidden knowledge. I can't understand why you're still arguing... and yea, blaming the maquilladoras is preposterous and borderline racist. i agree.

sry ail, but i think you're a bit misinformed about environmentalists. Most of them aren't preaching a "back to the trees" philosophy but better sets of laws and regulations to protect the envionment. Like the Kyoto agreement for exemple. Now, i'm no specialist, and i heard kyoto wasn't a big deal after all. But the point is that US ...Bush for the most part...is being very protectionnist particularly toward laws and regulations which would affect the biggest economy, pollutors in the whole world..namely: US. More regulations = more production costs, which isn't good. Btw, did you knew that the biggest polluting state in US was Texas? When they tried to change the laws (i don't know which one, sry...i'm not an american, this data wasn't quite a part of my daily news watch ) company ceo asked a friend to intervene...this friend was Bush. And the laws were rewritten following a report. This report was written by those same companies and the guidelines were never implemented. so much for cooperating with each other. And i would rather see the economy crash then stop breathing, or having to fight for water or limiting my diet to wheat. etc.

no they won't. 50 years ago they thought that a divorced couple might "screw" their kids...they've been proven wrong. What screw the children has nothing to do their parent sex. There are various cultural patterns quite different from the occidental one, the one we're using. and kids end up being perfectly normal. There's a LOT of instances where children end up completely -*BAD WORD*-ed up...and they're coming from "standard" families. The problem lies with education and social contingencies. btw, our cultural ancestry can be dated back to the greek...which were practising homosexual relationship. Homosexuality has ALWAYS been a part of any human society. There's is no problem with same sex relationships...a sick hetero, straight man/woman will be as sick as a gay/lesbian one. btw, the bible isn't a reference. Nature neither...a lot of animals have homosexual relations. Let them do as they very -*BAD WORD*-ing plz.... since you're not the one being banged or getting married.... WHO CARES???

pssst... WHO CARES???

I promised myself not to answer those threads anymore... But this...: is RIDICULOUS. double digits casualties....pfft, you're a joke ail. How about 200 000 k casualties in iraq alone mate? How about the -*BAD WORD*-ing bomb? How about Kissinger? Pinochet? How about "american" economy being forced in every -*BAD WORD*-ing country US has interests in it? Social Contract? this isn't even funny, it's despicable. and it's "oblivion" btw... You don't know nothing about social contracts, you can't even begin to ask yourself why those people have so much hatred toward US that they are willing to suicide themselves to make a point. ok, i'm done. cya.

Be happy! yeah! we can! it's part of a big whole concept, the same that makes you belive the earth is spherical not a flat circle lost in space (you never saw a spherical earth, didn't you?) and oh, wonder...it's called woe... SCIENCE! The same peculiar mind trick allows us to see (measure) what will happen in the very, very near future {see Mad post/url above}. EDIT: Using oil is silly, try using vodka instead!

we'll adapt to economical contexts, but nature won't... they're predicting that at present speed, arctic polar cap will have melt 40%, which means less reflective surface for the heat to be dispersed into the air and more methane will find it's way in the atmosphere. Which means heat will be stored in the ground, which means that temperature will raise (due to methane). Air temperatude = energy = movement. storms will built, temperature will raise, etc. it's all natural cycle but pollution (namely oil product and by-product) is accelerating it to un-natural speed. what's usually taking geographical age to happen is happening in less than a century. no more oil? the faster the better imo. then we'll have other issues to adress...

in the case of disinformation (like the whole thing on WMD) or misinformation (like linking the use of drugs to supporting terrorists network), yea...i don't want to see the superbowl (or any other media) air some bs political material. But i think that informations (accurate, from both republicans and democrats) can and should be aired by any media at any given moment. I also think that air time should be given to any recognize political party as they do in a lot of other countries. now, it looks like Miss Jackson's ASSS worth more than a 500B deficit. which is a bit ridiculous...

ah yes..you are a right wing republican, i'm a left wing democrat. freedom of press and speech in your case is overruled by private/mercantile rights... in other words, what i find outrageous, you'll find at least tolerable on the basis that private property overules pretty much anything regarding things not related to economy. This discussion is over.

