Butters

George Bush will not be able to run for President since he has served eight years. However, if George Bush cloned himself, then his clone could run for President. Is this reason enough to stop cloning? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

What sins has, say, a one month old baby committed? Greed. I want to eat now. I want to sleep now. I want to poop now and have you clean it up. I want ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Hmm, I am single so I guess I need to post here. I'll agree with the previous poster, it is not all about the boobs. There are also the legs, ass, stomach, curves, ... why am I single again? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I think I need a few minutes alone with those pictures ... BASE gear, BASE jumping, and hot women. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I certainly do.. and quite a few others do as well including some generals who just cant wait. King George has thumbed his nose at the constitution and international conventions for 6 years,, what makes you think he is going to stop anytime soon. I do not understand your logic and reasoning. Can you please explain the logic and reasoning behind your statements? (Why would the government allow a terrorist act to be carried out? Why would the government declare martial law? How would the individuals making these decisions be affected? ...) "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

If you actually believe what you say ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I'm not a Christian but I can tell you many Christians I have talked to view it as a metaphor (a metaphor that also allows for evolution since Adam was created from sand and Eve was created from Adam). Any ways, neither side is going to convert anyone and we already have a hundred and one threads of fighting so why don't we work on listing the problems and attempting to find solutions. Progress ... it is a possibility. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

You are right, all the USA government and USA companies sending food, medicine, clothing, etc... to Africa are doing it for their own personal gain and nothing else. Seriously, we send aid that save hundreds of thousands of lives (if not millions) and yet people find a way to make it appear negative. What other countries are sending aid? What other countries are sending as much aid? Would it be better to send no aid and let everyone die? PS: People became angry that the USA is policing the world and people become angry that the USA is not policing the world. Make up your mind, do we interfere in cases like Rwanda (and all the other possible cases) or do we mind our own business? Only a fraction of aid gets to it's destination. Most is hijacked to the govts. we are needing for friends. AT THE TIME. Then when we're done w/ them we chew em up and spit en out. Once again, incorrect. I donate time and money to an organization (http://www.fmsc.org) in which 94% of the aid gets to it's destination. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

You are right, all the USA government and USA companies sending food, medicine, clothing, etc... to Africa are doing it for their own personal gain and nothing else. Seriously, we send aid that save hundreds of thousands of lives (if not millions) and yet people find a way to make it appear negative. What other countries are sending aid? What other countries are sending as much aid? Would it be better to send no aid and let everyone die? PS: People became angry that the USA is policing the world and people become angry that the USA is not policing the world. Make up your mind, do we interfere in cases like Rwanda (and all the other possible cases) or do we mind our own business? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

May I ask, what rogue nation are you referring to? Do you really need i spelled out to you? AMERICA. The land of the (once free) and the home of the brave No, I don't need it spelled out for me. The implication that the United States of America is a rogue nation and that it is the most likely to launch a nuclear assault resulting in nuclear proliferation is what I want spelled out (along with the reason the poster would imply such things). Once free? Do you no longer do something you used to do because you are no longer free to? What is that something? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Is this movie depressing? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Explain how it can happen. I understand the theory of evolution. I am simply not sold on the idea that all entities evolved from another entity. Is it not possible that there were many original entities that evolved into their current state instead of a few original entities that evolved into many other entities? If life had originated several times in different locations, all modern species would still be ultimately descended from bacteria. After reading your comment I guess it does not matter if entities evolved from a few original entities or many original entities if all original entities were single cell organisms (the only difference would be a more linear evolutionary structure compared to the current tree structure). Anyways, back to the original topic. What problems do people have with religion and how can we solve those problems (w/out getting rid of religion)? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I am assuming the lifestyle that pajarito is referring to is the sexual relations between people of the same sex. Am I right pajarito? Do I win anything if I am right? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Explain how it can happen. I understand the theory of evolution. I am simply not sold on the idea that all entities evolved from another entity. Is it not possible that there were many original entities that evolved into their current state instead of a few original entities that evolved into many other entities? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

You don't believe that there have existed societies just as or more perverted than our current society. Why would armageddon be knocking on our door anytime sooner than it was during those societies? All of these traits have been displayed in earlier societies to the same if not greater extent than our current society and yet armageddon did not take place. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I also have a hard time with understanding evolution between species and types. Anyone care to explain it? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

May I ask, what rogue nation are you referring to? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

um, there is ONE rogue nation with a large enough nuclear arsenal. It even has a leader who is rather "arsenal". Korea? A situation in which the United States of America and China would be involved and most likely on opposite sides would have the potential for nuclear proliferation but I do not believe (given the history of both nations) that either nation would use nuclear weapons against each other unless all other options had been exhausted. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Can you state why you believe the world is getting worse? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

it doesn't need to be a "rogue nation" as the treaty doesn't have any formal verbiage about using the existing weapons that are already in existance, (at least the way I understand the treaty)... Yes, but it is unlikely a non-rogue nation would use nuclear weapons against another non-rogue nation because logic dictates that doing so will result in nuclear proliferation. There is a reason that the developed nations have not launched nuclear attacks against each other, it is in no ones best interest to be obliterated. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

There is a possibility of escalation but I believe most nations would be willing to communicate and compromise to refrain from nuclear proliferation. In other words, there may not exist Iran or Israel anymore but the use of nuclear weapons outside those nations will most likely not occur from that particular conflict. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Like I mentioned, (unless I am wrong about rogue nations possessing a large enough nuclear arsenal to obliterate the entire world) I feel that there will be massive casualties but it will not result in armageddon. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Please correct me if I am wrong but at this time there does not exist a rogue nation with a large enough nuclear arsenal to obliterate the entire world. Thus, if an armed conflict involving a rogue nation escalates to the use of nuclear force there will be massive damages but it remains unlikely that it will result in armageddon. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Google, helping morons one search at a time. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

that is not necessarily true... "The 5 NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The United States, for instance, has indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states"[citation needed]. The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states"[2]. In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers.[3][4]" Yes, it is possible. But the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty shows that mankind is willing to communicate and compromise in order to refrain from Nuclear Proliferation. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch