AnimalKidd Posted August 25, 2002 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2002 How many CD's do Hampton's group have out now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted August 29, 2002 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 I know you, too, Toothpick. :: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 Hello to all, Here is a topic I posted so that people all over the world can share their oppinions about the US Government. Here are some questions I would like you to answer- 1- Are you an anarchist? 2- Are you a Bush supporter? 3- Do you say the Pledge of Alligence? 4- If so, do you mean it? 5- Do you think Bush is doing his job? Any other comments would be appreciated. I, for one, do not like our government system. From people I have talked to, the US has become one of the most hated countries. :sleepy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 If you, AnimalKidd, are unhappy with our government system, would you please explain what about the system makes you unhappy and what you would do to fix the system. This could be a topic that provides great discussion! Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifesEagle Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 I'm not American, I'm British. I can't really say anything about YOUR goverment, but I think that Tony Blair has messed everything up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 If you, AnimalKidd, are unhappy with our government system, would you please explain what about the system makes you unhappy and what you would do to fix the system. This could be a topic that provides great discussion! Thank you. Oh goodness don't get me started... Okay...in my oppinion, Bush did not win. Gore clearly won. Gore called the recount, which was in the state of Florida. Who was the governor of Florida? Jeb Bush, George Bush's brother. People have totaled up the votes in Florida, and Gore had majority. George Bush entered office, took like, one month off in August for vacation, and when he came back, Americans suffered from the worst security blunder EVER (also known as 9-11). He entered with the strongest economy and now, our economy is failing. There was a poll that said that about 70% of British people believed that George Bush is the greatest threat to world peace. I have a whole list (like, 56 things) of things that he has done that's just messed up. I'll post them later, because I don't have enough time left online. I don't say the Pledge of Alligence. It is a lie (I have why it is written down and I'll post it later). By saying the Pledge, I am saying I agree with everything the government does. And I don't. More details later, my time just ran out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solrai117 Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 I'm not American, I'm British. I can't really say anything about YOUR goverment, but I think that Tony Blair has messed everything up. i am an American, and tony blair is a lot smarter than bush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solrai117 Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 If you, AnimalKidd, are unhappy with our government system, would you please explain what about the system makes you unhappy and what you would do to fix the system. This could be a topic that provides great discussion! Thank you. Oh goodness don't get me started... Okay...in my oppinion, Bush did not win. Gore clearly won. Gore called the recount, which was in the state of Florida. Who was the governor of Florida? Jeb Bush, George Bush's brother. People have totaled up the votes in Florida, and Gore had majority. George Bush entered office, took like, one month off in August for vacation, and when he came back, Americans suffered from the worst security blunder EVER (also known as 9-11). He entered with the strongest economy and now, our economy is failing. There was a poll that said that about 70% of British people believed that George Bush is the greatest threat to world peace. I have a whole list (like, 56 things) of things that he has done that's just messed up. I'll post them later, because I don't have enough time left online. I don't say the Pledge of Alligence. It is a lie (I have why it is written down and I'll post it later). By saying the Pledge, I am saying I agree with everything the government does. And I don't. More details later, my time just ran out. i do think that bush is a monkey(and not a good one like my imagiary monkey george) who only won for your reasons and the fact that 1/2 the country couldn't bear to listen to gore talk(sad, but true, he has the most dull voice), and cause his daddy was the former president. but i do say the pledge of allegence( i didn't spell that right did i). mainly out of respect for our for fathers and the fact that althought i DO NOT support bush, i do support our country. i have a few ?'s for you are you a democrat? i am (or my family is i can't vote yet) and am highly out numbered in my classes and stuff how old are you? i am very opinunated(again, probably spelled wrong) and only 14, so i was just wondering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 If you, AnimalKidd, are unhappy with our government system, would you please explain what about the system makes you unhappy and what you would do to fix the system. This could be a topic that provides great discussion! Thank you. Oh goodness don't get me started... Okay...in my oppinion, Bush did not win. Gore clearly won. Gore called the recount, which was in the state of Florida. Who was the governor of Florida? Jeb Bush, George Bush's brother. People have totaled up the votes in Florida, and Gore had majority. George Bush entered office, took like, one month off in August for vacation, and when he came back, Americans suffered from the worst security blunder EVER (also known as 9-11). He entered with the strongest economy and now, our economy is failing. There was a poll that said that about 70% of British people believed that George Bush is the greatest threat to world peace. I have a whole list (like, 56 things) of things that he has done that's just messed up. I'll post them later, because I don't have enough time left online. I don't say the Pledge of Alligence. It is a lie (I have why it is written down and I'll post it later). By saying the Pledge, I am saying I agree with everything the government does. And I don't. More details later, my time just ran out. i do think that bush is a monkey(and not a good one like my imagiary monkey george) who only won for your reasons and the fact that 1/2 the country couldn't bear to listen to gore talk(sad, but true, he has the most dull voice), and cause his daddy was the former president. but i do say the pledge of allegence( i didn't spell that right did i). mainly out of respect for our for fathers and the fact that althought i DO NOT support bush, i do support our country. i have a few ?'s for you are you a democrat? i am (or my family is i can't vote yet) and am highly out numbered in my classes and stuff how old are you? i am very opinunated(again, probably spelled wrong) and only 14, so i was just wondering Well, I guess that would make me a democrat. *laughs* I support this country, but by saying the pledge I say that I am supporting the government! I'll be 14 in, um...a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 No I don't like bush. I think he led the troups into Iraq just to succeed where his father failed. Precisely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 OKay, here is an evaluation of the Pledge word for word... "I plegde alligence to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS..." That says that you are supporting the republic, which would be the government. The government makes some pretty dumb choices. By saying the pledge, in a way you are also saying, "I will stand up for my country." Would you stand up for your country if you didn't agree with everything it did? "One nation, under God..." I believe in God. I am a Christian. However, in the constitution, isn't there some rule about keeping a separation between church and state? And what about the people that DON'T believe in God, like Hindus and Muslims? If THEY say the pledge, then they are aligning themselves under a God whom they believe does not exist! "Indivisible..." That is a lie! If our country was indivisible, meaning nothing will divide it, then how come we had the Civil War? We were divided then! And now, we are devided because a lot of people are anti-Bush (like myself) and a few people are pro-Bush (like my parents... :sleepy: ). If we were indivisible, then no one would have different political oppinions! "With liberty and justice for all." Okay, wait. Not everyone has been given liberty and justice. In the 1960's blacks in America were prosecuted heavily for just looking different. That's not justice! That's racism! So there is a reason why I don't say the pledge. Also, might I point out that by saying the pledge, you are donating your life to a piece of fabric on a wall. I'm all out of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grim Hamster lord Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 No I don't like bush. I think he led the troups into Iraq just to succeed where his father failed. Like LE, I'm British and I agree with her that Blair has messed things up, especially by following Bush into Iraq! However, the biggest gripe I have with Bush is his refusal to sign up to the Kyoto agreement to limit immissions. Does he not realise we in the West are killing this planet :penguin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I agree. I did actually plan to .... oops.... Incoming spike. *types in a trace killer* I wouldn't have done anything because I hate violence. Yet it wouldn't be so bad for the enviroment with his 'lets go and make loads of Nuclear power plants so we can have one huge Chenobyl' policy. Then he goes and ships his waste products to Britain where we change it from common or garden nuclear waste to un-common or garden nuclear waste. Which is then sold off to the highest bidding dictator (hint: Suddam Hussain) to fuel their weapons of nuclear war! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaise Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 Hello to all,Here is a topic I posted so that people all over the world can share their oppinions about the US Government. Here are some questions I would like you to answer- 1- Are you an anarchist? 2- Are you a Bush supporter? 3- Do you say the Pledge of Alligence? 4- If so, do you mean it? 5- Do you think Bush is doing his job? Any other comments would be appreciated. I, for one, do not like our government system. From people I have talked to, the US has become one of the most hated countries. :sleepy: Before I read the other replies, here are your answers: 1. no 2. no 3. no 4. no 5. no Oh, yes. I know that. I'm not much of an America fan myself. I don't want it to be destroyed, but America is self-absorbed, egotistical... we're stuck-up snobs who think we're better than everyone else! U. S. says "We're number one", but we aren't really better than anyone else. It's the world's only super-power, so it thinks it can do whatever it wants. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaise Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 OKay, here is an evaluation of the Pledge word for word... "I plegde alligence to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS..." That says that you are supporting the republic, which would be the government. The government makes some pretty dumb choices. By saying the pledge, in a way you are also saying, "I will stand up for my country." Would you stand up for your country if you didn't agree with everything it did? "One nation, under God..." I believe in God. I am a Christian. However, in the constitution, isn't there some rule about keeping a separation between church and state? And what about the people that DON'T believe in God, like Hindus and Muslims? If THEY say the pledge, then they are aligning themselves under a God whom they believe does not exist! "Indivisible..." That is a lie! If our country was indivisible, meaning nothing will divide it, then how come we had the Civil War? We were divided then! And now, we are devided because a lot of people are anti-Bush (like myself) and a few people are pro-Bush (like my parents... :sleepy: ). If we were indivisible, then no one would have different political oppinions! "With liberty and justice for all." Okay, wait. Not everyone has been given liberty and justice. In the 1960's blacks in America were prosecuted heavily for just looking different. That's not justice! That's racism! So there is a reason why I don't say the pledge. Also, might I point out that by saying the pledge, you are donating your life to a piece of fabric on a wall. I'm all out of time. Yes, you're completely and totally right on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaise Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 If you, AnimalKidd, are unhappy with our government system, would you please explain what about the system makes you unhappy and what you would do to fix the system. This could be a topic that provides great discussion! Thank you. Oh goodness don't get me started... Okay...in my oppinion, Bush did not win. Gore clearly won. Gore called the recount, which was in the state of Florida. Who was the governor of Florida? Jeb Bush, George Bush's brother. People have totaled up the votes in Florida, and Gore had majority. George Bush entered office, took like, one month off in August for vacation, and when he came back, Americans suffered from the worst security blunder EVER (also known as 9-11). He entered with the strongest economy and now, our economy is failing. There was a poll that said that about 70% of British people believed that George Bush is the greatest threat to world peace. I have a whole list (like, 56 things) of things that he has done that's just messed up. I'll post them later, because I don't have enough time left online. I don't say the Pledge of Alligence. It is a lie (I have why it is written down and I'll post it later). By saying the Pledge, I am saying I agree with everything the government does. And I don't. More details later, my time just ran out. I agree with you on the Gore thing, but I believe that Bush caused September 11th so that he could have his precious little wars, that mean more to him than innocent lives! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaise Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 I think he led the troups into Iraq just to succeed where his father failed. I disagree with you on this, Sheena. There were actually two big reasons why he went to war, one of them is to make daddy dearest proud, and the other is for oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 I don't like bush for 2 reasons: -The patriotic act (thanks for letting me in on this JF) -Not signing the Kyoto(sp?) agreement (thanks for telling me Sheena) The patriotic act isn't patriotic at all. It's racist! They're throwing muslims and people who are from iraq into jail without seeing their families or being able to get a lawyer just because they THINK that those people are terrorists. Now those people have to live their whole lives hoping they won't be falsely turned in by the government. The Kyoto agreement has gained my attention ever since Sheena told me. If bush is so great why doesn't he try to help the world by signing the agreement? Why is preventing green house gases such a problem to him?? Ooh, the world doesn't matter, I have to focus on america right now :roll well guess what you're not doing so hot with america either. I hope the ice cap doesn't get worse because even though there arn't any people up there, there are artic wolves, foxes, and polar bears (and santa claus!) that have their life on the line, all because (or at least partially) of bush. And about the pledge, I don't believe it. "liberty and justice for all" Pfft. I used to think that applied to everyone in the world. But appearently he only applies that to everyone in America (by not signing the Kyoto agreement) who isn't muslim or arabic (by the patriotic act) "Indivisible" Since when? It's already divided! Ooh look, the country is divided in half by the stupid republic/democratic party war. Which brings me to my next little rant. I hate this democratic/republic party thing involved in the elections. Look, the election's coming up, let's vote for who is going to suit america the best! NOT. They're all voting on the president based on which party they're in! That really cheeses me off! They don't care what the president's plans are for america, they don't care what the president thinks about certian situations, they don't care much about what he says in his speeches. They only care about which party the president is in. Wow, that's really a voice for the people. You might as well predict the results of an election based on how many democrats and republicans there are. I apoligize for the scarcasm, I just got kind of mad about this. Also this is coming from a hypersensitive 14-year old (human years) wolf who doesn't hear much about this on the news, so it might be wrong on some of these things. Wow, that felt kind of good to let out... :sleepy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifesEagle Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 No I don't like bush. I think he led the troups into Iraq just to succeed where his father failed. Like LE, I'm British and I agree with her that Blair has messed things up, especially by following Bush into Iraq! However, the biggest gripe I have with Bush is his refusal to sign up to the Kyoto agreement to limit immissions. Does he not realise we in the West are killing this planet :penguin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blair was doing an OK job until we were put under all the pressure about going to war (well, it depends what we're talking about!) Bush is dragging Britian along with him. :sleepy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 No I don't like bush. I think he led the troups into Iraq just to succeed where his father failed. Like LE, I'm British and I agree with her that Blair has messed things up, especially by following Bush into Iraq! However, the biggest gripe I have with Bush is his refusal to sign up to the Kyoto agreement to limit immissions. Does he not realise we in the West are killing this planet :penguin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blair was doing an OK job until we were put under all the pressure about going to war (well, it depends what we're talking about!) Bush is dragging Britian along with him. :sleepy: I never realized you guys were pressured into going into war :sleepy: This doesn't even have anything to do with your country...does it? ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solrai117 Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 And what about the people that DON'T believe in God, like Hindus and Muslims? If THEY say the pledge, then they are aligning themselves under a God whom they believe does not exist! I'm not sure about Muslim's but Hindus DO believe in the same God as Christians. The way it was explained to me was that when the Hindu religon started, the people did not have the ability to comprehend one God who was in charge of all, so minor gods were created that the followers could grasp the concepts. However, over all the minor gods, is the one true God. Hope this explains things :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . actually muslims believe in the same God,(i think) yea, they just call him by another name Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solrai117 Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 Which brings me to my next little rant. I hate this democratic/republic party thing involved in the elections. Look, the election's coming up, let's vote for who is going to suit america the best! NOT. They're all voting on the president based on which party they're in! That really cheeses me off! They don't care what the president's plans are for america, they don't care what the president thinks about certian situations, they don't care much about what he says in his speeches. They only care about which party the president is in. Wow, that's really a voice for the people. You might as well predict the results of an election based on how many democrats and republicans there are. I apoligize for the scarcasm, I just got kind of mad about this. Also this is coming from a hypersensitive 14-year old (human years) wolf who doesn't hear much about this on the news, so it might be wrong on some of these things. Wow, that felt kind of good to let out... :sleepy: ok, while i am a democrat, my parents(and i) go for whoever we think will be the best leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 Which brings me to my next little rant. I hate this democratic/republic party thing involved in the elections. Look, the election's coming up, let's vote for who is going to suit america the best! NOT. They're all voting on the president based on which party they're in! That really cheeses me off! They don't care what the president's plans are for america, they don't care what the president thinks about certian situations, they don't care much about what he says in his speeches. They only care about which party the president is in. Wow, that's really a voice for the people. You might as well predict the results of an election based on how many democrats and republicans there are. I apoligize for the scarcasm, I just got kind of mad about this. Also this is coming from a hypersensitive 14-year old (human years) wolf who doesn't hear much about this on the news, so it might be wrong on some of these things. Wow, that felt kind of good to let out... :sleepy: ok, while i am a democrat, my parents(and i) go for whoever we think will be the best leader. Oops... :sleepy: I guess I did a sweeping generalization. Not everyone votes based on party. It just seemed that way from the news (all they focused on was this state has republicans or this state has democrates...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 No I don't like bush. I think he led the troups into Iraq just to succeed where his father failed. Like LE, I'm British and I agree with her that Blair has messed things up, especially by following Bush into Iraq! However, the biggest gripe I have with Bush is his refusal to sign up to the Kyoto agreement to limit immissions. Does he not realise we in the West are killing this planet :penguin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blair was doing an OK job until we were put under all the pressure about going to war (well, it depends what we're talking about!) Bush is dragging Britian along with him. :sleepy: I never realized you guys were pressured into going into war :sleepy: This doesn't even have anything to do with your country...does it? ??? It seems that most of Britain did not believe in the weapons of mass destruction, but Blair wanted to chum up with Bush. It was so bad at one point people were saying that Britain was the 53th State of the USA! As to what it had to do with our country, Blair said that we owed it to a free world! Don't forget the Aussies are in there as well :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . Australia's in this too? :eek Woa... Thanks for clearing that up. :sleepy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 And what about the people that DON'T believe in God, like Hindus and Muslims? If THEY say the pledge, then they are aligning themselves under a God whom they believe does not exist! I'm not sure about Muslim's but Hindus DO believe in the same God as Christians. The way it was explained to me was that when the Hindu religon started, the people did not have the ability to comprehend one God who was in charge of all, so minor gods were created that the followers could grasp the concepts. However, over all the minor gods, is the one true God. Hope this explains things :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . Oh big deal. Let me say it this way: The ones that don't believe God is the one and ONLY God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 What is more, to deny those people the right to their belief is actually being racist and Christianity is about tollerence to all people of whatever creed, colour, nationality, gender and so on. I know, I just meant that for people that don't believe in God. There, I said it right this time. (lets hope) You catch my drift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 OKay, here is an evaluation of the Pledge word for word... "I plegde alligence to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS..." That says that you are supporting the republic, which would be the government. The government makes some pretty dumb choices. By saying the pledge, in a way you are also saying, "I will stand up for my country." Would you stand up for your country if you didn't agree with everything it did? "One nation, under God..." I believe in God. I am a Christian. However, in the constitution, isn't there some rule about keeping a separation between church and state? And what about the people that DON'T believe in God, like Hindus and Muslims? If THEY say the pledge, then they are aligning themselves under a God whom they believe does not exist! "Indivisible..." That is a lie! If our country was indivisible, meaning nothing will divide it, then how come we had the Civil War? We were divided then! And now, we are devided because a lot of people are anti-Bush (like myself) and a few people are pro-Bush (like my parents... :sleepy: ). If we were indivisible, then no one would have different political oppinions! "With liberty and justice for all." Okay, wait. Not everyone has been given liberty and justice. In the 1960's blacks in America were prosecuted heavily for just looking different. That's not justice! That's racism! So there is a reason why I don't say the pledge. Also, might I point out that by saying the pledge, you are donating your life to a piece of fabric on a wall. I'm all out of time. Are these your words on the evaluation of the Pledge of Allegiance or someone those of someone else? I would like to hear your words and then your thoughts on why you believe the way you do. If the system is broken, how would you fix it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 Oh my goodness it is SOO cool to know that tons of people believe what I do! *beams with pride* Because of all this, YES, I am an anarchist!! An anarchist is someone who does not support the government. Yes, Jesse, I totally agree with what you say... People today only vote for their favorite party. Bush is being racist. Has anyone heard of Mumia Abul-Jamal? ( I may have spelled it wrong). He/she (not sure which...) was mentioned in an Anti-Flag song. Anti-Flag and NOFX, by the way, are awesome anti-Bush bands. ANYWAYS...Bush is being racist. Enough said. One day (this makes me proud), I wore a white shirt that said "Increase the Peace" on it and it had a dove carrying an olive leaf in its beak. Well since it was a white shirt, I got some clear tape (the stuff thats like, 3 inches wide) and wrote on the tape "Impeach Bush!" then I taped it to the shirt. ) My question for you AnimalKidd is to get your personal thoughts, not a text book or dictionary answer. You wore a T-shirt saying: impeach Bush. What does impeach mean to you? On what grounds do you believe that he should be impeached? What then occurs when we impeach a President? As I said before, these questions are for your thoughts. As we have many young people here, I would like you to give answers that do not bash anyone but are stepping stones for a great discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 OKay, here is an evaluation of the Pledge word for word... "I plegde alligence to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS..." That says that you are supporting the republic, which would be the government. The government makes some pretty dumb choices. By saying the pledge, in a way you are also saying, "I will stand up for my country." Would you stand up for your country if you didn't agree with everything it did? "One nation, under God..." I believe in God. I am a Christian. However, in the constitution, isn't there some rule about keeping a separation between church and state? And what about the people that DON'T believe in God, like Hindus and Muslims? If THEY say the pledge, then they are aligning themselves under a God whom they believe does not exist! "Indivisible..." That is a lie! If our country was indivisible, meaning nothing will divide it, then how come we had the Civil War? We were divided then! And now, we are devided because a lot of people are anti-Bush (like myself) and a few people are pro-Bush (like my parents... :sleepy: ). If we were indivisible, then no one would have different political oppinions! "With liberty and justice for all." Okay, wait. Not everyone has been given liberty and justice. In the 1960's blacks in America were prosecuted heavily for just looking different. That's not justice! That's racism! So there is a reason why I don't say the pledge. Also, might I point out that by saying the pledge, you are donating your life to a piece of fabric on a wall. I'm all out of time. Are these your words on the evaluation of the Pledge of Allegiance or someone those of someone else? I would like to hear your words and then your thoughts on why you believe the way you do. If the system is broken, how would you fix it? Those are my words. 100% my words. Those reflect the beliefs of me and my other friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 Oh my goodness it is SOO cool to know that tons of people believe what I do! *beams with pride* Because of all this, YES, I am an anarchist!! An anarchist is someone who does not support the government. Yes, Jesse, I totally agree with what you say... People today only vote for their favorite party. Bush is being racist. Has anyone heard of Mumia Abul-Jamal? ( I may have spelled it wrong). He/she (not sure which...) was mentioned in an Anti-Flag song. Anti-Flag and NOFX, by the way, are awesome anti-Bush bands. ANYWAYS...Bush is being racist. Enough said. One day (this makes me proud), I wore a white shirt that said "Increase the Peace" on it and it had a dove carrying an olive leaf in its beak. Well since it was a white shirt, I got some clear tape (the stuff thats like, 3 inches wide) and wrote on the tape "Impeach Bush!" then I taped it to the shirt. ) My question for you AnimalKidd is to get your personal thoughts, not a text book or dictionary answer. You wore a T-shirt saying: impeach Bush. What does impeach mean to you? On what grounds do you believe that he should be impeached? What then occurs when we impeach a President? As I said before, these questions are for your thoughts. As we have many young people here, I would like you to give answers that do not bash anyone but are stepping stones for a great discussion. My words for impeach: To remove from office. Also, assuming this is to be screened by Horatio, please forgive me for my other attempted posts about the "accomplishments" of the president, I was in a hurry and I was just copy/pasting. If I had actually taken my time, I would not have posted the whole list and I would have edited anything not "parent approved". When I start on a government topic, it is really hard to divert my attention to something else because I believe a proper government is needed, but we are not getting one...if that makes any sense at all. Anyways, I'm really sorry about the whole issue, and I'm trying to edit any of my past posts that have made it through the screener that are not appropriate for everyone. -Sarah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 Oh my goodness it is SOO cool to know that tons of people believe what I do! *beams with pride* Because of all this, YES, I am an anarchist!! An anarchist is someone who does not support the government. Yes, Jesse, I totally agree with what you say... People today only vote for their favorite party. Bush is being racist. Has anyone heard of Mumia Abul-Jamal? ( I may have spelled it wrong). He/she (not sure which...) was mentioned in an Anti-Flag song. Anti-Flag and NOFX, by the way, are awesome anti-Bush bands. ANYWAYS...Bush is being racist. Enough said. One day (this makes me proud), I wore a white shirt that said "Increase the Peace" on it and it had a dove carrying an olive leaf in its beak. Well since it was a white shirt, I got some clear tape (the stuff thats like, 3 inches wide) and wrote on the tape "Impeach Bush!" then I taped it to the shirt. ) My question for you AnimalKidd is to get your personal thoughts, not a text book or dictionary answer. You wore a T-shirt saying: impeach Bush. What does impeach mean to you? On what grounds do you believe that he should be impeached? What then occurs when we impeach a President? As I said before, these questions are for your thoughts. As we have many young people here, I would like you to give answers that do not bash anyone but are stepping stones for a great discussion. My words for impeach: To remove from office. Also, assuming this is to be screened by Horatio, please forgive me for my other attempted posts about the "accomplishments" of the president, I was in a hurry and I was just copy/pasting. If I had actually taken my time, I would not have posted the whole list and I would have edited anything not "parent approved". When I start on a government topic, it is really hard to divert my attention to something else because I believe a proper government is needed, but we are not getting one...if that makes any sense at all. Anyways, I'm really sorry about the whole issue, and I'm trying to edit any of my past posts that have made it through the screener that are not appropriate for everyone. -Sarah AnimalKidd (Sarah), Please do not delete your posts as this is a wonderful discussion! Everything that Sheena and I have approved is okay. If we edited anything then that part has been changed. Discussions about a controversial subject like government are great and a wonderful learning tool. Thank you for your apology, but there was no need for it. I would like for you to stay and continue our government discussion as this is great for everyone, including me! Thank you for starting the discussion. More importantly, thank you for taking the time to educate yourself in the political system of America. This is really terrific that you care enough to educate yourself and speak your views. Horatio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 USA, UK, Australia and Italy :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . Well, I'm going to pray for all of them :sleepy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 You wore a T-shirt saying: impeach Bush. What does impeach mean to you? On what grounds do you believe that he should be impeached? What then occurs when we impeach a President? My words for impeach: To remove from office. My next question and an important one is on what grounds do you think Bush should be removed from office and what do you see happening if he was removed? Please let me know your feelings on this AnimalKidd...Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mega Wolf Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 Hello to all,Here is a topic I posted so that people all over the world can share their oppinions about the US Government. Here are some questions I would like you to answer- 1- Are you an anarchist? 2- Are you a Bush supporter? 3- Do you say the Pledge of Alligence? 4- If so, do you mean it? 5- Do you think Bush is doing his job? Any other comments would be appreciated. I, for one, do not like our government system. From people I have talked to, the US has become one of the most hated countries. :sleepy: Before I read the other replies, here are your answers: 1. no 2. no 3. no 4. no 5. no Oh, yes. I know that. I'm not much of an America fan myself. I don't want it to be destroyed, but America is self-absorbed, egotistical... we're stuck-up snobs who think we're better than everyone else! U. S. says "We're number one", but we aren't really better than anyone else. It's the world's only super-power, so it thinks it can do whatever it wants. Sorry. 1-uhhhh sorry im stupid, wuts that? 2-no 3-yes 4-no 5-no i dont pay alot of attention to politics, as i dislike wuts goin on, but i know enough so that i know bush isnt doin his job... he is searching for peace, but is war indeed peace? tell your opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 What is more, to deny those people the right to their belief is actually being racist and Christianity is about tollerence to all people of whatever creed, colour, nationality, gender and so on. I know, I just meant that for people that don't believe in God. There, I said it right this time. (lets hope) You catch my drift. Yes, that's correct. There term for people who do not believe in God is 'atheist'. People who neither believe nor don't believe are known as 'agnostics' :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . I was told that atheists are people who are against the belief of God. Let me look it up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 Hello to all,Here is a topic I posted so that people all over the world can share their oppinions about the US Government. Here are some questions I would like you to answer- 1- Are you an anarchist? 2- Are you a Bush supporter? 3- Do you say the Pledge of Alligence? 4- If so, do you mean it? 5- Do you think Bush is doing his job? Any other comments would be appreciated. I, for one, do not like our government system. From people I have talked to, the US has become one of the most hated countries. :sleepy: Before I read the other replies, here are your answers: 1. no 2. no 3. no 4. no 5. no Oh, yes. I know that. I'm not much of an America fan myself. I don't want it to be destroyed, but America is self-absorbed, egotistical... we're stuck-up snobs who think we're better than everyone else! U. S. says "We're number one", but we aren't really better than anyone else. It's the world's only super-power, so it thinks it can do whatever it wants. Sorry. 1-uhhhh sorry im stupid, wuts that? 2-no 3-yes 4-no 5-no i dont pay alot of attention to politics, as i dislike wuts goin on, but i know enough so that i know bush isnt doin his job... he is searching for peace, but is war indeed peace? tell your opinions. It's not stupid not to know what anarchy is! I only learned that last year! Or maybe even earlier this year! Anarchy is chaos created by lack of government (to my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topazia Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 Hello to all,Here is a topic I posted so that people all over the world can share their oppinions about the US Government. Here are some questions I would like you to answer- 1- Are you an anarchist? 