By censoring CBS did take a side. This was a paid for aired commercial not a "hater" message, nor was it targeting an ethnic or religious group. It had the same legitimacy to be aired as say...the White House msg, or Bud pub. The fact that now CBS created a precedent only proves what kind of powers the media have over YOUR country. CBS just said "hey, look...we're the one deciding for YOU what's good for you to know or not" and this decision isn't based on law or human rights and so forth...it's a decision that have been made by a CEO and a private company commitee. aren't you at least a bit flustered?

CBS didn't refuse because the pub was "unethical", they didn't turn moveon.org down because it was promoting other candidates. They turn it down because it was anti-bush like publicity. They actually took side, the bush side. The ad in question is simply a quick tour of the economic policies of the Bush administration, which moveon.org clearly disapprove. Censoring ideas belonging to a political debate is a threat to democracy imo...using fear of terrorist in a white house pub on drugs is close to demagogy and that should also be censored. Moveon.org wasn't helping any candidate, it was merely giving numbers about Bush's presidency. I believe the american citizens are en!@#$%^&*led to this kind of infos, those are critical in their democratic practice. btw, CBS makes a lot of money selling air time to political msgs, why did they refused it for the superbowl? Here's some article about those medias which "allegedly" run a no advocacy policy: poli-bowl from Boston Anti-Bush ad by Chicago tribune From rep. Bernie Sanders plz notice it all comes from media reform site but those are all quotes from other medias. here you'll find the press communiqué (spl) and the ad: http://www.moveon.org/news/2278.html

huh? And Moveon.org tried to buy a slot for the surperbowl...it was turn down by the CBC (?) because of the anti-bush content... GG freedom of speech and toughts!

lol, i was going to post that url try that also, it's instructive: Center for Public Integrity

Bush and co. wouldn't know how to "own" a gonorrhea (spl) in a !@#$%^&*house. I thought it was clear for everyone now? no? ahh, too bad...i guess not.

that's the description of a brainless bully with powerful friends. By "every groups taht doesn't matter", do you mean the rest of the world? Anyway, face it, your pres is a moron with enough cash flow to buy think tanmk services. -*BAD WORD*-, Bush was given a passport upon entering office... Going to the moon...bah, that's ball licking the companies which are building parts for spacecrafts engines, sol/air equipments, etc. those are also one of the major contributor to the Bush fund for presidency. -*BAD WORD*-. here, a cookie: http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/12_large.shtml

and Ail, the point is that DU is killing innocent people as well. You wouldn't go as far as to say that those are "justified" if the cause is right...would you? Here's some sample material for you to chew upon: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml note the part on danger of DU, birth deffect and the map about DU in the world. It is quite easy to find stuff about DU: google -- > depleted uranium have fun

rofl, yea. You win

Nuclear means instant wipe out, true. Sanctions in Iraq has killed 200 000 iraqis, not considering the effects of depleted uranium...if you measure in secs, Desert Storm doesn't mean much compared to Hiroshima. But if you measure in lives... Mr. Manner here's some facts: It happened in 1986, 1.7 million people were irradiated. 18 4oo km2 were irradiated. Cesium is found on 600 000 m2 radius. Victims numbers anywhere between 40 000 (absolute minimum) to 560 000...radiation poisoning spans generations... 133.78 / 1000 children are suffering from a major hormonal disorder and/or imunal system. 162.91 suffers from gastro-intestinal disease, chronic. 56.46 suffer from blood disease etc.... there are a couple of others also, which i'm not enumerating. Those 3 alone means that 353.15 /1000 children are sick from radiation poisoning. Their children (!@#$%^&*uming they have some) will probably suffer from those same disorders. http://www.un.org/ha/chernobyl/ plz, before posting nonsense, get your facts straight.

1)that's not funny. 2) depleted uranium has more or less the same impact if enough are shot. They are radioactive ammo after all. The one used in Desert Storm eradicated crops and arable land. They are the cause of iraqi children suffering from cancer and pneumonia. They are also the cause of water poisoning and food shortage (nothing grows where depleted uranium is used...this is a secondary effect. The ennemy you shoot with depleted uranium is bound to be on his knees for some years).