Anonymouse

Here are some good ones Voritsat hota galis - You smell like the gods. Vonts vor dzi lines - Your remind me of angels. Demqat kapiki vori pes eh - You have a beautiful face. Karogh em glkhit toprak dnem? - Can I have this dance? Shat pzukner unes - You have beautiful skin.

Thankfully, I have never proceeded with this assumption. The rest of your post I agree. People bring life into this world, they better dish it out. Divorce is a selfish thing the minute you create life that is dependent on you. It's just institutionally it has become so easier and this notion that we 'deserve' to be happy makes people think "Well, what if they are not happy do you really want them to stay?" YES! They brought a damn kid into this world, as far as I am concerned, they don't deserve my sympathy regarding happiness. Just what determines that we 'deserve' to be happy any more or any less than we 'deserve' to be miserable? Who makes these stupid value judgments and sets these abstract barometers?

Get in line buddy.

So in your example, if the people were married because of an arranged marriage, I would say they would have no excuse to have chosen such partners, but in a free choice world, my question would be, why did women choose to be with such men to begin with? I cannot blame those men any more than I blame those women who choose them, and then they turn around and talk about how much of a creep he is, or what not. Those choices you listed are pretty much grounds for divorce, but most people divorce or separate for many other stupid reasons. And besides, if I were a chick I'd never make that choice anyway because most of these women who choose these "jerks" have what I have railed against for ages, this notion of changing the guy or thinking he will change for them or what have you because they believe their vagina is a magical vagina that this guy will surely change all his life for! Oh brother. And when you give people choice, they choose the worst of the worst and complain about it. When you arrange a marriage, they end up with someone good and solid and they complain about it.

I think it does have everything to do with it, regardless of what people use to justify arranged marriages. By insinuating these people don't get a divorce because they have no spine or will take anything, you are implying that they are biting their tongue and taking it therefore having a lower divorce rate, whereas people who chose to get married, have more of a backbone and therefore know when to say "Enough" and thereby get a divorce. You brought this up, not me. I am merely taking what you stated to its logical implication.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwDrixCx-zg...feature=related

I love this. America got more trouble than they bargained for with their Turkish alliance. I hope this really comes back to bite them in the ass.

Wow, the little guy is so vain and into himself he cannot even take constructive criticism. Anytime you come online to declare your worth to the world, you must be prepared to dish out the naysayers and those assholes, who like me, will give you a hard time. My guess is when he walks into a funeral or a viewing and sees the open casket and the body in there all made up and prepared wonderfully by the mortician, at the center and helm of attention, he gets jealous he is not the corpse. So long pretty boy. And while you're at it, change your Netflix queue for once and add on some movies other than What Women Want. P.S. I have a feeling we hadn't seen the last of gdavidyan. Who knows...

Maybe you forget that to even have any successful relations, whether friendship or marriage, involves biting your tongue more often than letting it loose on the other side. After all, most of our loving relations (be they with friends, parents, etc.) are not for their perfections, but their faults. If people viewed even friendship, nevermind marriage, as an endeavor in picking the faults we are most comfortable with and willing to tolerate, then it wouldn't seem that bad. But people are full of shyt, thinking in abstractions all the damn time. Of course, someone will think they are so intelligent and point out, "but what if they are just soooo faulty," well, this is where I say differences are in degrees, not in kinds. The logical implication of what you seem to prescribe based on the notion of being afraid to do anything about it is a throw away society that breaks down at the slightest sight of disagreeable behavior or behavior contrary to our supposed lofty goals and ideals.

Both.

If it involves me, better spill your beans sister.

Translation: Hey everyone, look at me, I am such an intelligent, sensitive, in-tune-with-my-feelings sort of dreamy Armenian guy (and good lookin' too!) and I write this in the hopes of getting women to notice me and how different I am! I hope many women read this and notice that there are still good (and good lookin') Armenian guys out there! Please notice me! Please affirm me!