2- Are you a Bush supporter? 3- Do you say the Pledge of Alligence? 4- If so, do you mean it? 5- Do you think Bush is doing his job? Any other comments would be appreciated. I, for one, do not like our government system. From people I have talked to, the US has become one of the most hated countries. :sleepy: 1.whats that? 2.i was untill i learned he was taking 87 billion$ out of school to pay for the stinken war! 3.yes 4.after 9-11 i started to, but im drifting away from it now... 5.no. he's being a spoiled child, and im sorry to say im american! well, okay, there is a certain amount of freedom here, but i still dislike the way this super-powered atomic wasteland-waiting-to-happen-junkyard has evolved over the years ive been alive. im only almost 15, and im still politically aware... thats... kinda sad... on the lighter note, i just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to geico. psych! stupid commercial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 on the lighter note, i just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to geico. psych! stupid commercial. :laughing :laughing LOL :laughing :laughing Topazia, that is outstanding! I am awarding the first ever Double Gold Star :star: :star: Award! You caught me completely off guard and I am still laughing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topazia Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 gracias, horatio! ive updated my signature! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 gracias, horatio! ive updated my signature! Just reading your post make me laugh again!!! Thanks for putting it in your sig!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 psych! stupid commercial. But the marketers have done their job to perfection. You have the Geico name firmly entrenched in your head, as do I. Now if you were able to do the purchasing and you called the Geico company...they have been successful in their ad campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifesEagle Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 No I don't like bush. I think he led the troups into Iraq just to succeed where his father failed. Like LE, I'm British and I agree with her that Blair has messed things up, especially by following Bush into Iraq! However, the biggest gripe I have with Bush is his refusal to sign up to the Kyoto agreement to limit immissions. Does he not realise we in the West are killing this planet :penguin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blair was doing an OK job until we were put under all the pressure about going to war (well, it depends what we're talking about!) Bush is dragging Britian along with him. :sleepy: I agree, totally, but I also remember just how bad this country was under all those years of Tory rule. Heaven help us if we go back to that :penguin :sleepy: :penguin ! Well, couldn't they elect a new leader? I don't think I fully understand politics, I really need to look into it all further. All I know is that everyone hates Thatcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 No I don't like bush. I think he led the troups into Iraq just to succeed where his father failed. Like LE, I'm British and I agree with her that Blair has messed things up, especially by following Bush into Iraq! However, the biggest gripe I have with Bush is his refusal to sign up to the Kyoto agreement to limit immissions. Does he not realise we in the West are killing this planet :penguin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blair was doing an OK job until we were put under all the pressure about going to war (well, it depends what we're talking about!) Bush is dragging Britian along with him. :sleepy: I agree, totally, but I also remember just how bad this country was under all those years of Tory rule. Heaven help us if we go back to that :penguin :sleepy: :penguin ! Well, couldn't they elect a new leader? I don't think I fully understand politics, I really need to look into it all further. All I know is that everyone hates Thatcher. What AnimalKidd has done for us is to make us think. She is a very passionate person and has shown all of us that we need to educate ourselves about our own country's political system as well as have an understanding of other worldwide political systems. Thank you AnimalKidd! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifesEagle Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 No I don't like bush. I think he led the troups into Iraq just to succeed where his father failed. Like LE, I'm British and I agree with her that Blair has messed things up, especially by following Bush into Iraq! However, the biggest gripe I have with Bush is his refusal to sign up to the Kyoto agreement to limit immissions. Does he not realise we in the West are killing this planet :penguin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blair was doing an OK job until we were put under all the pressure about going to war (well, it depends what we're talking about!) Bush is dragging Britian along with him. :sleepy: I agree, totally, but I also remember just how bad this country was under all those years of Tory rule. Heaven help us if we go back to that :penguin :sleepy: :penguin ! Well, couldn't they elect a new leader? I don't think I fully understand politics, I really need to look into it all further. All I know is that everyone hates Thatcher. What AnimalKidd has done for us is to make us think. She is a very passionate person and has shown all of us that we need to educate ourselves about our own country's political system as well as have an understanding of other worldwide political systems. Thank you AnimalKidd! That's funny, because we're studying England's political system in 1815 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 6, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 You wore a T-shirt saying: impeach Bush. What does impeach mean to you? On what grounds do you believe that he should be impeached? What then occurs when we impeach a President? My words for impeach: To remove from office. My next question and an important one is on what grounds do you think Bush should be removed from office and what do you see happening if he was removed? Please let me know your feelings on this AnimalKidd...Thank you! Okay I'm trying the psycological confusion answer now- Look at this topic and people's oppinions about him! For what reason should he NOT be impeached? I mean, in my oppinion, he shouldn't be in office because he didn't win! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 You wore a T-shirt saying: impeach Bush. What does impeach mean to you? On what grounds do you believe that he should be impeached? What then occurs when we impeach a President? My words for impeach: To remove from office. My next question and an important one is on what grounds do you think Bush should be removed from office and what do you see happening if he was removed? Please let me know your feelings on this AnimalKidd...Thank you! Okay I'm trying the psycological confusion answer now- Look at this topic and people's oppinions about him! For what reason should he NOT be impeached? I mean, in my oppinion, he shouldn't be in office because he didn't win! I appreciate your opinion on the fact that you believe that Pres. Bush was not the winner. Due to the fact that this has already been settled and is not an impeachable offense, on what grounds would you impeach him today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaise Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 You wore a T-shirt saying: impeach Bush. What does impeach mean to you? On what grounds do you believe that he should be impeached? What then occurs when we impeach a President? My words for impeach: To remove from office. My next question and an important one is on what grounds do you think Bush should be removed from office and what do you see happening if he was removed? Please let me know your feelings on this AnimalKidd...Thank you! Okay I'm trying the psycological confusion answer now- Look at this topic and people's oppinions about him! For what reason should he NOT be impeached? I mean, in my oppinion, he shouldn't be in office because he didn't win! I appreciate your opinion on the fact that you believe that Pres. Bush was not the winner. Due to the fact that this has already been settled and is not an impeachable offense, on what grounds would you impeach him today? 1. He destroyed the economy 2. He sent us to war for no reason 3. He lied to us 4. He lied to us about his lying to us. 5. He caused Sept. 11 (this speculation, but I think it's true) 6. He has made practically everyone in the world start hating us, increasing the number of Al Qaida recruits, as well as Anti-American sentiments around the world. I heard someone say this a while ago. "Which will hurt this country more, Clinton's lies, or the things Bush believes to be true?" Let's get him out of office while there still is such a thing as America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 You wore a T-shirt saying: impeach Bush. What does impeach mean to you? On what grounds do you believe that he should be impeached? What then occurs when we impeach a President? My words for impeach: To remove from office. My next question and an important one is on what grounds do you think Bush should be removed from office and what do you see happening if he was removed? Please let me know your feelings on this AnimalKidd...Thank you! Okay I'm trying the psycological confusion answer now- Look at this topic and people's oppinions about him! For what reason should he NOT be impeached? I mean, in my oppinion, he shouldn't be in office because he didn't win! I appreciate your opinion on the fact that you believe that Pres. Bush was not the winner. Due to the fact that this has already been settled and is not an impeachable offense, on what grounds would you impeach him today? 1. He destroyed the economy 2. He sent us to war for no reason 3. He lied to us 4. He lied to us about his lying to us. 5. He caused Sept. 11 (this speculation, but I think it's true) 6. He has made practically everyone in the world start hating us, increasing the number of Al Qaida recruits, as well as Anti-American sentiments around the world. I heard someone say this a while ago. "Which will hurt this country more, Clinton's lies, or the things Bush believes to be true?" Let's get him out of office while there still is such a thing as America. Let's take a look at your ideas... 1. How did Bush destroy the economy? 2. If you say he send us to war for no reason, how would oil figure into your thinking? 3. and 4. Please expand on how he lied. What things do you believe that he lied about? 5. If you believe that he caused the events of September 11, please tell me why, and what are your feelings about the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center (I believe it was in 1993...please correct me if it is wrong.) 6. In what manner has he started the practically everyone in the world hatr us. How are we comparing the numbers of Al Qaida from today to previously? These are questions for anyone to join in. We are trying to provide a meaningful discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesusfreak Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Jesusfreak is not happy Okay watch me write a novel on this. First of all-anarchy is a state of total freedom-no government-now laws-no protection. To impeach is to bring a president to trial. So unless he's done something illegal, you can't impeach him. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. That was Al Quaida's doing. Bush lost the popular vote (vote of the people) but won the electoral vote (vote by elected representatives) Really, would you trust most of the people you know with the choice of out prez? First of let me say that I don't like Bush or any of the other loonies running for prez. Yeesh, I could do a better job! However, I do suppoert the prez, and I feel he's proably not doing as bad as some others could. Bush did not cause 9/11. He just got blamed for it because he was there. He could have done a better job predicting it though. The Patriot Act was designed to "keep it from happening again." Rubbish! It's a total infringement of our Constitutional rights. Seperation of church and state-you guys are in for it now. That was created so that there would be no state church. In England, the government ran the church, and anyone who didn't like it was persecuted. The founders of our nation didn't want it to happen again. The idea is that no religion could be funded by the government-not that Christianity had to be taken out of government. Many of our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. Being a Christian, I feel Bush will do the least damage to our country than most Democrats. Like Bush I am anti-gun control anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, and anti-gay marriage. I know those are very controversial issues, but that's where I stand. As for war in Iraq, regardless of why Bush wanted to go it was a good idea. The Iraqi people were constantly tortured by Saddam's regime. You could say nothing bad about government-if you did you and your family would be tortured and killed. You couldn't even tell your best friend you didn't like the government becuase she could be a loyalist. We definately needed to liberate Iraq. When America was fighting for independance, other nations helped us. We have liberated other dictatorshihps, why not Iraq. I also feel we should not leave Iraq, at least not yet. Yes a few hundred troops died, but compared to other wars, that's not a lot. It's not like they were drafted-they enlisted knowing full well they could get called out. But we still need to get Iraq back on it's feet. If we leave they will never have restored schools, electricity, sewage, and other basic services. And on top of that, Saddam will come back. We learned that the first time around. We need to finish it for real this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 You wore a T-shirt saying: impeach Bush. What does impeach mean to you? On what grounds do you believe that he should be impeached? What then occurs when we impeach a President? My words for impeach: To remove from office. My next question and an important one is on what grounds do you think Bush should be removed from office and what do you see happening if he was removed? Please let me know your feelings on this AnimalKidd...Thank you! Okay I'm trying the psycological confusion answer now- Look at this topic and people's oppinions about him! For what reason should he NOT be impeached? I mean, in my oppinion, he shouldn't be in office because he didn't win! I appreciate your opinion on the fact that you believe that Pres. Bush was not the winner. Due to the fact that this has already been settled and is not an impeachable offense, on what grounds would you impeach him today? I agree totally with Kaise's response to why he should be impeached. So I'll just add a bit- In his first year as President, he spent a month on vacation. Then, we had 9-11. Possibly, if that total month was not spent on vacation, then we would have had better security. In his first year in office, about 2 MILLION American's lost their jobs. Now that's just creepy. I have talked with other people from around the world, and they believe that Bush is the greatest threat to global peace. He, I hate to say it, but it's true, is war-obsessed. I know that impeachment is when something illegal has happened, like President Clinton's affair with that Lewinsky girl, but I do believe that impeachment should partly have to do with what it best for the public and what a majority of people want. If that makes any sense at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 As for war in Iraq, regardless of why Bush wanted to go it was a good idea. The Iraqi people were constantly tortured by Saddam's regime. You could say nothing bad about government-if you did you and your family would be tortured and killed. You couldn't even tell your best friend you didn't like the government becuase she could be a loyalist. Yes, I do believe that it was right for us to help Iraq. But basically what makes me really mad is that instead of finding some other way to try and kill Saddam, they had to spend billion of dollars blowing Iraq up and now they nees like $67 million more to build back the areas that they failed to bomb Saddam in. I wouldn't be very affected if I knew what generation was paying for it. I do know, but it is really aggravating. MY generation is going to be paying that $67 million. MY generation's taxes are going to be raised. MY generation's economy will start suffering because of the high taxes. MY generation has to pay for a war that did not take place in, well, OUR generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Okay now that I think about it, there really isn’t anything we as Americans can do to remove Bush from office. He only has a year left in office, and then, let’s hope, he’s out of there. The only thing he can do now is continue to make us mad and take more innocent lives. Oh, and here’s a Bush tidbit for you all, in case you didn’t know (it’s been on the news for about a week) - You know about that turkey that he posed with next to the soldiers over in Iraq on Thanksgiving? It was a fake. It was a prop, a table centerpiece. I thought that was very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Jesusfreak is not happy Okay watch me write a novel on this. First of all-anarchy is a state of total freedom-no government-now laws-no protection. To impeach is to bring a president to trial. So unless he's done something illegal, you can't impeach him. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. That was Al Quaida's doing. Bush lost the popular vote (vote of the people) but won the electoral vote (vote by elected representatives) Really, would you trust most of the people you know with the choice of out prez? First of let me say that I don't like Bush or any of the other loonies running for prez. Yeesh, I could do a better job! However, I do suppoert the prez, and I feel he's proably not doing as bad as some others could. Bush did not cause 9/11. He just got blamed for it because he was there. He could have done a better job predicting it though. The Patriot Act was designed to "keep it from happening again." Rubbish! It's a total infringement of our Constitutional rights. Seperation of church and state-you guys are in for it now. That was created so that there would be no state church. In England, the government ran the church, and anyone who didn't like it was persecuted. The founders of our nation didn't want it to happen again. The idea is that no religion could be funded by the government-not that Christianity had to be taken out of government. Many of our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. Being a Christian, I feel Bush will do the least damage to our country than most Democrats. Like Bush I am anti-gun control anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, and anti-gay marriage. I know those are very controversial issues, but that's where I stand. As for war in Iraq, regardless of why Bush wanted to go it was a good idea. The Iraqi people were constantly tortured by Saddam's regime. You could say nothing bad about government-if you did you and your family would be tortured and killed. You couldn't even tell your best friend you didn't like the government becuase she could be a loyalist. We definately needed to liberate Iraq. When America was fighting for independance, other nations helped us. We have liberated other dictatorshihps, why not Iraq. I also feel we should not leave Iraq, at least not yet. Yes a few hundred troops died, but compared to other wars, that's not a lot. It's not like they were drafted-they enlisted knowing full well they could get called out. But we still need to get Iraq back on it's feet. If we leave they will never have restored schools, electricity, sewage, and other basic services. And on top of that, Saddam will come back. We learned that the first time around. We need to finish it for real this time. Okay, Jesusfreak, I'm going to break up each paragraph and respond to each separately; I hope you don't mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Jesusfreak is not happy I'm sorry that you aren't happy. That isn't very fun. Now for the real responses: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Okay watch me write a novel on this. First of all-anarchy is a state of total freedom-no government-no laws-no protection. All right, write a novel. It's good for you to speak up for your beliefs. Thank you for the clarification on the anarchy bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 To impeach is to bring a president to trial. So unless he's done something illegal, you can't impeach him. Thank you for your definition of "impeach". It's been a while since the Clinton trial, so the memory is kind of hazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. That was Al Quaida's doing. I agree with you on this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Bush lost the popular vote (vote of the people) but won the electoral vote (vote by elected representatives) Really, would you trust most of the people you know with the choice of our prez? This is true. But Bush still lost, until The Supreme Court gave America to him. The answer to the question is "no". But most of the people I know are warped, frustrated teens with issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 First of let me say that I don't like Bush or any of the other loonies running for prez. Yeesh, I could do a better job! However, I do support the prez, and I feel he's probably not doing as bad as some others could. There are some pretty odd fellows in that lot. As far as I know of, you're not yet eighteen, and therefor know nothing of what you want... sorry, just feeling rather resentful of some of the weirdness in the rules. I am not all that supportive of Dubya, nor do I believe it is patriotic to be. They always say there is always a worse situation you could be in, so I guess "they" agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Bush did not cause 9/11. He just got blamed for it because he was there. He could have done a better job predicting it though. The Patriot Act was designed to "keep it from happening again." Rubbish! It's a total infringement of our Constitutional rights. It gave him America in a box. It also justified his craving for war. That is why I believe he caused it. I agree with you on the Patriot Act. There is a political cartoon I know of picturing Ashcroft draped in the American flag (which, by the way, is a violation of one of the flag code laws), headed with the words "John Ashcroft explains the Patriot Act", with a speech bubble holding the words "Act Patriotic!" It is by Pat Bagley, of the Salt Lake Tribune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Separation of church and state-you guys are in for it now. That was created so that there would be no state church. In England, the government ran the church, and anyone who didn't like it was persecuted. The founders of our nation didn't want it to happen again. The idea is that no religion could be funded by the government-not that Christianity had to be taken out of government. Many of our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. I was not aware of what you said about the Separation Between Church and State Amendment. I did, however, notice the similarities between The Ten Commandments and our basic laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Being a Christian, I feel Bush will do the least damage to our country than most Democrats. Like Bush I am anti-gun control anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, and anti-gay marriage. I know those are very controversial issues, but that's where I stand. I am a Democrat, but I refuse to take offense at this. I believe that it would be better to have a Democrat in charge, but, again, that is probably based on my political foundations. I am pro-Gun Control, anti-Capital Punishment, pro-Homosexual Marriage, and neutral on the abortion issue, as I can see the reason in both sides. That is where I stand. I believe in forgivance of wrong-doings, except for the most severe ones, which should be prison for life. I am frightened by the fact that in a few years, it would be possible for me to be executed for a crime which I did not commit. I believe that guns kill people, and without guns, murder rates would drop because the simplicity and "fun" would be taken out of it. I am neutral on abortion, do no try to sway me either way, please. Anyway, let me continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 As for war in Iraq, regardless of why Bush wanted to go it was a good idea. The Iraqi people were constantly tortured by Saddam's regime. You could say nothing bad about government-if you did you and your family would be tortured and killed. You couldn't even tell your best friend you didn't like the government becuase she could be a loyalist. We definately needed to liberate Iraq. When America was fighting for independance, other nations helped us. We have liberated other dictatorships, why not Iraq. I also feel we should not leave Iraq, at least not yet. Yes a few hundred troops died, but compared to other wars, that's not a lot. It's not like they were drafted-they enlisted knowing full well they could get called out. But we still need to get Iraq back on it's feet. If we leave they will never have restored schools, electricity, sewage, and other basic services. And on top of that, Saddam will come back. We learned that the first time around. We need to finish it for real this time. Not quite novel-length, but quite long enough. They'll expect more for an essay, though :: ! As for your paragraph, I am worried, because the same things are starting in America. This is disturbing, and one of the best reasons to get Bush out... he is taking away from us what America stands for- freedom, and equality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Hey JF, I found your essay on my boards about the patriotic act, and I wish to post it. If you don't like it, I'll delete the post. But I think that it's a great essay to share in this topic: The patriot act has been one of the most controversial acts ever passed. It was created after the 9/11 attacks to help prevent more terrorism. I feel it is completely inconstitutional, and should be repealed. We don't need to sacrifice our rights for our safety.The first right violated by the patriot act is, of course, our right to privacy. Under the patriot act, the government can now easily tap our phones, read our email, do searches, and obtain bank, library, and business records without informing us. Every American should be allowed to read what they want, or visit any website, without worrying about the government spying on them. If a Arabic Muslim happens to be interested in how to make bombs, they should be allowed to read up on it without worrying about being arrested. Certainly this is suspiciuos, but we have the right to privacy, and the government is not allowed to violate this right. The next is our right to habeas corpus. Under the patriot act, people suspected of terrorism can be held indefinately without being charged and without seing a lawyer. This is unconstitutional. The government is not allowed to keep someone more than 24 hours without charging them with a crime. Many innocent people are still being held for apparently no reason, with no contact to their families or even a lawyer! The next right that is violated is the right to freedom of religion. After 9/11 the media stressed that the terrorists were Arabic Muslims. After that Muslims and people of Arabic descent were harassed and even bullied, just for their culture. I knew a Muslim boy from Afganistan. Someone vandalized his house with eggs shortly after the 9/11 attacks. He was one of the nicest people I knew. Most of the people arrested fore being suspected of terrorist attacks were either Muslim or Arabic. So here we have cases of "existing while being Muslim or Arabic." Many Muslims are now afraid of being mistaken as terrorist or being harassed in general. This is infringing on their freedom. No one should be afraid of their religion. Studies have shown that if the CIA and the FBI had put their information together and paid more attention, we would have been able to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So why do we even have the Patriot Act? We really don't need it. All it does is infringe on our rights. If the FBI and the CIA simply exchange information more often, it should be enough to prevent more terrorist attacks. One big fear regarding the patriot act is that it could be abused. The government can easily use the patriot act for corrupt purposes such as putting people they don't like in jail because they are "suspected of terrorism," when the person jailed is just someone the government official doesn't like. The patriot act is more and more often targeting poeple that aren't likely to be terrorists. I certainly see the common sense in racial profiling, most terrorists are young Arabic Islamic males, but why are we pulling 80 year old ladies to the side of the airport to be searched? It doesn't make sense. "The little old lady in the wheelchair in fron of me, she looked really dangerous," said my pastor sarcastically after having gone through an extra security bag search. My pastor himself is white and in his 60's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 I'm not being anti American with this, just anti many of the policies of the USA administration :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . Yes, I understand...I don't like it either. Btw I told my mom about this :hampton :hampton :hampton . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 I'm not being anti American with this, just anti many of the policies of the USA administration :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . Yes, I understand...I don't like it either. Btw I told my mom about this :hampton :hampton :hampton . Jesusfreak expressed her views wonderfully. Thank you. Jesse, what did your mother say? ??? Just a note, I think that everyone is doing a great job of expressing their views on this subject. Should anyone feel uncomfortable with this discussion, please do not hesitate to speak up. these boards are for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Jesse, what did your mother say? ??? She said she didn't know about this stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifesEagle Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Even the very many anti 'United States of Europe' people I speak to say that the reason I've given above is the only one that they agree with for us banding together. I read in the paper the other day that even though France and Germany are getting on well, they seem to be shunning the UK... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Did you hear about that lady from England (or some area around there) that put an upside-down American flag on the gates to Buckingham Palace (I think that's where it was...correct me if I'm wrong, I get places in England messed up...)? I thought that was pretty cool of her, that also goes along with my "Bush is a threat to world peace" theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 We don't need to sacrifice our rights for our safety. Hey...last year for UIL Modern Oratory, I wrote and memorized a 5 min. and 28 second speech about how terrorism shouldn't dominate our lives...I got 3rd place, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 The first right violated by the patriot act is, of course, our right to privacy. Under the patriot act, the government can now easily tap our phones, read our email, do searches, and obtain bank, library, and business records without informing us. Every American should be allowed to read what they want, or visit any website, without worrying about the government spying on them. I spoke about that! Maybe I'll just post my speech. ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grim Hamster lord Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 You wore a T-shirt saying: impeach Bush. What does impeach mean to you? On what grounds do you believe that he should be impeached? What then occurs when we impeach a President? My words for impeach: To remove from office. My next question and an important one is on what grounds do you think Bush should be removed from office and what do you see happening if he was removed? Please let me know your feelings on this AnimalKidd...Thank you! Okay I'm trying the psycological confusion answer now- Look at this topic and people's oppinions about him! For what reason should he NOT be impeached? I mean, in my oppinion, he shouldn't be in office because he didn't win! I appreciate your opinion on the fact that you believe that Pres. Bush was not the winner. Due to the fact that this has already been settled and is not an impeachable offense, on what grounds would you impeach him today? I agree totally with Kaise's response to why he should be impeached. So I'll just add a bit- In his first year as President, he spent a month on vacation. Then, we had 9-11. Possibly, if that total month was not spent on vacation, then we would have had better security. In his first year in office, about 2 MILLION American's lost their jobs. Now that's just creepy. I have talked with other people from around the world, and they believe that Bush is the greatest threat to global peace. He, I hate to say it, but it's true, is war-obsessed. I know that impeachment is when something illegal has happened, like President Clinton's affair with that Lewinsky girl, but I do believe that impeachment should partly have to do with what it best for the public and what a majority of people want. If that makes any sense at all. If you look at the recent chapter in my story you see that that I show that G.W.Bush (Bush likes Bashing foreign middle east regimes!) is a demented war mongerer and how he has Tony Blair under his thumb and how Europe is getting furious with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grim Hamster lord Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Even the very many anti 'United States of Europe' people I speak to say that the reason I've given above is the only one that they agree with for us banding together. I read in the paper the other day that even though France and Germany are getting on well, they seem to be shunning the UK... Thats because that stupid glory seeking twit Tony Blair (who is a HUGE liar) went and shoved himself behind Bush (who is an even BIGGER HUGE liar) causing Germany, France and Switzerland who like peace, to shun us. The only way we're going to make friends now is to actually say 'We will now adopt the European currency, etc. etc.' Then we will rise up out of the ashes of our former empires (the British, French and Spanish empires circa. 1750-1900) and show America (not the whole of America just Bush) that we are not afraid! 1984's Oceaina is showing more and more similarities to current day America. The whole of Europe needs to form a huge empire of glorious magnificance and prosperity, with out needing to nuke anyone who we don't like. My final point is that G.W.Bush is just a bigger version of Suddam Hussein. Suddam gases a Kurdish village because he doesn't like them, G.W.Bush overthrows an entire regieme because he doesn't like the guy in charge. If Bush has his way North Korea is next on the list which will invitable lead Japan and Europe to get really angry (Japan becuase N.Korea has nukes pointed at them, Europe because we like peace). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grim Hamster lord Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Are you back pernamently? I hope you are! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 The first right violated by the patriot act is, of course, our right to privacy. Under the patriot act, the government can now easily tap our phones, read our email, do searches, and obtain bank, library, and business records without informing us. Every American should be allowed to read what they want, or visit any website, without worrying about the government spying on them. I spoke about that! Maybe I'll just post my speech. ??? Please do post your speech! I would like to read it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifesEagle Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Even the very many anti 'United States of Europe' people I speak to say that the reason I've given above is the only one that they agree with for us banding together. I read in the paper the other day that even though France and Germany are getting on well, they seem to be shunning the UK... It's because of the way Blair is following Bush's lead apparently without question :penguin :sleepy: :penguin ! But he DID question, he didn't want to go to war! I suppose we just don't want to become an enemy. Maybe we went to war to reay the sort-of-debt in WWII? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Like I said earlier, I believe the president should work for the good of the people. Since President Bush has been in office, what has he done with the economy? Nothing, except send it spiraling downhill! The president should work for the good of the people, not what HE wants to do! Take Iraq, for example. I know that freeing the Iraqis from Saddam’s rule was very “noble”, but I seriously dislike how much money the president is spending. Presidents should work for the good of people EVERYWHERE. Although Bush was working to benefit Iraq, the billions of dollars he spent didn’t exactly help our already failing economy! Okay, out of the economy subject. Since Bush has been in office, what has he done for our army or troops? Nothing, really. He visited them in Iraq for Thanksgiving, and then (in my opinion) to boost his approval ratings, he took a picture of him with some soldiers and a turkey. Smart move until basically all of America finds out the turkey was a prop! He cut health care benefits for war veterans. How will he get more people to recruit into the services if he cuts benefits for people just like them, only older? Isn’t there some unwritten rule that says “Respect your elders”? Since when is cutting health benefits for elderly people doing something for the good of the community? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 The first right violated by the patriot act is, of course, our right to privacy. Under the patriot act, the government can now easily tap our phones, read our email, do searches, and obtain bank, library, and business records without informing us. Every American should be allowed to read what they want, or visit any website, without worrying about the government spying on them. I spoke about that! Maybe I'll just post my speech. ??? Please do so :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . OK I;m feeling really dumb now because my speech was deleted after the compitition...and I would type it but it takes 5 mins and 28 seconds for me to say outloud...I'll try and get it in somehow, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 I'm not being anti American with this, just anti many of the policies of the USA administration :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . Yes, I understand...I don't like it either. Btw I told my mom about this :hampton :hampton :hampton . I'm pleased you understand, I'd hate to alienate my American friends over this business. What did you tell your mom :penguin ??? :penguin ? I told my mom about the patriotic act and the kyoto agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Jesse, what did your mother say? ??? She said she didn't know about this stuff. About what stuff :penguin ??? :penguin ? the stuff in my above post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaise Posted December 8, 2003 Report Share Posted December 8, 2003 Even the very many anti 'United States of Europe' people I speak to say that the reason I've given above is the only one that they agree with for us banding together. I read in the paper the other day that even though France and Germany are getting on well, they seem to be shunning the UK... It's because of the way Blair is following Bush's lead apparently without question :penguin :sleepy: :penguin ! SO is most of Ameirica! We're lettering the Government take away all of our freedom, which is why we revolted from Britain in the first place (althouhg, now, Britain is more free than America, [oh, the irony])! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 8, 2003 Report Share Posted December 8, 2003 Even the very many anti 'United States of Europe' people I speak to say that the reason I've given above is the only one that they agree with for us banding together. I read in the paper the other day that even though France and Germany are getting on well, they seem to be shunning the UK... It's because of the way Blair is following Bush's lead apparently without question :penguin :sleepy: :penguin ! SO is most of Ameirica! We're lettering the Government take away all of our freedom, which is why we revolted from Britain in the first place (althouhg, now, Britain is more free than America, [oh, the irony])! What I think is more ironic is the thought that the USA used to be a colony of the UK. With the population of the USA today, it seems incredible :penguin :sleepy: :penguin ! Even just the thirteen colonies were bigger than britian 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifesEagle Posted December 8, 2003 Report Share Posted December 8, 2003 Not very much if at all. Saddam was no dirrect threat to the West, he couldn't have taken on the USA on his own! WWII started in 1939 and ended in 1945. About 1942 the USA eventually joined in and although they had been geared up for military action for some time, they only became involved because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. If it hadn't have been for that I think it highly unlikely they would have ever fought in WWII :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . Well, I've decided to read a book on politics and I can now say with my new knowledge that Bush is a hawk. Also, in one of the Adrian Mole books when Blair is first elected he complains about Blair's hatred of war. Correction, it ended in 1946. And if that had never happened, then no atomic weapons would have been dropped. Let's hope that nothing like that happens again. :sleepy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 8, 2003 Report Share Posted December 8, 2003 The saying was that the sun never set on the British Empire. We 'owned' that many countries at one time, that it was always daylight somewhere in the Empire. The remnants of the Empire are now the Commonwealth Countries. I think Australia is geographically the largest of the Commonwealth, ie the British Queen is still the Australian head of state. There are a lot of African countries also in the Commonwealth as is India, whom we only gave independance to in the 1940/50s. We still own Gibralta and the Faulkland islands to this day and until very recently we ruled Hong Kong by lease from the Chinease govt. John's realing off the countries that he can remember were in the Empire: (the * means that the country is still under direct British rule) Afghanistan, America (what became the USA, although we had to buy Louisiana from France), Ascension Islands* Australia, Bahamas, Belize (British Honduras), Bermuda, Borneo, Botswana, British Antarctic Territory* (hence the British Penguin :laugh: ), British Guyana, Cameroon, Canada, Channel Islands, Christmas Islands, Cocos Islands, Cook Islands, Egypt, Ethiopia, Faulkland Islands*, Fiji Gambia, Ghana, Gibralta*, Gough Island* India, Iraq (believe it or not!), Jamaica, Kenya, Libya, Malaya, Maldives, Malta, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, St Helena*, Seychelles, Singapore, South Africa, South Georgia* Southern Ireland (the North is still part of the UK), Southern Yemen (Aden), Sri Lanka (Celylon), Sudan, Tanzania (Tanganyika), Tazmania, Thailand (Siam, ie where the cats come from!), Togo, Tonga, Trinidad &Tabago, Tristan de Cunha*, Uganda, Zambia (Northern Rhodisia) Zambabwe (Southern Rhodesia) Well that's the 50 odd countries we can remember :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . Wow 8) So THAT's what a commonwealth is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 9, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Yeah, Sheena, it seems like Britain has had control of everything. I think Bush is trying to take over a few countries, personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 I think Bush is trying to take over a few countries, ??? You mentioned that Pres. Bush is trying to take over a few countries... which countries would these be? ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 9, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 I think Bush is trying to take over a few countries, ??? You mentioned that Pres. Bush is trying to take over a few countries... which countries would these be? ??? Like, everyone. He used us Americans after 9-11 to get other countries to feel sorry for us. Now he has our troops in Iraq, where they are not wanted anymore. After that accident with the 9 children in Afghanistan, few Afghanis would even talk to the TV reporters from World News Tonight. And in any way that is possible to believe, he could quite possibly be trying to take over America... LOL I sould like some loony from a retirement community. :laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifesEagle Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Would you sooner that he was an Eagle :laugh: ? Yes it was VE day in 1945, but VJ day was a year later wasn't it. Did you know that the guy who invented the atomic bomb and most of his family were so consumed with guilt that they had mental health probs/ committed suicide :penguin :sleepy: :penguin ? Goodness, no! Only good and honest birds are eagles... ... which makes me wonder why I am one. :laugh: Ahh yes, I remember now. I spent a YEAR studying that war, why can't I remember any of it? :roll No, I didn't know that. :sleepy: My grandad was in the navy and fought in the war. He had to go to one of the cities destroyed. :down: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifesEagle Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 You said it girl :laugh: ! You're going senile? That must have been so traumatic for him :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . Of course, I forgot the highly superior bird speicies - the penguin! They rule above all others! What ages do eagles live up to? Maybe I am :laugh: It was, but it did knock some sense into his head about so many things. He had strongly mixed feelings about this war as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grim Hamster lord Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Yeah, Sheena, it seems like Britain has had control of everything. I think Bush is trying to take over a few countries, personally. Not quite, but we were in control of a lot. My dad was saying this morning that there are still 50 odd countries in the Commonwealth, so that list must be well short of the countries we used to own :penguin :penguin :penguin . It will become shorter still if that scary Zimbabwe president gets his way. Anyway I am here for one reason and that is to say this..... Europe was once the greatest power in the entire world, it fell when the American Empire sprung up. Now the American empire is crumbling (thanks to the demented loony in the oval office) will the British Empire rebuild itself? No. Will the spanish and French empires come back to power? No. The only way Europe is going to become the greatest power would be to band together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 PS Jesse, did you notice British Antarctic Territory* in the list? Now you all know how come there is a British Penguin :penguin :laugh: :penguin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, It all makes sence now To your above post, yes, Britian would certainly make interesting history like Greece or Rome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 PS Jesse, did you notice British Antarctic Territory* in the list? Now you all know how come there is a British Penguin :penguin :laugh: :penguin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, It all makes sence now To your above post, yes, Britian would certainly make interesting history like Greece or Rome. I thought you'd like that :laugh: . Fortunately we won't be around to see it :penguin :laugh: :penguin ! What do you mean fortunatley? ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 After reading the posts on Iraq, I thought that I would give some factual information regarding countries with Troops in Iraq as of 14 November 2003. 1. Albania 2. Australia 3. Azerbaijan 4. Bulgaria 5. Central America and the Caribbean: Dominican Republic El Salvador Honduras Nicaragua 6. Czech Republic 7. Denmark 8. Georgia 9. Estonia 10. Hungary 11. Italy 12. Japan 13. Kazakhstan 14. Latvia 15. Lithuania 16. Macedonia 17. Moldova 18. Mongolia 19. Netherlands 20. New Zealand 21. Norway 22. Philippines 23. Poland 24. Portugal 25. Romania 26. Slovakia 27. South Korea 28. Spain 29. Thailand 30. Ukraine 31. United Kingdom 32. United States of America Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Where's the US? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Where's the US? Ooops, good thing I have the edit button! :laughing :laughing Thanks Jesse! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Where's the US? Ooops, good thing I have the edit button! :laughing :laughing Thanks Jesse! You're welcome :upside: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grim Hamster lord Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 After reading the posts on Iraq, I thought that I would give some factual information regarding countries with Troops in Iraq as of 14 November 2003. 1. Albania 2. Australia 3. Azerbaijan 4. Bulgaria 5. Central America and the Caribbean: Dominican Republic El Salvador Honduras Nicaragua 6. Czech Republic 7. Denmark 8. Georgia 9. Estonia 10. Hungary 11. Italy 12. Japan 13. Kazakhstan 14. Latvia 15. Lithuania 16. Macedonia 17. Moldova 18. Mongolia 19. Netherlands 20. New Zealand 21. Norway 22. Philippines 23. Poland 24. Portugal 25. Romania 26. Slovakia 27. South Korea 28. Spain 29. Thailand 30. Ukraine 31. United Kingdom 32. United States of America I notice that N.Korea wasn't in Iraq, thats because they are having to stockpile weapons, in case Mr.'Agree with me and do as I say or you'll be looking down the a rifle' Bush goes and thinks 'Where is the nearest Iraq sized country that has someone I don't agree with?' *G.W.Bush whips out list* 'Errr.... Kim Jong the second has angered me recently what excuse should I present to the UN? I know how about the classic, "They had Weapons Of Mass Destruction".' It is the same with China. Except they have the largest air force in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifesEagle Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 *preens herself* :laugh: . About 30 or 40 years don't they. I don't envy anyone who goes to war :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . Plus, I'd say you're the more graceful. I gracefully fly into trees. :roll Wow, that's a long time! I'll have to look into that. Neither do I. Should we have gone to war over the Falklands? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Did you hear what the President said today? On World News Tonight, I heard the Bush told countries that didn't support going to war with Iraq that he doesn't want their money contributions for the re-building of that country...thats just creepy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 After reading the posts on Iraq, I thought that I would give some factual information regarding countries with Troops in Iraq as of 14 November 2003. 1. Albania 2. Australia 3. Azerbaijan 4. Bulgaria 5. Central America and the Caribbean: Dominican Republic El Salvador Honduras Nicaragua 6. Czech Republic 7. Denmark 8. Georgia 9. Estonia 10. Hungary 11. Italy 12. Japan 13. Kazakhstan 14. Latvia 15. Lithuania 16. Macedonia 17. Moldova 18. Mongolia 19. Netherlands 20. New Zealand 21. Norway 22. Philippines 23. Poland 24. Portugal 25. Romania 26. Slovakia 27. South Korea 28. Spain 29. Thailand 30. Ukraine 31. United Kingdom 32. United States of America Crickey, more than the 'fifth' country I was asking about! I didn't realise there were so many. Most aren't mentioned on the news over here. When John and I were discussing the countries in Iraq, we did say we thought there was a Scandinavian country and I said that if Oz was in then there was a good chance NZ was as well, but even so that's well short of the list that you've created :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . I was hoping that you would come up with at least one more...but no one did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 11, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Did you hear what the President said today? On World News Tonight, I heard the Bush told countries that didn't support going to war with Iraq that he doesn't want their money contributions for the re-building of that country...thats just creepy. That was on the British news months ago. The reason he doesn't want it is that the money would have to come in via the UN. On the interview shown on British TV Bush quite categrically said that the USA had freed Iraq, they had plans to rebuild it and he wasn't going to give that power over to the UN :penguin :penguin . Wow do I feel stupid now! Anyways, thats really dumb on his behalf. And, yes, it would have been easier to assassinate Saddam. Easier, cheaper, and well, BETTER! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Did you hear what the President said today? On World News Tonight, I heard the Bush told countries that didn't support going to war with Iraq that he doesn't want their money contributions for the re-building of that country...thats just creepy. That was on the British news months ago. The reason he doesn't want it is that the money would have to come in via the UN. On the interview shown on British TV Bush quite categrically said that the USA had freed Iraq, they had plans to rebuild it and he wasn't going to give that power over to the UN :penguin :penguin . Wow do I feel stupid now! Anyways, thats really dumb on his behalf. And, yes, it would have been easier to assassinate Saddam. Easier, cheaper, and well, BETTER! The problem is that assassination is illegal. What mayhem there would be if anytime a country did not like the leader of another country, then they would simply assassinate him. What would happen then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grim Hamster lord Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 I notice that N.Korea wasn't in Iraq, thats because they are having to stockpile weapons, in case Mr.'Agree with me and do as I say or you'll be looking down the a rifle' Bush goes and thinks 'Where is the nearest Iraq sized country that has someone I don't agree with?' *G.W.Bush whips out list* 'Errr.... Kim Jong the second has angered me recently what excuse should I present to the UN? I know how about the classic, "They had Weapons Of Mass Destruction".' It is the same with China. Except they have the largest air force in the world. Once Bush started 'sabre rattling' N Korea started it's Atomic reaserch again. At the moment though, with such a large amount of USA troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't think he could spread his troups thin enough to take on N Korea, no matter how much he'd like to 'get even' with them for what happened last time the USA took them on. Sounds like the Iraqi situation all over again :penguin :penguin . Exacty. He is just a playground bully. He picks on the smaller countries because they have a smaller population, a smaller military and a smaller amount of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Anyway what sort of message was the grand schmalooza (liar, biggot, idiot etc.) trying to get across when he came over to Britain with his nice little friend Mr.'codes to the American nukes' Where those missiles aimed at Britain to show that if any of us tried to kill him in anyway possible he would send us spiralling into a nuclear winter wonderland? I mean all he has to do is put his finger on this little trigger and BOOM! and the whole of Britain either gets blown up or poisened by the radiation and thats just the initail effects! The shores closest to England (France, Holland and Scandinavia) will suffer from poisining as well and if the wind is blowing strong enough to the east Russia and the rest of Europe are going to get really angry.... I can see the Kremlin rising in Russia... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grim Hamster lord Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Did you hear what the President said today? On World News Tonight, I heard the Bush told countries that didn't support going to war with Iraq that he doesn't want their money contributions for the re-building of that country...thats just creepy. That was on the British news months ago. The reason he doesn't want it is that the money would have to come in via the UN. On the interview shown on British TV Bush quite categrically said that the USA had freed Iraq, they had plans to rebuild it and he wasn't going to give that power over to the UN :penguin :penguin . Wow do I feel stupid now! Anyways, thats really dumb on his behalf. And, yes, it would have been easier to assassinate Saddam. Easier, cheaper, and well, BETTER! The problem is that assassination is illegal. What mayhem there would be if anytime a country did not like the leader of another country, then they would simply assassinate him. What would happen then? America would be a much better place for it! (9 G.W.Bushs sitting on a wall, 9 G.W.Bush's sitting on a wall, vote him out of office and the world will be better for it. 8 G.W.Bushs sitting...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesusfreak Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 *raises hand* I know what would happen if we assasinated Bush! He'd be dead! Seriously though. You guys are so busy obsessing about how bad Bush and Blair are. How often do you think about how bad saddam and bin laden are? Who's done more damage? As for Bush taking over the world-really now, he's not that smart. :upside: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 *raises hand* I know what would happen if we assasinated Bush! He'd be dead! Seriously though. You guys are so busy obsessing about how bad Bush and Blair are. How often do you think about how bad saddam and bin laden are? Who's done more damage? As for Bush taking over the world-really now, he's not that smart. :upside: Yes, I realize that sadam and bin laden would be much worse to have as leaders. :sleepy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 *raises hand* I know what would happen if we assasinated Bush! He'd be dead! Seriously though. You guys are so busy obsessing about how bad Bush and Blair are. How often do you think about how bad saddam and bin laden are? Who's done more damage? As for Bush taking over the world-really now, he's not that smart. :upside: We weren't talking about assasinating Bush, but how many lives and how much money would have been saved if Bush had had Sadam assasinated, even though it is illegal. As assassination is illegal, and speculation on this subject is just that, speculation, then I think that the discussion of assassination should not be a subject that we continue talking about. The money issue with Pres. Bush regarding rebuilding Iraq is as follows: the coalition of countries involved initially in Iraq are the countries who shall receive the contracts to rebuild Iraq. The countries not initially involved, such as Germany, are extremely upset as they feel that they should be allowed to be involved in the rebuilding. Due to the fact that there are billions of dollars to be made in the rebuilding, Pres. Bush feels that these contracts should be awarded only to the countries who initially extended themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 12, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Did you hear what the President said today? On World News Tonight, I heard the Bush told countries that didn't support going to war with Iraq that he doesn't want their money contributions for the re-building of that country...thats just creepy. That was on the British news months ago. The reason he doesn't want it is that the money would have to come in via the UN. On the interview shown on British TV Bush quite categrically said that the USA had freed Iraq, they had plans to rebuild it and he wasn't going to give that power over to the UN :penguin :penguin . Wow do I feel stupid now! Anyways, thats really dumb on his behalf. And, yes, it would have been easier to assassinate Saddam. Easier, cheaper, and well, BETTER! The problem is that assassination is illegal. What mayhem there would be if anytime a country did not like the leader of another country, then they would simply assassinate him. What would happen then? Well, it IS illegal. But say someone shot Saddam (assassinated him) and LIED and said that it was an accident or whatever? Yes, that would be lying, but surely something like that has happened before! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 12, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 But I guess the only problem with assassinating Saddam is that basicsally, throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom (or whatever they were calling it), we really had no precise location of where Saddam was. But think of this- Suppose Bush assassinated Saddam. That would be illegal. He would go to trial and possibly be removed from office. But by assassinating Saddam, that would be in America's best wishes, seeing as that it would cost basically no money. But what Bush did instead was spend millions of dollars bombing the heck out of Iraq in hopes to kill Saddam. Now, people speculate if he even KILLED him! Would we rather have a president who does the best interests of the Anericans (and the best price range and long-term benefits), or a president who just bombs without any planning, basically, and who rings up America's bills? Being as that I'M going to have to be one of the people PAYING for this war, I vote on assassination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Please understand that as assassination is illegal, this is a past event and we cannot change what has already happened, I suggest that there is NO more talk about assassination and we move on. Please, I am asking, no more talking about assassination. Thank you. Horatio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesusfreak Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Sounds goos to me. Oh! I remember what I forgot now! Someone said something about guns being bad and killing people. Wrong! I'n my nearly 16 years of life I have never heard of a gun killing someone. People however, they kill people, they just use guns to do it. If you try to make guns illegal, only criminals have gund because they're well, criminals! Even if you could make guns magically dissappear, it wouldn't stop people from harming others. They'd just kill people by bashing them over the heat with rocks or something. Plus he have the Constitutional right to bear arms. As for abortion and death penalty- people that are pro choice and anti-capital punishment belive in only killing the innocent. Just thought I'd share that with you. :upside: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesusfreak Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 But I guess the only problem with assassinating Saddam is that basicsally, throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom (or whatever they were calling it), we really had no precise location of where Saddam was. But think of this- Suppose Bush assassinated Saddam. That would be illegal. He would go to trial and possibly be removed from office. But by assassinating Saddam, that would be in America's best wishes, seeing as that it would cost basically no money. But what Bush did instead was spend millions of dollars bombing the heck out of Iraq in hopes to kill Saddam. Now, people speculate if he even KILLED him! Would we rather have a president who does the best interests of the Anericans (and the best price range and long-term benefits), or a president who just bombs without any planning, basically, and who rings up America's bills? Being as that I'M going to have to be one of the people PAYING for this war, I vote on assassination. I like your logic :penguin :penguin ! Thank you. As for paying the cost. It would be nice for others to help out. But what did Bush expact? We went into it alone, he should expect to pay for it alone. However, I'm sad to hear he turned down help. That was foolish. They really need to get moving on turning Iraq over to the Iraqis. I'm sensing a bit of history repeating iteself there. :upside: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesusfreak Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 Sounds good to me. Oh! I remember what I forgot now! Someone said something about guns being bad and killing people. Wrong! I'n my nearly 16 years of life I have never heard of a gun killing someone. People however, they kill people, they just use guns to do it. If you try to make guns illegal, only criminals have gund because they're well, criminals! Even if you could make guns magically dissappear, it wouldn't stop people from harming others. They'd just kill people by bashing them over the heat with rocks or something. Plus he have the Constitutional right to bear arms. As for abortion and death penalty- people that are pro choice and anti-capital punishment belive in only killing the innocent. Just thought I'd share that with you. :upside: In the UK it is very different. We do not have the right to carry guns and as a consequance firearm crimes, especially murder, is at a much lower rate than in the USA. You seem to be anti abortion. You say that people who are pro choice are killing the innocents. Here are a few scenarios for you to think about: 1 A woman already has several young children and is pregnant again. However if she carries the baby to term, it will kill her and probabley the baby as well. Now does she go through with the pregnancey and die so leaving her existing children motherless, or does she have an abortion and stay with her family? There have been several cases where this has happened. Often in these the mother has cancer, but there have also been a number of times where the last pregnancy caused severe internal damage so the woman cannot carry to term. 2 The unborn child is severely disabled, that disabled that it will only live for a few hours if born. I remember a case a while ago where the baby had virtually no brain, the skull was curved in at the back. Instead of being roughly sperical, the head was cresent shaped. Childbirth is exceptionally painful and exceptionally emotional. Why should any woman go through this pain and what sort of mental damage will it cause her knowing that the baby she is going to give birth to will only live a few hours? I, for one, would put no woman through that! 3 What about pregnancy through ####? Why should a woman be forced to carry and give birth to a baby so conceived? It would be a constant day-to-day reminder of the pain and terror she suffered at the hands of her abuser. Even if you say she could give the child up for adoption, she would still know that child was out there and one day might come and look her up. How could she then tell that child why she gave him/her up for adoption in the first place and what sort of harm do you think would be caused to the child if he/she ever found out that their conception was through ####? In Southern Ireland (Eire) abortion is illegal because they are a Catholic country. A couple of years ago there was the case of an 11 or 12 year old girl who had been raped by her best friend's father. She got pregnant. Her parents tried to bring her to the UK for an abortion, the Irish government were trying to stop it. In the end she did get her abortion. Why on earth should she have had to go through with the pregnancy? She was still a child herself, not yet fully formed. How is her body supposed to cope with the life growing inside her when she is not big enough to carry it? That's not even taking into account the psycological damage she suffered. BTW, I do not believe in abortion on a whim or for economic reasons, but in the above cases, I very much accept the woman's right to chose. These are just a few things to set you thinking. You see abortion is not a black and white matter :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . I know, and they are hard cases. But God says it's wrong, and, as hard as it may be, I have to go by that. God says all thing work together for good. He's got a plan, we might not, and probably won't get it, but He does things for a reason. As for the severe disability thing-what if they were wrong? What if the baby came out okay? There are two kids at my church who were supposed to have brain damage, and they're normal healthy kids. As for dying from pregnancy, that too is a tough question. There's no good place to draw the line there. If you already know before conceiving that you could die from becoming pregnant then hello! It's called birth control? #### is also a hard one. I know right now that if I was raped I'd carry that child. It would be hard, but I'd do it. It would be a tough reminder, but the bond between mother and child is the strongest one there is. If you really can't take care of it, put it up for adoption. If they look you up, tell them what happened. It would be harsh, but anyone looking up their biological mom should expect that. And of course in most cases when abortion is used for convenience that's just wrong. In most cases it's your own fault you're pregnant in the first place! But Sheena yes I see what you're saying. People say that to me all the time. However, I am required to answer to a higher authority. :sleepy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesusfreak Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 The sins revisited to the children means that something bad may happen to the children whether it be the actual children or something several generations down. Like my family has a long history of alcoholism so that means that if I start drinking I could become an alcoholic too. Or if the rapist had aids or something, the child could get aids. It does not mean you can't go to heaven. Eternal life means living forever with God in Heaven, not here. Only God can live forever here. It says somewhere (I'm not sure where) that for those of us who are saved we are appointed to die once, on earth. It also says numerous times that anyone can be saved. My parents don't have to ba saved for me to ba saved, Saddam could be saved! That's not too likely though. And they didn't have the same salvation in the old testament as we do. They had to make sacrifices. We've got it easy. And God does want us all in his assembly, including that child conceived by ####. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 13, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 But I guess the only problem with assassinating Saddam is that basicsally, throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom (or whatever they were calling it), we really had no precise location of where Saddam was. But think of this- Suppose Bush assassinated Saddam. That would be illegal. He would go to trial and possibly be removed from office. But by assassinating Saddam, that would be in America's best wishes, seeing as that it would cost basically no money. But what Bush did instead was spend millions of dollars bombing the heck out of Iraq in hopes to kill Saddam. Now, people speculate if he even KILLED him! Would we rather have a president who does the best interests of the Anericans (and the best price range and long-term benefits), or a president who just bombs without any planning, basically, and who rings up America's bills? Being as that I'M going to have to be one of the people PAYING for this war, I vote on assassination. I like your logic :penguin :penguin ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 13, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 I think you should be able to decide about abortion. Abortion is a very emotional time for both the mother and the father. There have been several cases where after the abortion, the father was felling so guilty, he shot himself in his car. If you were raped and had the baby, yet gave it up for adoption, then there's more emotional damage. You decide to bring the baby into this world, which is a very hard decision. Then you give it up for adoption, meaning you don't want it. When the child grows up, he will want to know why his real mom didn't love him enough to keep him, which creates serious emotional damage. So in a way, having the child only increases the emotional damage. :sleepy: People should have the right to chose what is best for them and their children, meaning the unborn child. Parents are supposed to do what is best for the child. So bringing a baby into the world with, like Sheena said, no brain or something, that wouldn't be the best thing for the baby because it would go through immense pain. My 20 minutes is up, so all I want to say is that I believe that abortion is terrible, but it can be used for good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 I think you should be able to decide about abortion. Abortion is a very emotional time for both the mother and the father. There have been several cases where after the abortion, the father was felling so guilty, he shot himself in his car. If you were raped and had the baby, yet gave it up for adoption, then there's more emotional damage. You decide to bring the baby into this world, which is a very hard decision. Then you give it up for adoption, meaning you don't want it. When the child grows up, he will want to know why his real mom didn't love him enough to keep him, which creates serious emotional damage. So in a way, having the child only increases the emotional damage. :sleepy: People should have the right to chose what is best for them and their children, meaning the unborn child. Parents are supposed to do what is best for the child. So bringing a baby into the world with, like Sheena said, no brain or something, that wouldn't be the best thing for the baby because it would go through immense pain. My 20 minutes is up, so all I want to say is that I believe that abortion is terrible, but it can be used for good. AnimalKidd, I think that you did an excellent job of expressing your views! Thank you for your thoughts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solrai117 Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 Would you sooner that he was an Eagle :laugh: ? Yes it was VE day in 1945, but VJ day was a year later wasn't it. Did you know that the guy who invented the atomic bomb and most of his family were so consumed with guilt that they had mental health probs/ committed suicide :penguin :sleepy: :penguin ? Goodness, no! Only good and honest birds are eagles... ... which makes me wonder why I am one. :laugh: Ahh yes, I remember now. I spent a YEAR studying that war, why can't I remember any of it? :roll No, I didn't know that. My grandad was in the navy and fought in the war. He had to go to one of the cities destroyed. /quote] You said it girl :laugh: ! You're going senile? That must have been so traumatic for him . my grandfather got two purple hearts, one of which he earned on D day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 13, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 I think you should be able to decide about abortion. Abortion is a very emotional time for both the mother and the father. There have been several cases where after the abortion, the father was felling so guilty, he shot himself in his car. If you were raped and had the baby, yet gave it up for adoption, then there's more emotional damage. You decide to bring the baby into this world, which is a very hard decision. Then you give it up for adoption, meaning you don't want it. When the child grows up, he will want to know why his real mom didn't love him enough to keep him, which creates serious emotional damage. So in a way, having the child only increases the emotional damage. :sleepy: People should have the right to chose what is best for them and their children, meaning the unborn child. Parents are supposed to do what is best for the child. So bringing a baby into the world with, like Sheena said, no brain or something, that wouldn't be the best thing for the baby because it would go through immense pain. My 20 minutes is up, so all I want to say is that I believe that abortion is terrible, but it can be used for good. AnimalKidd, I think that you did an excellent job of expressing your views! Thank you for your thoughts! Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 I think you should be able to decide about abortion. Abortion is a very emotional time for both the mother and the father. There have been several cases where after the abortion, the father was felling so guilty, he shot himself in his car. If you were raped and had the baby, yet gave it up for adoption, then there's more emotional damage. You decide to bring the baby into this world, which is a very hard decision. Then you give it up for adoption, meaning you don't want it. When the child grows up, he will want to know why his real mom didn't love him enough to keep him, which creates serious emotional damage. So in a way, having the child only increases the emotional damage. :sleepy: People should have the right to chose what is best for them and their children, meaning the unborn child. Parents are supposed to do what is best for the child. So bringing a baby into the world with, like Sheena said, no brain or something, that wouldn't be the best thing for the baby because it would go through immense pain. My 20 minutes is up, so all I want to say is that I believe that abortion is terrible, but it can be used for good. Thank you for that. It was well written and expressive :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . I think that before a woman has an abortion, she should be emotionally stable before AND after the abortion...there have been numerous "After Abortion" suicides. This one father was so guilty, he printed an obituary about his unborn son in the paper. It was really sad because the magazine said it said something like "I never knew you, but Daddy still loves you". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Would you sooner that he was an Eagle :laugh: ? Yes it was VE day in 1945, but VJ day was a year later wasn't it. Did you know that the guy who invented the atomic bomb and most of his family were so consumed with guilt that they had mental health probs/ committed suicide :penguin :sleepy: :penguin ? Goodness, no! Only good and honest birds are eagles... ... which makes me wonder why I am one. :laugh: Ahh yes, I remember now. I spent a YEAR studying that war, why can't I remember any of it? :roll No, I didn't know that. My grandad was in the navy and fought in the war. He had to go to one of the cities destroyed. /quote] You said it girl :laugh: ! You're going senile? That must have been so traumatic for him . my grandfather got two purple hearts, one of which he earned on D day Your grandfather is quite a hero! You should be so very proud of him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 But I guess the only problem with assassinating Saddam is that basicsally, throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom (or whatever they were calling it), we really had no precise location of where Saddam was. But think of this- Suppose Bush assassinated Saddam. That would be illegal. He would go to trial and possibly be removed from office. But by assassinating Saddam, that would be in America's best wishes, seeing as that it would cost basically no money. But what Bush did instead was spend millions of dollars bombing the heck out of Iraq in hopes to kill Saddam. Now, people speculate if he even KILLED him! Would we rather have a president who does the best interests of the Anericans (and the best price range and long-term benefits), or a president who just bombs without any planning, basically, and who rings up America's bills? Being as that I'M going to have to be one of the people PAYING for this war, I vote on assassination. I like your logic ! Thank you. As for paying the cost. It would be nice for others to help out. But what did Bush expact? We went into it alone, he should expect to pay for it alone. However, I'm sad to hear he turned down help. That was foolish. They really need to get moving on turning Iraq over to the Iraqis. I'm sensing a bit of history repeating iteself there. If you look at the list of participating countries that Horatio posted you'll see that the USA did not go in alone, although I think Bush would like to believe he did it all himself! At no time did Pres. Bush want to think that he wanted to receive all the credit. If you listen, you will hear him say "coalition forces". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Please let me hear your thoughts now that Saddam Hussein has been captured and will be held accountable for his crimes against humanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grim Hamster lord Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Please let me hear your thoughts now that Saddam Hussein has been captured and will be held accountable for his crimes against humanity. No one in the whole of UN (except those who are being bribed by Bush) are going to tolerate the execution of Saddam though. IF Bush doesn't want to be veiwed as a insane meglomaniac he should let the UN trial and sentance Suddam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Please let me hear your thoughts now that Saddam Hussein has been captured and will be held accountable for his crimes against humanity. No one in the whole of UN (except those who are being bribed by Bush) are going to tolerate the execution of Saddam though. IF Bush doesn't want to be veiwed as a insane meglomaniac he should let the UN trial and sentance Suddam. Neither the UN nor the United States of American nor any of the coalition countries are going to be trying Saddam Hussein before careful examination of the Iraqi constitution. The trial should be held by the Iraqi people in Iraqi courts by Iraqi judges. My question would be are there any Iraqis who could be impartial? No one is simply going to execute Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis have enormous amounts of documents verifing the crimes that have been committed by Saddam Hussein. There is no rush to try him. The world will want to see all the documentation before making a decision and there will be much discussion prior to a trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifesEagle Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Please let me hear your thoughts now that Saddam Hussein has been captured and will be held accountable for his crimes against humanity. No one in the whole of UN (except those who are being bribed by Bush) are going to tolerate the execution of Saddam though. IF Bush doesn't want to be veiwed as a insane meglomaniac he should let the UN trial and sentance Suddam. Neither the UN nor the United States of American nor any of the coalition countries are going to be trying Saddam Hussein before careful examination of the Iraqi constitution. The trial should be held by the Iraqi people in Iraqi courts by Iraqi judges. My question would be are there any Iraqis who could be impartial? No one is simply going to execute Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis have enormous amounts of documents verifing the crimes that have been committed by Saddam Hussein. There is no rush to try him. The world will want to see all the documentation before making a decision and there will be much discussion prior to a trial. Two wrongs don't make a right, anyway. :sleepy: This makes me think of a LOTR quote: "Enough blood has been spilt on his account." - Aragorn, son of Arathorn. Yes, nothing makes him Bush's to deal with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 I think that before a woman has an abortion, she should be emotionally stable before AND after the abortion...there have been numerous "After Abortion" suicides. This one father was so guilty, he printed an obituary about his unborn son in the paper. It was really sad because the magazine said it said something like "I never knew you, but Daddy still loves you". That is so sad. The problem there though is that it is the woman's decission. If she decides to terminate the pregnancy, then the father cannot stop her. As to the mentally stable bit, sometimes it is the fact that she is pregnant that can make the woman mentally unstable. I used to go to school with a girl called Margaret. She was one of my friends at junior school. She was from a good Catholic family. She never wanted children, so when she got married, her husband and she were 'careful'. However that was 'careful' in the RC sense as dirrect contraception is against their faith. Unfortunately Margaret got pregnant. As a RC, she could not have an abortion either, so she killed herself and her unborn child :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . That is sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Saddam should be tried. He should not be tortured. Although he tortured many people, he is still a human being and deserves to die by lethal injection or some other way like that...NOT torture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solrai117 Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 I think you should be able to decide about abortion. Abortion is a very emotional time for both the mother and the father. There have been several cases where after the abortion, the father was felling so guilty, he shot himself in his car. If you were raped and had the baby, yet gave it up for adoption, then there's more emotional damage. You decide to bring the baby into this world, which is a very hard decision. Then you give it up for adoption, meaning you don't want it. When the child grows up, he will want to know why his real mom didn't love him enough to keep him, which creates serious emotional damage. So in a way, having the child only increases the emotional damage. :sleepy: People should have the right to chose what is best for them and their children, meaning the unborn child. Parents are supposed to do what is best for the child. So bringing a baby into the world with, like Sheena said, no brain or something, that wouldn't be the best thing for the baby because it would go through immense pain. My 20 minutes is up, so all I want to say is that I believe that abortion is terrible, but it can be used for good. here is one place i don't agree with you at all. this hits VERY close to home for me. i admit, there are some cases when abortion is unaviodable, like in a tubliar pregnance(the baby stays in the fliopian tube and the mother and the baby will both die). but my question for you is have you ever really been around an adoption? not do you know someone who is adopted. have you ever had someone close to you who has been adopted, put a baby up for adoption, or adopted a baby. my sister had to put her baby up for adoption.(trust me, it is HARD for everyone involved, but we know it was best) i know MANY people very close to me who have adopted. i even know a person who was adopted who has changed peoples opinions of abortion, that it should be avioded at all costs. if you call the unborn baby a child, does it not have rights just like you or me? i am a democrat, but this is one place i can't agree with their standings. i can't see how the murder(and thats what it is) or an innocent child can be justified unless there is outstanding reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solrai117 Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Would you sooner that he was an Eagle :laugh: ? Yes it was VE day in 1945, but VJ day was a year later wasn't it. Did you know that the guy who invented the atomic bomb and most of his family were so consumed with guilt that they had mental health probs/ committed suicide :penguin :sleepy: :penguin ? Goodness, no! Only good and honest birds are eagles... ... which makes me wonder why I am one. :laugh: Ahh yes, I remember now. I spent a YEAR studying that war, why can't I remember any of it? :roll No, I didn't know that. My grandad was in the navy and fought in the war. He had to go to one of the cities destroyed. /quote] You said it girl :laugh: ! You're going senile? That must have been so traumatic for him . my grandfather got two purple hearts, one of which he earned on D day Your grandfather is quite a hero! You should be so very proud of him! i never really knew him, he died when i was 3, but i am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solrai117 Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Please let me hear your thoughts now that Saddam Hussein has been captured and will be held accountable for his crimes against humanity. i really don't know what will happen, but think he should be held acountable for things he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesusfreak Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 I think you should be able to decide about abortion. Abortion is a very emotional time for both the mother and the father. There have been several cases where after the abortion, the father was felling so guilty, he shot himself in his car. If you were raped and had the baby, yet gave it up for adoption, then there's more emotional damage. You decide to bring the baby into this world, which is a very hard decision. Then you give it up for adoption, meaning you don't want it. When the child grows up, he will want to know why his real mom didn't love him enough to keep him, which creates serious emotional damage. So in a way, having the child only increases the emotional damage. :sleepy: People should have the right to chose what is best for them and their children, meaning the unborn child. Parents are supposed to do what is best for the child. So bringing a baby into the world with, like Sheena said, no brain or something, that wouldn't be the best thing for the baby because it would go through immense pain. My 20 minutes is up, so all I want to say is that I believe that abortion is terrible, but it can be used for good. here is one place i don't agree with you at all. this hits VERY close to home for me. i admit, there are some cases when abortion is unaviodable, like in a tubliar pregnance(the baby stays in the fliopian tube and the mother and the baby will both die). but my question for you is have you ever really been around an adoption? not do you know someone who is adopted. have you ever had someone close to you who has been adopted, put a baby up for adoption, or adopted a baby. my sister had to put her baby up for adoption.(trust me, it is HARD for everyone involved, but we know it was best) i know MANY people very close to me who have adopted. i even know a person who was adopted who has changed peoples opinions of abortion, that it should be avioded at all costs. if you call the unborn baby a child, does it not have rights just like you or me? i am a democrat, but this is one place i can't agree with their standings. i can't see how the murder(and thats what it is) or an innocent child can be justified unless there is outstanding reason. Thank you. Few, if any, adoptions occur b/c the original parents didn't love them, it's almost always because the biological parents know they could never properly care and provide for their child and want what's best for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solrai117 Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 I think you should be able to decide about abortion. Abortion is a very emotional time for both the mother and the father. There have been several cases where after the abortion, the father was felling so guilty, he shot himself in his car. If you were raped and had the baby, yet gave it up for adoption, then there's more emotional damage. You decide to bring the baby into this world, which is a very hard decision. Then you give it up for adoption, meaning you don't want it. When the child grows up, he will want to know why his real mom didn't love him enough to keep him, which creates serious emotional damage. So in a way, having the child only increases the emotional damage. :sleepy: People should have the right to chose what is best for them and their children, meaning the unborn child. Parents are supposed to do what is best for the child. So bringing a baby into the world with, like Sheena said, no brain or something, that wouldn't be the best thing for the baby because it would go through immense pain. My 20 minutes is up, so all I want to say is that I believe that abortion is terrible, but it can be used for good. here is one place i don't agree with you at all. this hits VERY close to home for me. i admit, there are some cases when abortion is unaviodable, like in a tubliar pregnance(the baby stays in the fliopian tube and the mother and the baby will both die). but my question for you is have you ever really been around an adoption? not do you know someone who is adopted. have you ever had someone close to you who has been adopted, put a baby up for adoption, or adopted a baby. my sister had to put her baby up for adoption.