THOTH

Yes Domino you encouraged him - directly - now he has more of an excuse to waste space. Gay people are prohibited from recognition of thir unions - which are same sex - not opposite sex. These unions are fact - and some corporations recognize...and eventually so will the US - trust me. Gats are a loby group that is growing in power. You might not consider them a minority - but they do...and your opinion doesn't matter much really...

no they don't. There are I don't know thousands and thousands of gay couplesin the US right now - and I know several myself - and they are partners as much as any husband and wife...life partners...and they are denied all the legal benefits of such....this is descrimination IMO - and they are a minority (Ok perhasp not in the strict sense of the word) - but enough - mucvh as religious groups who believe a ceerttain way - orpractive vcertain things differnt from the majority are. But guess what - given equal treatment as anyone else and they will be minorites no longer...

Look Angel - when I see 2 guys kissing - it still gives me the heebie geebies...and I used to see it all the time (when I lived in Hollywood)...but that doesn't mean that they - as life partners/couples should nto be entitled to the same benefits - all of them - as straight couples - and no one - particualrly not Domino - who has been way week on this one - has presnted any real argument to counter this contention.

Wow thats sad - he was way cool and had lots of heart & soul...and great tunes...

I think you'd do yourself better worrying about yourself.

Domino - I supose you don't recognize religious minorities either....why - they are just like everyone else - just one thing different - they worship differently...So do religious minorities exist? What doe sit take to be considered a minority? Would not specific descrimination - that those who feel that you are not like them - consider you different - does that not make for a minority? Oh and pout pout - poor Domino - now he won't read what I post...I am just so beneath him...yes Domino - you are the expert on all things know...well I may just understand a few things you know...yeah - a few...

yeah - you got everything right of course - go figure...

Well you know what a great impact your statement has considering how much I value your opinions. We do agree on TV though - I'm not sure I could name a single show thats on TV now...really not a one...(besides like Letterman and Tonight show, Saturday night live etc - not that I watch these either - I don't)...the only show I might watch now (on a rare occasion...I've seen in 3-4 times is Curb Your Enthusiasm with Larry David - now thats a funny show)...other then that - some sports - Tennis & American Football..oh and World Championship poker... But yeah - keep up the good work - stunning arguments you present...your usual of course...

No I disagree. Beacuse of how our society is structured and the pre-eminence of the married social unit in nearly all things it is discrimination to not allow the same recognition and benefits to same sex couples - anything less is a seperate but not equal status. you say you are nto agawinst gays living together like married couples - well then why the need for a legal marraige recognized by the state - what purpose does this serve- is it just window dressing? No - it means something - legally and economically. Thes couples have no ability for joint proerty ownership, to legally handle each others affairs, to have joint accounts or what have you (and much more) - not to mention being able to recieve survivor income benefits. If these are life partners they deserve to have all of this like anyone else...it is a RIGHT! (in more ways then one...)

Yeah some solution - a gay man marrying a women to get the benefits of marraige. Well I'm sorry that you are bitter that you could not win this debate Domino. (and yes - i have no apolgies for steadfastly holding the position I do - as I am confident that it is the right one - and it is all about rights - clearly) I brought my counter arguments and all you could fall back on was "marriage is between a man and a women" and that "its not about rights" - well I emphatically disagree. I spoke about what marraige is - creation of a legal family unit that also results in kin bonds and provides a legal means for property ownership and inheritance and such and I also addressed the issue of adoption/parenting correctly pointing out that there are other parenting suitability issues that are at least as much of a concern - and these are all serious legitimate arguments and I presented them well - and all you can come back with is a bunch of whinning. You talk about what is natural and how (increasing) homosexuality will lead to the end of us etc etc -- (and I still contend that overpopulation is a greater threat - which you never responded to - etc). No - you have no basis to disparege my arguments in this thread - face it - your the one with issue of not being able to debate the substance of this matter and back up your pre-concieved positions. In this thread and earlier - in the dicussion of gay adoption - I have providfed links and information to back up my points - and all you have done is speculate that gay parents are bad for the children (without any support for this notion) - just saying that it will create more gays etc etc - then go on about lowereed sperm counts...pleeeeaaase....

--“Thoth, I wonder what is the purposes of my quotes in your answers when your answers don’t even address the issues brought by my quotes.” Well I feel the same way about your answers – I am addressing the issue and you are going off on abstractions – definition of nature vs Science, threat to our survival etc…irrelevant because these things really have nothing to do with the issue. We are social creatures and society is something that develops because of technology and our cultural evolution (spurred by technological advancement)…and it is very difficult to truly say what is “natural” anyway… …oh well --“What you are telling in your first paragraph is trash.” I beg to differ…and I think that because you cannot argue my points you are just trying to sling mud. --“You are questioning the “maness” or “womaness” etc… this is stupid and only further makes your claims more ridiculous. First it does not matter at all that there are some man that are man even when they are XX… what matters is that most of the time there is a selective pair of gene that makes the difference. In the cases of ”races” your argument would be true, but not in this cases, because it is not only a differences that could be explained by the way people adapted in different environment, but rather a similarity shared by every mammals… As for your claim that people could change sex with the advancement of genetic science. Sorry Thoth, but this is pure ignorance of genetic from your part. In order to change and really become a man for a woman, or a woman for a man… each cells in the body must be changed, a chromosome must be replaced in every cell… if you fail to do that, it is cancer… because the non changed cells, or the cells that replace it will multiply as different cells and will be cancerous cells. There is no such technology for the near future, and even a distant one… that could permit us to replace each and single cells in the body… Why not stick to what the world is Thoth, rather than what it might be in a millions of years from now?” The future is now… http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil...th_gaym_sex.htm (repost BTW…but my issue is valid…) --“Now, let bring the subject of the survival of the specie… I never directly proposed being a homosexual is against the survival of the specie, neither their sex union… you see yet again you do the same thing by answering to points which I have never made.” Sorry but you most certainly did… --“What I insinuated was that an increases of the homosexual population would be a threat for our survival… this was one of the main points I brought when I referred to the institutionalisation of homosexuality. This means, an increase of world homosexual population, by way of environmental conditioning that will be imposed upon the adopted child is one more danger for the survival of our specie… Something that could very easily be prevented if we conduct real researches, meta-analysis’s and a multi center studies across the world, and that we do actually measure important parameters and real differences, rather than conducting the studies to “prove” there is no difference. If we do not take responsibilities now, we might pay in the future, and this has nothing to do with discrimination. Who knows maybe in those studies we might discover that some way of homosexual parenting is better than others and that it would be beneficial to the devloppement of the child, and will not alter his/her sexual devloppement.” You have made no case for the homosexual population increasing. And again – I’m more worried about alcoholic parents and/or parents with loaded guns in the house…any gay parent who adopts is very thoroughly vetted…I know because a bi-sexual (female) friend of mine is going through this process right now… --“Technological advancement vs Natural limits, I believe this was an important point which it seems you did not understand. You are mixing technology with nature Thoth… all your examples with us not living in trees etc… were technological achievements, while there are natural limits.” No you are failing to understand my point. When you say gay marriage is not natural and imply things should be as they always were I’m saying that we as a species have always changed and adapted – and marriage is a cultural thing – not a “natural” thing besides… … --“The rest of your post Thoth, I can not follow it, I really fail to see what it has to do with what we are discussing about. Here I will just copy past some of them.” Because as smart as you are Domino you are divorced from the reality of things… --“Speculation. There are many studies that have examined the role of homosexuals in various societies. It is clear that they have served useful roles (often performing tasks not normally associated with their gender – with their homosexuality being an out from being too macho or feminine or what have you. I refer you to studies done among the Norsemen/Vikings where homosexual men performed very defined and valuable roles apart from the usual male roles performed by the majority of men – and it was their homosexuality that allowed them to do these things and not have to live to the expectations of other men. Many American Indian societies had similar. And its just fact that homosexual individuals and homosexual behaviors have existed among us throughout our history..and these behaviors etc can be seen in animal populations as well.” And the point?” You have insinuated that homosexuality is not natural and that somehow the presence of homosexuals in society will lead to our downfall (if they are allowed to adopt for instance)… --“Yes I think we should not allow unions between races – it offends me (not really – in fact I’m all for it – just my example here) – discrimination is discrimination – its no ones business right – yet we deny those who wish a union all the benefits of such and do not legally recognize it. We have no right to deny this IMO. ” THOTH STOP WITH THIS GAME!!! ARE YOU A BONE HEAD OR WHAT??????” Now now that’s name calling! I’ve made my points – and marriage is a social institution that involves creation of a family unit in the eyes of the community (and most importantly