Wow, you're making me feel so damn inadequate. This is the part where I remind you of Narcissus. See, Narcissus stood out for his beauty. However, he was so in love with his reflection he could see nothing beyond himself. You smack of the same naivety that was seen in gdavidyan who wanted advice on how to marry his cousin in Armenia. Wow, such wisdom! Hey, wait a minute! I'm...I'm getting...I'm getting deja vu here...Or is it vuja de...I swear I could remember this storyline when I saw Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt in What Women Want. You sure you haven't watched that movie? You know, if I were a woman, I couldn't help but be charmed by such poetic expressions! You surely put the love poetry of Pablo Neruda in second place!

Good. Ukraine's sovereignty is not going to be trampled upon. Seriously folks, I have one question. Why does NATO still continue to exist? Wasn't its sole purpose to combat the Iron Curtain? And now that the Iron Curtain is no more, why does it exist?! I would venture to say as nothing more than the imperial arm of the biggest empire.

If I had to guess I'd say you either did a cut and paste job, or most of what you responded with was someone elses response since your level of knowledge on this topic seemed less than impressive before, but nonetheless, let's extrapolate what you say. This isn't about idealisms. Your assertion that Paul's views border on "idealistic" and "impractical" is both unfounded and untrue, as much of this country did indeed adhere to these policies at one time or another. Since you don't know Paul's platform, let me enlighten you. You cite nice statistics, and all which favor my point of view. You then state that "I just don't like them." In other words you support the status quo. The status quo being that America is stretched thin, militarily and economically. And, if you know any inkling of history, all empires end with massive debts and collapse because they reach a point of exhaustion where they can no longer fund their extravagant ways of empire. Since Paul knows he cannot just erode the Federal Reserve assuming he is elected (which won't happen), he advocates auditing the meetings of the Fed, since they have always operated in a veil of secrecy. Second, why does the government need to "spend a lot"? That makes no sense for a government that has the largest national debt in history and a looming trade deficit and a dollar that is continuously losing its luster. What you are prescribing is national suicide. Third, why maintain troops in all these places? Not only does it cost is billions, but it fuels anti-Americanism. If you know anything about what the CIA calls Blowback, you would understand. But since you don't, your positions are without merit. "His [bin Laden] rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources -- Islam, history, and the region's political and economic malaise. He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War..." -- 9/11 Commission Report, pages 48-49 "There are a lot of things that are different now [after the invasion of Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed -- but it's huge -- is that by complete mutual agreement between the US and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so- called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things." -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair, May 2003 "One of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to believe -- at the urging of senior U.S. leaders -- that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do. The Islamic world is not so offended by our democratic system of politics, guarantees of personal rights and civil liberties, and separation of church and state that it is willing to wage war against overwhelming odds in order to stop Americans from voting, speaking freely, and praying, or not, as they wish." -- Michael Scheuer, Imperial Hubris, page 8 "The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001 did not 'attack America,' as political leaders and news media in the United States have tried to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders, whose innocence is, of course, no different from that of the civilians killed by American bombs in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere." -- Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page XV "The term 'blowback,' which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, is starting to circulate among students of international relations. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of 'terrorists' or 'drug lords' or 'rogue states' or 'illegal arms merchants' often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations." -- Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page 8 Nice job of ignoring how the Army continuously recycles troops shifts. Some of the troops are serving in their 5th tour. And why, might you ask, does Ron Paul, of all candidates have the highest campaign donations from active troops! Surely there must be a reason! The dollar is crashing. If you understood anything about economics (which you do not) you would understand this. You are clearly ignorant. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the dollar’s purchasing power has depreciated by over 94% (go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ web site www.bls.gov and you can observe this by using this site’s inflation calculator). The U.S. government was not given vast amounts of power. If you read the Constitution, those powers which are not delegated to the central government, are vested in the states. Prior to the Civil War, it was understood that the states had the right to secede at any time, and the Civil War was largely the birth of this idea of the modern nation, a "federal nation," if you will. Ron Paul is the only candidate that advocates change. All the other candidates support the status quo and the continuing bankruptcy of this nation. A couple of points. First, there have always been "panic runs" as that is the inevitable nature of free markets. Usually, these jolts in the market are minor and the market operates on a self-correcting cycle or mechanism. Second, most of these "panics" have been artificially created to justify the creation of a central bank. For example, in the 1820s and 1930s, there were efforts to establish a central bank, but this was circumvented by then Andrew Jackson because in 1832 Jackson did not renew the charter for the Bank of the United States. This was largely because the panic of 1819 was created because of the Bank of the United States, ancestor of the Federal Reserve. In 1907, there was a panic created by none other than J.P. Morgan, one of the chief architects of the Federal Reserve system, who had plotted this out in Jekyll Island along with other corporate-business interests. Because of this panic, they created a dialectic. Created a problem (thesis), got a reaction (antithesis), and offered a solution (synthesis). So you support coercion? An amendment being there does not make it right if a study of it reveals that it was never fully ratified. Moreover, a study of this country's history, along with actually reading the Constitution and the Federalist papers would enlighten one as to why the framers did not want an income tax. The only reason for its existence is to fuel an empire that is going to fall anyway that was establish with the Federal Reserve. And this is why the Constitution has been eroded by men in robes. The framers intended the power to create laws in the legislature, not the judicial branch. Yet it seems there has been a perversion of this where the judges have historically substituted their own views and passions and politics instead of the law, and hence we have the bastard child known as "Constitutional law", which is nothing relating to the Constitution, just a bunch of case law with sociological and political underpinnings. As much as possible if you want to prevent further destabilization of this country. Ron Paul has never advocated isolationism. He has always advocated strong national defense and diplomacy, and to go to war only when necessary such as self-defense (the Just War theory of Christianity, and what the framers intended). And if you want to increase production, Paul would suggest repealing stupid regulations and taxing corporations because these are what create the atmosphere for outsourcing as it is far cheaper to transport your company to China or India than to remain here. And all things like minimum wage, child labor laws, taxation, all the regulations in the Federal Registry, all contribute to this phenomenon and people wonder why companies move. Instead of enlightening themselves on the economics, they instead increase the size of government, vote for socialists (Republicans and Democrats) that only increase the size of government, and believe that you can legislate all this bad stuff away by passin more laws ("there oughta be a law"). As far as being cool, I'm very cool, it's just this level of ignorance is always disheartening.

