juanesky

No need to mention those examples. First, I would suggest you tone down you condescending comments about America, then, check about the great UK contribution to the middle east after WWI and WWII. Should I remind you the whole Palestine fiasco and how poorly it was handled, and how this issue is very alive today? Well, I am aware of the UK's historical 'contributions' and how badly they relate to current problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. But my post wasn't designed to generate criticism of old British foreign policy, neither was it my intention to begin a UK/US slagging match. That wouldn't achieve anything would it? My intention was simply to point out underlying cultural issues in their regards to gun control in the US. Of course, I could be equally critical in certain aspects of British underlying cultural issues, but that's not the point in this thread, is it? Of course not, you can procede with your rant against as you said, "culturally inferior" Americana. Is all about bashing the US, and making it all their fault. The world is in great debt to your "great" culturally superior royals. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Try these "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

No need to mention those examples. First, I would suggest you tone down you condescending comments about America, then, check about the great UK contribution to the middle east after WWI and WWII. Should I remind you the whole Palestine fiasco and how poorly it was handled, and how this issue is very alive today? "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Please don't break him. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

FYI, the US was not involved until April 6th 1917. The battle of Somme was July 1st, 1916 ending later that year. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

In other words, when you water down what actually happened, is considered intellectual? Just curious. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Some people just don't like it when I have referred to the terrorist by such names as TH. They prefer to call them nice people, god forbid we are politically incorrect!!!!. . Back to the corner watching the soup opera develop. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

What's a moobie? MOS: Military Occupational Specialty. Every job has schools-training. In the Navy they call it rate, or rating. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

LMAO, good question, still keeping my combat medic mos. BUt thanks for asking. Maybe you should do a research about how many people now have multiple MOS-ratings etc. far too comon these days, I got 3. I know you will hate me for the rest of your life, regardless that I am doing what I have always talked about, it's call convictions, you should try it. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Yes, lets not forget the 30mill innocents killed at the hands of the Japanese forces through enslaving, brutal assasinations, biological experiments. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Like those deployed ones, in accordance to some poster's chicken hawk conspiration theories. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Didn't you get the memo? Anyone instilling any religous values to your family is a very ignorant person according to many in here. They have come up with a magical conclusion with a solution fits all scenario kind of a deal. They call anyone either christian or catholic, just a bigot. It's ok to be muslim according to the same crowd. No other religion is even mentioned. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

So, bottom line, while your kids are not yet adults, you pretty much allow them to do whatever they please. No bed times, no doing homework. Must be lovely your household. Well, guees you will be a proud daddy then when you hear your loved ones spreading HIV, and you loving encouragement on that behaviour. Again, your misled interpretation of mature as I see fit to adulthood is quite surprising. (They legally reach adulthood to 18) After that I will have an opinion, and always will try to lead them, not control them, but I bet is a hard concept for an anarchist household to understand. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

How convenient you did not reply to the portion of my post that related to given medications when needed, and to have the right to choose. Nice editing pal. Everyone raises their kids as the see fit, I'd rather (read prefer) see mine not to waste theirs in drugs, and unnecessary pain and suffering. And of course while under my care, they will need to have rules they need to abide, until they are mature enough to decide for themselves. It seems that you see that totally wrong, and your points of view come accross as anarchists. Incredible contradictions, yet you are ok if the government mandates abortions on women not willingly partaking in the decision. Pretty interesting. In the end we are all responsible for other people's choices. hmmm.. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Yes Mike, what everyone said!!! "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

The question is, can you hear me now? "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

No new info has come yet from his brother, Noel. He is in there with him now, las time he posted anything about his condition was last friday, the 3rd. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Ok, we should consider the embryo "simian" or whatever designation you want (please insert here your preference)in nature Noted. You will be ok, with promiscuous men and women, who may or maynot have diseases, spreading them with unprotected sex, and not be responsible for the consecuences of their actions (getting infected-pregnant)? You have kids? hope you would not mind them becoming porn stars would you? as Long as they take precautions right? I am not talking about denying medications, or procedures, as long as they want to consent to them. (there is a law that if unconcious a person is giving implied consent). Well, put it this way, a single mother of 2, goes to get treatment on her 3rd pregnancy, and she has to undertake a government sanctioned abortion, because she live in welfare, and she has no means to raise another kid. Is this clear enough? "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Why not on the side of respecting a persons will to do with their bodies what they want to? Now, if there was a law that made everyone responsible for saving lives, and do whatever it takes once said possible donor is dead, then I would agree. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Ok, then tell us, how many synagogues or Buddhist temples are there in UAE? Or in Qatar, or in fact any islamic nation? Religion tolerance from the islamic ruled countries have been non existant. It does apply in other places in the world, you go to Israel, and muslims are allowed freedom of religion though, as well as in the western countries. Few exceptions would be Indonesia. But don't come voicing that islamic law, or wherever it is in force, is open to religion. It was, maybe in the days that Islam was on the forefront of human advancements, and ideologies, a few centuries back. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

Two reasons. First is cost-benefit comparision. In the case of dead transplantation the benefits are obvious and almost immediate, and the costs are basically nothing (except for few individuals). It is completely different for abortion; the costs for "donor" are pretty high - nobody uses abortion just for fun - and the benefits are not so obvious, and definitely not immediate. Second, your comparision is not correct. It would be the same if we state that nobody is allowed to be excluded from the donor list. However it is not the case. It was said that by default everyone should be included in the donor list (because it is good for society), but everyone who does not want to, should be excluded. If they say the same for abortion - i.e. by default no one should do abortion (because it is good for society), but everyone who wants to do it, should be able to. There is no moral law. There is moral, but hopefully it is not a law. I believe that no one uses abortion for fun is just not true. I agree with medical hazzards for newborns or mothers, or situations when the pregnancy is due to rape or a similar situation. Then there are those situations where there is simple irresponsible actions, who tend to seek an easier route. I would not like the law to be that unmarried-economically challenged women recieve government sanctioned abortions. Would you? "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

And then again, the invasive procedure should be the request, not the other way around. It is already in place in the US, you just have to tell the people at the DMV to plave "donor" on your license. It's quite easy, really! "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

You really have the hots for GW don't you? Your posts give the impression they are written by Howard Dean himself Keep up the good work!!! "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

The Dnc? Or maybe the PC police "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

You may think so, it is your right, but I also have a right to believe that he is meaning that religious people are ignorant and willing to harm their children. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon