likearock

Guess what? The Republicans have held both houses of Congress plus the Presidency for some time now. Which entitlements have they reduced funding for or eliminated completely?

Chronicle III?

And here I thought that Taliban were no longer in charge. What does Karzai have to say about this?

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=25390

Oh I hear you... I just didn't think it'd be a "cosmetic" type thing. I would think that the option would be to do nothing or to bring the hormone levels to "normal" based on some average of levels tested in other "normal" pregnancies. I do realize that people can and probably will fight to the death over the interpretation of "normal"... In fact, many psych researchers (not just Freud) seem to think that "normal" includes a certain degree of bisexual orientation. In that case, you'd have to adjust "overly masculinized" individuals as well to achieve normality.

You do realize that a a large part of the article addressed that point, don't you? Or did you even bother to read it.... I don't think it adequately dealt with that circumstance. We know with identical twins that the genetic material is also identical. As far as the hormone explanation goes, the hypothesis that two fetuses in the same womb at the same time can be exposed to different hormones needs further explanation, to say the least.

It's really hard to tell whether the teacher or the school board is more representative of "Christianity" here. It's the school board who wanted to sing the Christmas carols and the school board who saw abortion and Satan worship in the opera. In other words, it sounds like the teacher's being persecuted for not being Christian enough.

I don't think you can definitely say that, at least not from this article: So even though it may seem that being gay may be genetic (or related to pre-natal hormones), there are cases when it most definitely is not. Also, the whole premise of feminized behavior being related to being gay is somewhat flawed. There are compulsive cross-dressers who are straight as well as gays who are quite macho.

The law allows that if you take the right legal safegaurds (ie buy from a registered distributer who would be required to comply with the law) then you would not be held accountable. I think you know what I meant by what I said so I am not sure why you are deliberately trying to take my comment out of context. Common sense would indicate that the law would have to be demonstrate that the person knew they were buying material with underage girls or ought to have reasonably foreseen that it was likely that the material did not comply with state and federal laws. Judges are capable of distinguishing between an honest mistake and a scumbag who was deliberately seeking that material. Some judges perhaps. But suppose you draw a very moralistic judge who is almost as much anti-adult-porn as he is anti-child-porn? The law as written doesn't provide too many safeguards. You could end up putting someone who has no interest in child porn into jail for a very loooong time.

The sad fact is they don't care as much about their own people being killed as they do about those cartoons. The insurgents are routinely killing hundreds of Shias and desecrating their holy sites. But none of that has provoked the worldwide outrage that the cartoons have.

Yeah, well it's not going to make too much difference until the leaders in the Muslim countries start speaking out against it. They were pretty vociferous about the cartoons but I guess this is less important to them.

If you're talking about the political and religious leaders of Muslim countries, where exactly are those condemnations? I expected to find something on Al Jazeera but could not.

I wonder if the left wing recognizes the irony of the fact that this tortured American supported many of the same causes his captors did.

What i say is none of these wars were/are fought for humanitarian reasons. Not Yugoslavia, not Iraq, not WW2 I see. Well I admit there has been a lot of hypocrisy displayed on many sides to justify your sentiments. But whether or not WW2 was actually fought for humanitarian reasons, you still haven't answered whether some wars should be fought for humanitarian reasons. When Germany was invading all of Europe and killing millions in concentration camps, would you really have just stood on the sidelines?

Yes. Killing thousands of civilians is equally reprehensible no matter how you want to gift-wrap it. The only way to avoid that would have been to never go to war against Germany at all. Is that what you're advocating? I agree. And if you choose not to go to war when humanity itself is under attack, you're taking sides with those who seek to destroy it.

I know quite a bit about it. Do not forget that Albanians did exactly the same to Serbs, both sides in that conflict are equally bad. When you pick a side, you help one to cleanse another. Regarding Bush (and Clinton, for that matter - this isn't a partisan issue): what matters is they caused many thousands of innocent people to be killed, same as Milosevic. It absolutely does not make any difference for those people if they died from "ethnic cleansing" or "liberation". So can we assume that in your opinion, the bombing of Berlin in WW2 by the allies (where many thousands of innocent people were killed) was just as morally reprehensible as the ethnic cleansing of the Jews in the same war, or the wholesale slaughter of Armenians by the Turks?

I forget. Why wouldn't you want to date Kobe Bryant?

Surprisingly, i agree with everything warpedskydiver have said here Now, substitute "Albanians" with "muslim extremists" or "terrorists", whichever sounds better. For a full picture, substitute Milosevic with Bush, and Kosovo with Iraq - you'll get an idea. Both presidents have caused deaths of many thousands of innocent (and guilty) muslims while advancing the interests of their countries. Both are considered heros by some people, and criminals by others. Maybe you should read about a little thing called ethnic cleansing before you get too serious with your parallels between Bush and Milosevic.

Of course, the flip side to that is the example of the mother who cares more for the dollars than for the child. If she knows how the formula works, she may push for minimal or no visitation rights for the father in order to maximize her own income. And, as I said before, that may sacrifice the child's greater need for emotional rather than financial support from the father . I realize that's not what happens in the majority of the cases but I'd be surprised if it didn't occur with some frequency. Oh, it does happen frequently. And if the dad doesn't fight back, she'll get what she wants. All the dad has to do is go through a minimum of effort. The problem is when you don't fight the first time. It's much harder to get back visitation that you lost than it is to never lose it to begin with. Based on your experience, how influential are the childrens' wishes when the courts decide custody?

You mean liberals like the ones in this group?