How prescient this little gem of an article is. And to think I read this in 2005, and now we are in 2008. Has much changed? Nope. Have things been going as predicted? Yup. Woe is us.

The last Jehovah's witness I remember stood wide eyed in front of my doorstep as I shut the door in their face. Simply superlative. Truly an empowering moment.

Too bad we can't try vampires, since they'd probably suck more dirty blood than leeches.

Hello my newbie friend. I suggest you read the entire thread to see what a laffing stock this gdavidyan fellow is.

This is why democracy is such a bad thing.

If you know anything about Ron Paul (I recommend you research about the guy), he has never voted for a tax increase. He is not just "any politician" saying that. He openly criticizes the IRS and seeks its abolition, on grounds that it is unconstitutional, as is the Federal Reserve. If you want to cut the national debt, Paul would suggest that we stop being an empire and bring all our troops home from all bases around the world. By spending trillions on foreign policy we are bankrupting ourselves, and being financed by China and Japan. Furthermore, by cutting needless spending domestically such as the unconstitutional bureaucracy called the Department of Education, we can also save money. Do you realize what you are saying? An already unconstitutional war (not declared by Congress) that is bankrupting this country (the dollar is crashing and we are entering a recession), a war based on lies and false premises and to enforce UN resolutions, and you still advocate 'staying there'? Are you going to fight and die there? What about the thousands of innocent people that have died? What about the debt that is being carried by people like myself and generations after us? Making ignorant assertions is not a right when such things are stake. Saddam was no threat to America and there was no link with Al Qaeda or 9-11. Now there is Al Qaeda in Iraq when there previously was none. The image of America has already been distorted since America chose to engage in the neo-conservative foreign policy of 'pre-emptive' wars. All America is doing now is nation-building and trying to save face from a blunder and quagmire that is draining this country economically. You clearly have not analyzed or studied this to be stating that we should stay there because of what others might think. The longer America stays the harder the empire is going to fall. Who cares? This country operated just fine with a limited government for over hundred years, and prior to the establishment of the IRS and Federal Reserve. What you believe has no bearing. If it is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. But eh, like you, many don't even know the history or the precedents of the underpinnings and laws and so they just vote in the mass minded charade called 'democracy' and consistently increase the size of government, and erode what this country was premised on - federalism. Illegal immigrants are one of the largest drains and strains on the economy. Despite all the hoopla you may here about cheap labor, part of the cause is because of labor laws themselves. By having a minimum wage, the government not only creates unemployment because you cannot work below the minimum wage and all those citizens who are willing to work may not do so, but it also creates the incentive for illegals to fill the void since citizens here cannot work for below minimum wage standards as that is illegal. Here is a thought experiment for you to ponder: Because of the Federal Reserve's cheap and easy credit policies in the 90s under Greenspan, the new credit drove up price of real estate to insane levels, and with it drove up the wages of construction workers to absurd levels (especially here in Southern California), and dramatically increased the number of people working in the building industries. It also increased illegal immigration, as Mexican laborers found it profitable to risk crossing the border to earn artificially high wages from those who couldn’t find enough workers to keep pace with the demand for their building services. This is just but one example of the Federal Reserve artificially disrupting the market, spurring an artificial boom (much like the dot.com boom) and creating an artificial demand and investment (a misallocation of resources and malinvestment). The illegal immigrants are given further incentives to come here via the welfare state and the increasing strain on our healthcare and emergency rooms. Furthermore, they come here and increase crime as most of the well-off Mexicans have no reason to come here and the ones that do come here are the lowest elements of Mexican society, the poor, uneducated, uncultured elements. I have but one thing to point out. Those countries that banned the right of citizens to bear arms have been some of the most tyrannical and oppressive regimes the world has ever seen (think of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and woah would you look at that, the Young Turks). As the ole saying goes, an armed society is a polite society. Anyone who believes in the 'benevolent' government is their protector is deluded. And besides, follow precedent and what is outlined in the Constitution. Your misunderstanding of economics is in line with the majority of Americans because before 1913 America got along just fine without fiat currency. A central bank and fiat currency are one of the planks of communism, not a free society. The power to create money out of thin air is what causes inflation and boom and bust cycles. It is what allows countries to fund their empires and nation building and wars. Every extra dollar printed dilutes the value of existing dollars in circulation. Those who worked hard, paid their taxes, and saved some money for a rainy day are hit the hardest. Their dollars depreciate in value while earning interest that is kept artificially low by the Federal Reserve easy-credit policy. The poor and those dependent on fixed incomes can't keep up with the rising cost of living due to the inflationary pressures. And besides, this is unconstitutional. But then again, the average person's knowledge in America regarding the Constitution, much less economics, is on par with the average babiy's knowledge of why the sun sets in the west. Until you understand how the unrestrained supply of money works to undermine a currency's value, you won't understand this issue. Ever since 1913 (the adoption of the Federal Reserve) the dollar has lost its value gradually. There is a reason for this. All empires (and America is no exception) when they cannot finance their empire building with an asset backed currency (because it keeps it in check) resort to fiat currency. Of course the government can operate. How do you think the government operated pre-1913? The only reason for an income tax is to maintain an empire. Besides, the 16th amendment was never fully ratified despite the courts 'ruling' otherwise. What you think has no bearing. Paul's position is in line with federalism and the erroneous decision of Roe v. Wade. Paul is not so much against abortion, as he is for states defining their own laws pertaining to abortion. Currently abortion is legal under the decision of Roe v. Wade. That's what liberals want. Conservatives would have an amendment banning that or overturning it. It's either an all-or-nothing deal. But neither position is in keeping with the concept of federalism. As much as you don't like it, abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by that court. Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid. By curtailing spending. And besides, how did America do it prior to the income tax? Get over it. That is because you, like most people, have no working knowledge of economics, American history, and economic history. Unfortunately, this is the rule these days.

You're not saying you'd vote for her simply because she's a woman, and not because of her merits (or lack of in this case) are you?

Schubert - Serenade

He would more aptly be described as a Constitutionalist, since many of his views are not libertarian at all, at least not in the modern sense of the term. In fact, Ron Paul is practically the modern version of Thomas Jefferson in his views. Why? She is arguably the worst candidate out of all of them. Economically, she is ignorant. Politically, she has no experience and she is no Margaret Thatcher. And besides, she looks like she has elephantiasis on her face.