legally) – and this is a foundation of our economic structure as well – where married couples are seen as one unit with regard to property (legal) rights and such - this is a fundamental point that you ignore… --“Where have I said anything about nothing permitting homosexuals to unite? If you don’t have arguments, just DON’T ANSWER!!!” Temper! …you are denying them the ability to marry and be considered one – a fundamental right…as explained above and before --“Then…. . How many times I have to tell you that the point here is about marriage, what marriage is. What it is? The union between a man and a woman… that it has been invented by man or not, DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCES!!! Why this word was used, and for what???? Simple as that… your comparison with the union between different ethnic groups(race being nonexistent) can not be compared here… they can be married because it will still be the union between a man and a woman… and here again, the word marriage is independent from rights or privileges.” Wrong – your concept of marriage is incorrect – yet you persist blindly. Look just because you tell me it is so – it is not so. I have discussed what marriage means – you only fall back on yoru tried and true – which is discredited/insufficient…so please stop calling me bonehead – when your responses speak to such. --“Again – I have concern that children from interracial marriages will be more likely to marry interracially – and we can’t allow this can we? Etc etc There are so many factors – and you are isolating on one thing. Should we take kids away from single parents because of the fear that not having a father or mother will harm them somehow? This is the same argument that you are making. Your argument is basically a non-issue – we cannot isolate and regulate all the various potentially negative factors and start disallowing these circumstances – and what you (and others) are doing is applying this narrow focus on the fact that the couple has a different sexual orientation – so what? Wouldn’t you think people (such as many men) who have a propensity for violence – who tend to neglect their offspring at higher rates etc etc – shoulldn’t perhaps men be prohibited form being parents? (especially now when its so easy for a women to do it all herself…with sperm donation and eventually [soon] just with cloning etc…)???. ” Obviously, you have nothing new to say, you still keep comparing with things that can not be compared. And you still bring the interracial thing again… The rest is just sophistry… and will fall itself.. you use the argument of “two wrong make it right.” Which is not true… I don’t think I have even to answer, since I answered more than once to the stupid argument which you repeated ad nauseam. Ah and the cloning? Not so soon, it would be stupid to act now and wish that some day in the future we might find a way an alternative for the s.t we do today. Disagree – they very much can be compared. Many of the same arguments made against interracial marriage are now resurfacing in this case…and my points of other issues – besides ones sexual orientation – as being factors against parenting etc – are I think – entirely valid. And again – the future is now…or will soon be…shame you won’t be able to handle it – as you are incapable of thinking outside the box (when it comes to social issues) --““What is important for parenting is love, nurturing, caring, support – instilling of values etc etc – can you really say that homosexuals are incapable of this or less capable? Couldn’t we look at other behaviors and such within elements of the population and isolate on those and say – no these people can’t be parents because there is clearly a chance that they will harm the child and affect their upbringing? Maybe poor people shouldn’t be allowed to have children – I mean look at all the damage being poor does to kids – etc etc” Energiser bunny, kip going, kip going etc… repeating something I have answer over and over and over again… “ OK you have no answer – this is obvious… --“Your projections are invalid and less people much less threaten our species survival then more. We need already have too many people on the planet – think of the Chinese industrializing and becoming big time consumers – think of the pollution – the waste….and you are concerned about homosexuals adopting? Give it a break – worry about important things and those things that really are a clear threat to our survival (like religion – I think it should be banned – I mean look at the damage it has done…and religious parents – they will instill kids with bigotry and hate and all sorts of nasty complexes [fear of going to hell – etc] …. ” OK you have no answer – this is obvious… --Oh yeg! Why doing anything for the greenhouse effect? After it is a slight change of temperature? What an irresponsible you are Thoth… a generation only lives for a century… How do you know I am doing nothing? I have been very involved in anti-pollution efforts (profesionally even) – and how do you know I am not doing something to directly combat global warming…don’t think you know and don’t say when you don’t know.. --“and yet the spermatozoid concentration as we speak is 50%(in westernised countries) of what it should be…” Mine is fine…lol…no worries… --“ so the effects we are talking about are threats of the Westernised countries not really others… you know what? It might be great, because maybe it is natures way to impose natural selection on the arrogant westerners we are… so we might just disappear, and no more materialistic Thoth kind of person minimising everything and refusing to take any responsibilities.” Again you impugn me – I have more responsibilities then you can dream of sir---I have two children for one… --“Still we have entirely changed the topic… you have brought me somewhere else… again and again… still something remain, what marriage is? The union between a man and a woman… nothing to do with rights. “ LOL – it is you who are energizer bunny – “marriage is between man and women” – wrong – and denying that it is an issue of rights when it clearly is..again – just because you say it doesn’t make it so…

No AP - I have no idea of what you are talking about...and I have never said my family life was "disgruntled" or such...nor have I ever felt alienated...not with my family..and not with other Hyes...I found no negatives relating to inter-marriage in my family...in fact I don't even consider it inter-marriage per se. I am somewhat regretful not having learned Armenian however...but thats just the way it was... People have the right to choose - fully - how they will live. You obviously don't understand that folks make choices for themselves and their families - to survive - to prosper - and this is how it always has been. Yes Armenain traditional culture is changing (if one can say such a thing - as nothing is static) and - like all traditional cultures in the world today - is under fire from the dominant Western culture...but I do not think that the Diaspora is the place to pitch the battle...Armenians from Armenia must decide to what degree they will cling to or continue with their culture... Oh yeah and - Damn Mudbloods! Don't you agree Malfoy?

Why does love need to be taught?

But Anoushik - God has his ways - his intentions - which are beyond our understanding - thus who are we to judge right? (I think most Christians are with me so far)....but how do we know that he is not Loki? or Syrdon? http://www.canada-osetia.net/iryston/saga.html

Gevo - well I too have read the Bible - old & new - incl the Apocrypha...and other religious texts of course..(though not in their entirety)....So Gevo I have two questions - If all answers are to be found in the Bible - is there any reason to read/study anything else? (and how does your physics teacher feel about that? - etc)...and if you haven't read all of the Old Testament aren't you afraid you might be missing something important? ..something truly revelational - as it were...

Sasun - while I respect your belief in the idealized version of things - I must say I find your views to be perhaps even more divorced from reality then Domino's... Religions are by nature tolerant???????? In what universe of the many in Domino's multiverse are you refering to? And while you are correct - the staement attributed to Christ to love ones enemy seems to imply a sort of tolerance (though its not exactly the same thing...the statement/commandment to "have no enemies" might be more directly applicable in this case....but what I find is that few Christians seem to abide by this particualr tenant - and there seems to be plenty of other verses that give one leeway to smite God's enemies and to view those who believe otherwise as lesser...and the mark of a particualr religion should be the behavior and beliefs of its followers - no? I mean if you look at all the documents underpinning the United States you would think that we were the most pure nation on Earth eh? Yet within that framework we have found ways to justify slavery, beat up on lesser nations, undertake coups, violate civil rights of folks, etc etc etc - so one must look beyond the propoganda - which will always make one out to be "good guys" - I mena we have no religions that explicitly call out for evil do we? But its the actions (and writings) of the followers that matter....heh lets hear it for the crusades and the inquisition!

true.

Domino statements are in quotes “Divorced from reality you say? Actually, I’m not the one to do the equivalent as to consider a man a woman, or a woman a man, it’s you.” This is not being divorced from reality – instead its questioning what seems obvious – but in fact is more complex – what is it that constitutes being a man or a women – these divisions are perhaps changing or there is at least some gray areas – making such pronouncements as marriage is only between a man and a women somewhat meaningless. So what is it – looks? Genetics? Etc….and advancing biological and genetic science will only add to scenarios where these distinctions will blur. In fact – one day in the future an individual might be able to change their sex as easily as putting on a different set of clothes each day. Don’t laugh – it is entirely possible (though likely a little more involved) ”Now, just let’s stick with the topic at hand. You tell us that it is not because nature has intended that way that it means we have to do it that way. Have I said the contrary? Where have I stated that I am against the union between two people of the same sex?” Well you do keep saying that it is not natural – that what is intended is man & women and that homosexuality goes against survival of the species – in your view. I am assuming that you care about survival of our species – maybe not – but if you hold these views then yes I would say that you are both against homosexuality and same sex unions… “And as your comparison with living in the trees, yet it is a bogus one.” Totally not. You say things should be as they have always been – essentially – that you only recognize marriage as being what it has traditionally been (and its not a natural thing per se anyway – but a social institution…anyway…) “It remind me the one of the UFO hunters that to answer scientists scepticism about the speed that an object has to travel to make all this distance (millions etc… of light years) claims that before scientists were not believing that it was even possible to fly and that we are actually flying… by doing such they are mixing technological limits with natures limits.” ? Don’t know what is your point here – but my comment is that we have no clue about what might be possible (particularly when it comes to manipulation/travel of/through space-time… – so what is natural? Lets not jump to any hasty conclusions eh? “FACT: The union between a man and a woman is the product of millions of years of evolutions, and had one principal purpose, reproduction, the survival of the specie. This is a fact which you can not deny. What took millions of years to nature, don’t you think it would take a lot of arrogance to claim is just a way like others? FACT: Nature has intended families to be constituted of a mother, father and children etc… all the process of natural selection and millions of years of evolution have made it that way, children devloppement, physical and psychological were dependent of the environment, and the parents shared an important part of this. This has nothing to do with conservative views, nothing to do with prejudices… neither can it be compared with human evolutions and the fact that we are not living in trees… because all this evolution you are talking about is the result of our brain which was given to us by nature… so by doing all those things were are not acting against nature, unless we destroy nature with our human devloppement.” Perhaps – but when you talk millions how is it that you know what our proto-ancestors did – perhaps they were into groups and such – or had only fleeting and interchangeable sexual affairs for procreation - or perhaps all the women belonged to the chief – don’t know really. And on a related note you really should look into the various studies of infidelity and genetic mixing that were done with some working class English communities – turns out the father is often not the biological father – and that women may choose the steady husband for nurturing and providing but goes after more exciting genetics for offspring….So do you think that this is just a recent phenomenon? When we talk of family and procreation and all this sort of thing it is not so simple as you make out – man + women = bond for life/procreation and what have you – variations have always existed and making comments as you are – with only surface knowledge/understanding of these things really cannot constitute the basis of a logical and informed argument. And so again what really is acting against nature/our nature? Do you really think you can define this in such simple terms? ”You want some examples that nature is not just a way? Nutrition is an example, with our westernised way, we have invented junk food, and all those transformed products that are less healthy than pet food sold in pet shops… How many diseases and conditions are linked with what we eat? Yes! we don’t have to eat what nature has intended right? WRONG!!!” OK – you have a point here – again though – nothing is static and our diet has changed and will change based on evolving needs (though junk food and such is clearly a step in the wrong direction it would seem – but perhaps it is conditioning us for eventual cafeteria food that we will be stuck with on some long colonizing space journey in the future…and again – back when we were living in trees we ate a lot of leaves & nuts…are you advocating we go back to that exclusively? Is no variation – no experimentation allowed in your system/world view? If we embrace or had embraced this as a species where would we be – still back in the trees. It is exactly our adaptability – our ability to change how we work with what nature/environment or what have you has given us – and innovate – come up with something totally new – doing things in ways we have never done before - that is responsible for our development into something beyond other creatures on our planet. ”Look, I am not entirely dismissing homosexuality as an unnatural thing, I do not entirely believe it is not natural, I do believe it had its role on evolution, and might have served as a way to prevent overpopulation in some tribes in a not so distant past. It has to do with proximities increases while population in the tribe rises which as a psychological effect might have increased the chances of homosexual behaviour. There is as well the fact that years back we had to follow a kind of reproduction seasons like other mammals and homosexual behaviour was a way to control libido until the mating season comes… again, this might have been totally environmental and could be considered as natural.” Speculation. There are many studies that have examined the role of homosexuals in various societies. It is clear that they have served useful roles (often performing tasks not normally associated with their gender – with their homosexuality being an out from being too macho or feminine or what have you. I refer you to studies done among the Norsemen/Vikings where homosexual men performed very defined and valuable roles apart from the usual male roles performed by the majority of men – and it was their homosexuality that allowed them to do these things and not have to live to the expectations of other men. Many American Indian societies had similar. And its just fact that homosexual individuals and homosexual behaviors have existed among us throughout our history..and these behaviors etc can be seen in animal populations as well. ”But, this is not the point here, here we are discussing about gay marriage, and not about homosexuality and the union between two people of the same sex. It is nobodies business what people do in their personal life, unless it is a threat for others… in this cases it is not… but it is one thing to permit them to unite with eachothers; actually, since it is no ones business, they don’t need anyone’s permission to do that… And it is another to institutionalise it.” Yes I think we should not allow unions between races – it offends me (not really – in fact I’m all for it – just my example here) – discrimination is discrimination – its no ones business right – yet we deny those who wish a union all the benefits of such and do not legally recognize it. We have no right to deny this IMO. “My real concern about the union, is adoption here… for me marriage is a closed cases, because marriage is the union between a woman and a man, and this has nothing to do with privileges neither laws or rights… for me it like saying a man is a man, and a woman is a woman. I want to know what to expect from the adoption of children by homosexual parents… for example, what is the consequences on a boy adopted by two females, or a girl, or a boy adopted by two males, or a girl… what is the influence on their devloppement, and most importantly the psychological influence. These are important aspects, everytime we touch the subject of children, it is very important; it passes before someones right to adopt them. It is MY RIGHT to know what to expect… do they answer? NO THEY DON’T!!! They answer with impossible results, such as it has no influences… IT IS IMPOSSIBLE Thoth, everything has an influence on children. Things such as what they eat, how much love they receive, how they are loved, the economical aspect(above or under poverty line) etc… everything has an influences, positive, negative or neither etc… but still there is… when studies are published and it is claimed there is no influences, you know right away those studies are not conducted like they should. Like I said previously, we have results and measured differences for a child without a mother or without a father… there is no way that in one case there is no influence and in the other there is. There is as well one fact that some suspect but refuse to talk about… what is the influence on the child’s sexual devloppement? How much more chances there is that the child will become homosexual?” Again – I have concern that children from interracial marriages will be more likely to marry interracially – and we can’t allow this can we? Etc etc There are so many factors – and you are isolating on one thing. Should we take kids away from single parents because of the fear that not having a father or mother will harm them somehow? This is the same argument that you are making. Your argument is basically a non-issue – we cannot isolate and regulate all the various potentially negative factors and start disallowing these circumstances – and what you (and others) are doing is applying this narrow focus on the fact that the couple has a different sexual orientation – so what? Wouldn’t you think people (such as many men) who have a propensity for violence – who tend to neglect their offspring at higher rates etc etc – shoulldn’t perhaps men be prohibited form being parents? (especially now when its so easy for a women to do it all herself…with sperm donation and eventually [soon] just with cloning etc…)???. What is important for parenting is love, nurturing, caring, support – instilling of values etc etc – can you really say that homosexuals are incapable of this or less capable? Couldn’t we look at other behaviors and such within elements of the population and isolate on those and say – no these people can’t be parents because there is clearly a chance that they will harm the child and affect their upbringing? Maybe poor people shouldn’t be allowed to have children – I mean look at all the damage being poor does to kids – etc etc “Those are important issues here Thoth. Because it is important for the survival of our specie, we know that in not so distant future, the amount of spermatozoid produced by man will be under 25% of what it should be… and an increases here of homosexuality is a threat for our specie. What nature has probably found as a way to fight against overpopulation, if we institutionalise it might be one of the threats. Yes! It is true that this has no role at all on the fact that still those homosexuals could procreate… its OK for women, they can have kids… what about the donors, the men? Homosexual men could be donors yes!!! But, what will be the consequences of such a dehumanised society? All those things are concerns.” Your projections are invalid and less people much less threaten our species survival then more. We need already have too many people on the planet – think of the Chinese industrializing and becoming big time consumers – think of the pollution – the waste….and you are concerned about homosexuals adopting? Give it a break – worry about important things and those things that really are a clear threat to our survival (like religion – I think it should be banned – I mean look at the damage it has done…and religious parents – they will instill kids with bigotry and hate and all sorts of nasty complexes [fear of going to hell – etc] ….

Nice to see you on the forum Vayri... Yes - Pres Reagan - with his folksy charm - etc - seemed/seems to cause folks to gloss over what he really was about...and here I'll actually agree a bit with Mouse...he was not at all as he (his backers) presnted himslef to be. He was not a fan of small business & the comon American, he was not a fiscal conservative (by any streach of the immagination), and he was no real great visionary - though he was a man of some central principals - I'll give him that...even if he imself might have been ignorant of his administration violating nearly all of them. I think he (his administration) will go down in history as one of the worst Presidencies for our nation (baring perhaps a certain one which has come after...) You know I really become convinced that most Americans just really want a President who is clearly even stupider then themsleves...though perhaps this is at the subconcious level...meanwhile many really believe.....sad...

Don't give them any ideas....then they could begin broadcasts in all sorts of languages where there is no one around to recieve (understand) them....

Funny that you mention him...as many years ago (1980s) - (he just died this last year BTW) - I did just that - twice! ..and you'll just have to take my word that I might know a bit more about these things then you likely do (you being a plankton amongst the sharks aside...)..and I'm not saying that there isn't a bit of truth to your version...but there is certainly a bit more to it... ..and who has "demolished" their strategic arsenal BTW? ...perhaps left out to rust migth be a more appropriate description...though we are certainly not describing all of it....and yes yes - the START treaties...of course...but just how many nukes are left on each side? (I'll leave that for you to research yourself)..and funny though - the Russians are certainly having a time even keeping up agreed upon force levels...meanwhile... ..and as you have implied one of the great difficulties of an SDI (and some so-called defense shield - such as one that might allow one side to sufficiently supress the incomming attack of an enemy to then act with impunity) - is that countermeasures come more easily and cheaply...(and just how many nukes need to get through to ruin ones day eh?) The Russians were deathly afraid of an SDI for just these reasons however - its "offensive" ability....the ability to counter their ability to strike (US forces)...leaving the US with all the cards - able to call the shots and not fear a Russian counterstrike (all in theory of course). The thing of it is - the Russians are/were always suspicious/paranoid that we could actually pull it off...

Gamavor - not to dispute your story but if SDI was a hoax...and the Russians knew it....then why would they take the effort to develop countermeasures? And again, be it me to dispute your facts...but where did you get this story from - "Weekly World News"?

Yeah I hear ya...luckily your not gay as well eh?

Truly sorry to hear this Sev-Marde...something potentially very preventable...much like us humans ignoring immenent environmental catastrophes...seat belts really are a must - its very obvious when you are travelling at such velocites and stop suddenly on impact & such and have all sorts of glass & metal around you...etc That being said I do know of someone who was saved by not wearing a seatbelt - he was in a little MG that got crushed by a truck and he got thrown out with minor injuries - certainly an exception to the rule... And at a party a few weeks back I met this guy who was driving a way cool model A (ZZ top like) roadster who told the story how he hit a cop that went through a red light in front of him (with no lights flashing or siren) and he went through his front winshield (belts? don't know - sounds like not - but I noticed a 4 point racing harnes on his recaros...)...anyway he flew through the front windshield and into the cop car and was "saved" by the cops airbag!!...he was still majorly messed up from the accident (many many months ago?)...he had recently just rebuilt his roadster however...way cool.. Anyway Sev Marde - hope you and yours are coping OK - what can be done? And yes - eveyone should always where their seatbelts - I insist that my passengers do and I wear them myself always...

So true (and well said...)...and I know as I've been there - overseeing Environmental enforcement and dealing with corporations (many of whom) do their best to get around every rule and who act in flagrant disregard for the health and wealfare of all of us....additionally many of these corporations are happy to just pay the paltry fines and keep polluting - strictly because it costs less.... I think its clear that there are problems...that humans can (significantly) negatively impact the environment, the flora and fauna around us - and this can not only afect our own being - but perhaps the very exsistence of life on earth as we know it. So should we care? All depends how selfish and stupid one is I guess...not naming any names of course...(as some prefer being anonymous...)