Well, it only took about 10 seconds to debunk that... Very good, speedy! Unfortunately, what you quoted has the force of a law and does not trump the constitution. If challenged, it could conceivably be overturned by the Supreme Court (though I doubt that will happen). Chew on this if you have the time (it's from that liberal rag, Capitalism Magazine): http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1284 The Military Draft and Draft Registration Versus Freedom by George F. Smith (December 17, 2001) No organization has done more for the federal government than al Qaeda. What other group could free it of so much restraint? Our elected officials swear to support and defend the U. S. Constitution as part of their oath of office. We, the people, through the Constitution, delegated to Congress the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal . . . [and] to raise and support Armies." Nowhere does the Constitution say how it should raise and support the military, but it does provide clear guidelines. One of the cracks in the foundation of our early nation was the abomination of slavery, "a system based on using the enforced labor of other people," according to the Encarta dictionary. Government eventually abolished it outright with the thirteenth amendment, though the Bill of Rights had made it legally groundless all along. The amendment doesn't just outlaw slavery in the antebellum sense -- it prohibits any form of compulsory servitude, except as punishment for a crime. Thus, the Constitution says to Congress, "Raise an army, but do it with volunteers." So how is it we've had a military draft? Mostly, by means of the same justification given for other intrusions on our liberty: crisis. Wars threaten the existence of the state. They must be won at all costs. Until fairly recently in human history, one of the requirements for winning was a large number of ground troops. If those troops can't be acquired voluntarily, the state forces young men into the armed services at the point of a gun. Of course, it's never presented in such raw terms. We usually hear talk about the privilege young men have to serve their country. If they should happen to miss that message, it's Uncle Sam's job to convince them with a letter of greetings. There is no ugliness if we don't use ugly words. Serving one's country is also regarded as patriotic. But it all depends on what the country's doing. If it's fighting an aggressor to preserve our freedom, then the cause is just and will attract volunteers. Serving when the cause is obscure or unjust amounts to blind nationalism. In a country that values freedom, politicians carry the burden of ensuring we don't get involved in armed conflicts that aren't a threat to our national security. Acting as the world's cop has hardly kept us out of trouble. It's been argued that even in "just" wars, enlistments wouldn't always meet manpower needs, and therefore a draft is the only solution. Why not boost the pay for volunteers? When private firms need additional manpower, they don't resort to hiring at gunpoint. Are we appalled at being defended by mercenaries? We deal with mercenaries everyday -- career military personnel are mercenaries, as is anyone in the business community who works for money. But such people are usually called professionals. Would you rather be defended by professionals or low-wage draftees? If anyone deserves top pay, it's a soldier willing to kill and risk his or her life to defend our freedom. Congressman Ron Paul has been an outspoken opponent of the draft and has advocated ditching the selective service and giving the funds instead to the Veterans Administration, which is typically underfunded. "Even the military agrees that the Selective Service System is an ineffective hold-over from a different age," Rep. Paul said earlier this year. And yet the Selective Service System web site states: "By having the names and addresses of men 18 through 25 years old on file with the SSS, America remains ready to face any threat." Though we've had no draft since 1973, many are calling for conscription now -- and not just for the military. Statists want to force every youth in this country to serve in some capacity and are clamoring to join in the power grab of the current crisis. Those unfit for the military or who qualify as conscientious objectors would be sent grazing somewhere in the homeland. It shouldn't be surprising -- altruists have been singing the servitude song for all eternity. Getting the government involved adds legalized force to their refrain. "[T]he most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral," President Reagan once said. "[A] draft or draft registration destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending." Anyone who champions freedom will oppose the initiation of physical force in all forms. Conscription promotes the indignity of slavery and makes a mockery of our Constitution. "Not only is the notion of involuntary servitude at odds with our system of law and tradition of liberty, " Rep. Paul said, "but it is not in keeping with the needs and demands of a 21st Century defense program." References: * http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html * http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr050301..htm - End the Draft - Ron Paul * http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr090999win.htm - House votes to end draft - Ron Paul * http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm - A Republic, if you can keep it - Ron Paul * http://www.aynrand.org/no_servitude/ - Ayn Rand Institute's Campaign against Servitude * http://www.sss.gov/press-7-11-01.htm - Selective Service

I think it helps us to understand your position that MANY european countries, then, still legally participate in government sanctioned slavery What does European behavior have to do with the US Constitution? If it's legal there, it's legal there. If it's illegal here, it's illegal HERE. Involuntary servitude is prohibited in the USA. And that is that until the Constitution is amended. Then explain how the Draft was legal. I see no difference between it and a mandatory Service Obligation. I think this type of requirement would be extremely beneficial to the US. I also believe it should be extended as an immigration requirement to anyone desiring to be a U.S. resident. But, as I said already, it will never happen because liberals will find all kinds of reasons and construct a mulitute of hypotheticals as to why it isn't fair. D.O.A. You Americans are so IGNORANT of your own laws: US Constitution, Article I section 8 allows for a draft. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Where does any of that address compulsory military service? "Calling forth the Militia" does not in any way specify whether or not membership is voluntary. I think the only conclusion we can draw is that the draft is and always was unconstitutional.

For this thread, you have to include: Pie & Boobies

Of course, the flip side to that is the example of the mother who cares more for the dollars than for the child. If she knows how the formula works, she may push for minimal or no visitation rights for the father in order to maximize her own income. And, as I said before, that may sacrifice the child's greater need for emotional rather than financial support from the father . I realize that's not what happens in the majority of the cases but I'd be surprised if it didn't occur with some frequency.

Yes, this is exactly it. Should the child be victimized because the father (or mother) does not want to deal with him/her? I would say that a child in such a situation is much more victimized by the absence of emotional support than financial. Should the state intervene in that regard as well? Should it mandate visitation by a reluctant parent? After all, it's all "in the best interest of the child". Furthermore, there's no guarantee that money paid as child support is ever used for that purpose. The mother has total control to spend it as she wishes.