(trust me, it is HARD for everyone involved, but we know it was best) i know MANY people very close to me who have adopted. i even know a person who was adopted who has changed peoples opinions of abortion, that it should be avioded at all costs. if you call the unborn baby a child, does it not have rights just like you or me? i am a democrat, but this is one place i can't agree with their standings. i can't see how the murder(and thats what it is) or an innocent child can be justified unless there is outstanding reason. Thank you. Few, if any, adoptions occur b/c the original parents didn't love them, it's almost always because the biological parents know they could never properly care and provide for their child and want what's best for it. EXACTLY, and unfortunatly some of us know that fact better than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Please let me hear your thoughts now that Saddam Hussein has been captured and will be held accountable for his crimes against humanity. No one in the whole of UN (except those who are being bribed by Bush) are going to tolerate the execution of Saddam though. IF Bush doesn't want to be veiwed as a insane meglomaniac he should let the UN trial and sentance Suddam. Neither the UN nor the United States of American nor any of the coalition countries are going to be trying Saddam Hussein before careful examination of the Iraqi constitution. The trial should be held by the Iraqi people in Iraqi courts by Iraqi judges. My question would be are there any Iraqis who could be impartial? No one is simply going to execute Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis have enormous amounts of documents verifing the crimes that have been committed by Saddam Hussein. There is no rush to try him. The world will want to see all the documentation before making a decision and there will be much discussion prior to a trial. Two wrongs don't make a right, anyway. :sleepy: This makes me think of a LOTR quote: "Enough blood has been spilt on his account." - Aragorn, son of Arathorn. Yes, nothing makes him Bush's to deal with. The US happened to find and capture Saddam Hussein, now it is up to the world to work out a plan to bring him to justice. Above all the Iraqi constitution will be reviewed first, after which the plans will be formulated. The whole world is watching and if Saddam Hussein is tried in the courts of Iraq, then the Iraqi justices will work extra hard to be impartial as they know that all eyes are on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesusfreak Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Please let me hear your thoughts now that Saddam Hussein has been captured and will be held accountable for his crimes against humanity. No one in the whole of UN (except those who are being bribed by Bush) are going to tolerate the execution of Saddam though. IF Bush doesn't want to be veiwed as a insane meglomaniac he should let the UN trial and sentance Suddam. Neither the UN nor the United States of American nor any of the coalition countries are going to be trying Saddam Hussein before careful examination of the Iraqi constitution. The trial should be held by the Iraqi people in Iraqi courts by Iraqi judges. My question would be are there any Iraqis who could be impartial? No one is simply going to execute Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis have enormous amounts of documents verifing the crimes that have been committed by Saddam Hussein. There is no rush to try him. The world will want to see all the documentation before making a decision and there will be much discussion prior to a trial. Two wrongs don't make a right, anyway. :sleepy: This makes me think of a LOTR quote: "Enough blood has been spilt on his account." - Aragorn, son of Arathorn. Yes, nothing makes him Bush's to deal with. The US happened to find and capture Saddam Hussein, now it is up to the world to work out a plan to bring him to justice. Above all the Iraqi constitution will be reviewed first, after which the plans will be formulated. The whole world is watching and if Saddam Hussein is tried in the courts of Iraq, then the Iraqi justices will work extra hard to be impartial as they know that all eyes are on them. Um, keep in mind that Saddam probably wrote the constitution of Iraq. :: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solrai117 Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 I think that before a woman has an abortion, she should be emotionally stable before AND after the abortion...there have been numerous "After Abortion" suicides. This one father was so guilty, he printed an obituary about his unborn son in the paper. It was really sad because the magazine said it said something like "I never knew you, but Daddy still loves you". That is so sad. The problem there though is that it is the woman's decission. If she decides to terminate the pregnancy, then the father cannot stop her. As to the mentally stable bit, sometimes it is the fact that she is pregnant that can make the woman mentally unstable. I used to go to school with a girl called Margaret. She was one of my friends at junior school. She was from a good Catholic family. She never wanted children, so when she got married, her husband and she were 'careful'. However that was 'careful' in the RC sense as dirrect contraception is against their faith. Unfortunately Margaret got pregnant. As a RC, she could not have an abortion either, so she killed herself and her unborn child :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . That is sad. It was very tragic :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . just one quick question, i may totally not get this. why not just put the baby up for adoption? the only rational reason i understand not to is if she was in danger if she carried the child, and if so the catholic church does allow abortions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 15, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Saddam should be tried. He should not be tortured. Although he tortured many people, he is still a human being and deserves to die by lethal injection or some other way like that...NOT torture. If you believe he should have a trial, why are you saying he should the be executed? To say he should be exectuted makes him automatically guilty. It's the purpose of a trial to find him innocent or guilty! Because chances are he'll be proven guilty, look at all the evidence he taped and stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaei Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Please let me hear your thoughts now that Saddam Hussein has been captured and will be held accountable for his crimes against humanity. WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've been busy for the last two days and not had the TV on. That's fantastic news. What I do think is that he should go on trial either in Iraq or at the same court where the War Crimes Tribunal is held. I deffinately don't think he should be tried in the USA. I don't believe he would be treated fairly, look at the detainees at Guananamo Bay . Uh... maybe there's a website you should visit. There're political cartoons way back about "those poor Guantanomo detainees", that I think you should see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Um, keep in mind that Saddam probably wrote the constitution of Iraq. If you're correct, he probabley gave himself imunity anyway. As a point of interest, not every country has a constitution. The UK doesn't. We have the satutes of law instead . Iraq does have a constitution and Saddam Hussein did not write it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Saddam should be tried. He should not be tortured. Although he tortured many people, he is still a human being and deserves to die by lethal injection or some other way like that...NOT torture. If you believe he should have a trial, why are you saying he should the be executed? To say he should be exectuted makes him automatically guilty. It's the purpose of a trial to find him innocent or guilty! Because chances are he'll be proven guilty, look at all the evidence he taped and stuff. You are so right AnimalKidd, there are millions of pages of documents detailing Saddam Husseins crimes against humanity. He has murdered so many people, that he is one of the worst dictators in history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grim Hamster lord Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Saddam should be tried. He should not be tortured. Although he tortured many people, he is still a human being and deserves to die by lethal injection or some other way like that...NOT torture. If you believe he should have a trial, why are you saying he should the be executed? To say he should be exectuted makes him automatically guilty. It's the purpose of a trial to find him innocent or guilty! Because chances are he'll be proven guilty, look at all the evidence he taped and stuff. You are so right AnimalKidd, there are millions of pages of documents detailing Saddam Husseins crimes against humanity. He has murdered so many people, that he is one of the worst dictators in history. OK, I too think he will be found guilty, but we have to hear the evidence first and the only ones that can make the judgement are those who listen to the whole case in whatever court Saddam ends up in. As it stands at the moment, those documents are allegations only, so therefore it can only be alledged that 'He has murdered so many people, that he is one of the worst dictators in history.' Did Suddam actually give reasons for gassing the Kurds? You see the Iraqi Kurds have been notorious for trying to get the four main countries they live in (Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran) to destroy each other so the Kurds can make a new Kurdish Kingdom. Unfortunatly if those four did try to annihaliate each other then the whole of middle east would end up being the battleground for WWW III. You see if Iraq gets involved then they will get some other countries angered and it will go on until Russia has a large amount of angry Ex-Soviet Union countries pointing their hidden reserves of missiles pointing at them. Then you see there is the huge factor of having a large amount of Kurds in Europe which will throw us in head first and of course Mr.Bush'll get involved and if he threatens N.Korea at the same time they will most likely cause a huge problem which will have South Korea, China and Japan involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Saddam should be tried. He should not be tortured. Although he tortured many people, he is still a human being and deserves to die by lethal injection or some other way like that...NOT torture. If you believe he should have a trial, why are you saying he should the be executed? To say he should be exectuted makes him automatically guilty. It's the purpose of a trial to find him innocent or guilty! Because chances are he'll be proven guilty, look at all the evidence he taped and stuff. You are so right AnimalKidd, there are millions of pages of documents detailing Saddam Husseins crimes against humanity. He has murdered so many people, that he is one of the worst dictators in history. OK, I too think he will be found guilty, but we have to hear the evidence first and the only ones that can make the judgement are those who listen to the whole case in whatever court Saddam ends up in. As it stands at the moment, those documents are allegations only, so therefore it can only be alledged that 'He has murdered so many people, that he is one of the worst dictators in history.' Did Suddam actually give reasons for gassing the Kurds? You see the Iraqi Kurds have been notorious for trying to get the four main countries they live in (Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran) to destroy each other so the Kurds can make a new Kurdish Kingdom. Unfortunatly if those four did try to annihaliate each other then the whole of middle east would end up being the battleground for WWW III. You see if Iraq gets involved then they will get some other countries angered and it will go on until Russia has a large amount of angry Ex-Soviet Union countries pointing their hidden reserves of missiles pointing at them. Then you see there is the huge factor of having a large amount of Kurds in Europe which will throw us in head first and of course Mr.Bush'll get involved and if he threatens N.Korea at the same time they will most likely cause a huge problem which will have South Korea, China and Japan involved. There is a territorial problem with the Kurds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 15, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 More about the abortion case: One of my best friends is adopted from Ireland. She doesn't know why her mother gave her up. She isn't shy when it comes to being adopted, which I think is pretty cool. I asked her if she ever wanted to meet her birth mother, and she said that she hated her birth mother's guts. :sleepy: About Saddam: Seomeone on some show last night said that they estimated that he killed about 2 million people, and if less than that, then only by about a hundred. That's a lot of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solrai117 Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 I think you should be able to decide about abortion. Abortion is a very emotional time for both the mother and the father. There have been several cases where after the abortion, the father was felling so guilty, he shot himself in his car. If you were raped and had the baby, yet gave it up for adoption, then there's more emotional damage. You decide to bring the baby into this world, which is a very hard decision. Then you give it up for adoption, meaning you don't want it. When the child grows up, he will want to know why his real mom didn't love him enough to keep him, which creates serious emotional damage. So in a way, having the child only increases the emotional damage. :sleepy: People should have the right to chose what is best for them and their children, meaning the unborn child. Parents are supposed to do what is best for the child. So bringing a baby into the world with, like Sheena said, no brain or something, that wouldn't be the best thing for the baby because it would go through immense pain. My 20 minutes is up, so all I want to say is that I believe that abortion is terrible, but it can be used for good. here is one place i don't agree with you at all. this hits VERY close to home for me. i admit, there are some cases when abortion is unaviodable, like in a tubliar pregnance(the baby stays in the fliopian tube and the mother and the baby will both die). but my question for you is have you ever really been around an adoption? not do you know someone who is adopted. have you ever had someone close to you who has been adopted, put a baby up for adoption, or adopted a baby. my sister had to put her baby up for adoption.(trust me, it is HARD for everyone involved, but we know it was best) i know MANY people very close to me who have adopted. i even know a person who was adopted who has changed peoples opinions of abortion, that it should be avioded at all costs. if you call the unborn baby a child, does it not have rights just like you or me? i am a democrat, but this is one place i can't agree with their standings. i can't see how the murder(and thats what it is) or an innocent child can be justified unless there is outstanding reason. I agree there has to be an outstanding reason, to me there are three outsatnding reasons, ie the ones I gave before: 1 Death to the mother if the pregnancy continues (you seem to agree with this, eg filopian tube pregnancy). 2 Sever disability of the unborn child. 3 Pregnancy through ####. I do know someone who was adopted. He is an adult and has never shown any interest in his birth parents. In fact when I asked him about this, he seemded very sharp with his answer, as if he resented her. Now here is another angle on this. What about where a woman is pregnant with triplets, quads etc. How do you all feel about selective termination, ie aborting one or more of the feotuses to give the tremaining ones a better chance of survival :penguin ??? :penguin ? there i really don't know, i think that she needs to pray about it. and if you everend up talking to that person about adoption, please to explain that it is a VERY difficult desision for everyone involved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solrai117 Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 More about the abortion case:One of my best friends is adopted from Ireland. She doesn't know why her mother gave her up. She isn't shy when it comes to being adopted, which I think is pretty cool. I asked her if she ever wanted to meet her birth mother, and she said that she hated her birth mother's guts. :sleepy: About Saddam: Seomeone on some show last night said that they estimated that he killed about 2 million people, and if less than that, then only by about a hundred. That's a lot of people. i guess it is just different for me(although i still think that abortion is absolutely discusting) because i am on the other side and i have seen both sides. i can see where that resentment could come from, but not how one would rather the birth mother had had an abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 About Saddam:Seomeone on some show last night said that they estimated that he killed about 2 million people, and if less than that, then only by about a hundred. That's a lot of people. It is so very, very sad how many people were killed under the regime of Saddam Hussein. As the documents are presented, we will hear just how awful things were in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 16, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 One of my best friends is adopted from Ireland. She doesn't know why her mother gave her up. She isn't shy when it comes to being adopted, which I think is pretty cool. I asked her if she ever wanted to meet her birth mother, and she said that she hated her birth mother's guts. :sleepy: Is your friend from Southern Ireland (Eire)? If she is please tell your friend that Eire is a strict Catholic country. If her mother was unmarried at the time of the pregnancey, she may have been forced into the adoption to save face for the rest of the family. Even in Northern Ireland there are many strict Catholics (hence the troubles there), so even if you friend is from the North, her mother may still have been forced to give up the child. It's a sad state of affairs that today the practice of forcing an unmarried mother to give up the baby still continues in some places :penguin :sleepy: :penguin . I'm not sure if she knows, actually. But I'll ask her. Also, another one of my best friends has someone related to Ireland, her boyfriend of a year (pretty impressive) is from Ireland. And I'm like, 1/16th Irish...LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 One of my best friends is adopted from Ireland. She doesn't know why her mother gave her up. She isn't shy when it comes to being adopted, which I think is pretty cool. I asked her if she ever wanted to meet her birth mother, and she said that she hated her birth mother's guts. :sleepy: Is your friend from Southern Ireland (Eire)? If she is please tell your friend that Eire is a strict Catholic country. If her mother was unmarried at the time of the pregnancey, she may have been forced into the adoption to save face for the rest of the family. Even in Northern Ireland there are many strict Catholics (hence the troubles there), so even if you friend is from the North, her mother may still have been forced to give up the child. It's a sad state of affairs that today the practice of forcing an unmarried mother to give up the baby still continues in some places. I'm not sure if she knows, actually. But I'll ask her. Also, another one of my best friends has someone related to Ireland, her boyfriend of a year (pretty impressive) is from Ireland. And I'm like, 1/16th Irish...LOL. Keeping a boyfriend for a year at your age is pretty impressive! Do ask your friend. Even if she doesn't know whether she is from the North or the South, please tell her what I said, it may help her deal with her hurt and anger. My boyfriend has applied for his Irish citizenship. He is one-half Irish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalKidd Posted December 16, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Yeah, impressive! I'll ask her today, maybe she'll tell me. But maybe she doesn't know...oh well, I'll ask her this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NosferatuHamHam Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Sorry I am a little late on coming to this topic. But AnimalKidd, I totally agree with you. Bush is screwed up in the head I believe. And about the pledge of alligance, it can't be performed without our all so mighty flag *sarcasism*. "I pledge alligance(spelling might be wrong, sorry) to the FLAG of the United States of America". Who in the right sane mind would want to say the pledge which seems like an oath every blooming day to a flag??!?! Our country has become insane with patriotism. I myself and most of my peers at my school do not say the pledge, though I do not know if they do not do it for the same reason. "We" the united states think we control all and are God. No offense to those non-christians about what I am going to say...... 9-11, The 2 WTCT (World Trade Towers), they were the highest building in the world. Hence they were in the u.s. saying we are higher than even God himself. I think God saw that and let Satan or Lucifer or whatever you may call him destroy the towers to say that we still can be defeated by even the smallest of enemies. That's all I can think of today. Till my next rant, adios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Sorry I am a little late on coming to this topic. That's all I can think of today. Till my next rant, adios. Oh Nosferatuhamham, I can see that you are feeling better! We are looking forward to your next rant! Then we will know for sure that you are all over your illness! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.