Wrong, American bad_a$, stop whining. You're talking about bad language, for which others have been warned as well. I'm talking about name-calling. As I said, keep it up and you'll be reported. This is normally a cool, pleasant place to hang out, and Steve likes to keep it that way. And we all disagree from time to time, but name-calling is rude and uncalled for.

the news, religion class when we read real life storys of stuff, in school, on tv, on the radio, and the newspaper and literally everywhere you can hear this stuff

i am not whining. i don't see a differnce in me calling a bunch of people "dumbasses" and some one else so say out of the blue, "what the FUCK??"

is there a difference? help me here.

The difference is you are using words to harm others... namecalling.

i suggest you make me admin

:roll: :laugh: :roll:

Sorry, but that was the best one I've seen all night!

yeah, yeah, yeah...okay

While I'll admit Bush is not perhaps the most intelligent man on the face of the earth, we do have multiple branches of government in these here United States. So while the president may be the foremost figure/symbol of our nation, he, by no means, runs this place. The legislative branch was created, in our constitution, to be the strongest branch and while power has, over time, shifted toward the executive branch, the legislature is by no means lesser than the President. At this point in time, the two branches are roughly equal in power. However, when both houses of the legislature, both which consist of members of both parties (obvious statement here, but necessary for emphasis) vote to give the power to the executive to declare war, than room for bitching among anti-war sentiments is decreased. And as I conveniently learned in my philosophy class today, elected Democrats in the legislature have no room to complain that it's unjust b/c they're in the minority because, as members of an elected legislature in which majority rules, they already understand the "risks", etc. associated w/ being in the minority.

beautiful :clap: :clap: :clap:

I'll give you that Saddam's regime was a threat to American oil dependence. While I, personally, would not like to risk lives of friends/relatives to pay less for gas, the fact is that Americans don't like expensive gas (I'm not saying that anyone else would give lives of loved ones to pay less for gas)... I'm guess that you're not fond of the American Revolution, either? I mean, the revolutionary colonists didn't threaten the freedom of the British Empire. All Britain used the 13 colonies for was for its own economic advantage... cheaper cotton, cheaper lumber, etc. And how about the Falklands? There's not even economics at stake, just British pride. Won't let Argentina take over control of the islands despite the fact that the islands really have no economic benefits.

You don't think it's possible that maybe those people in the military found doing nothing but exercises dull, and wanted to put their skills to use?

especially when those are errant missiles, not aimed for the orphanages

okay, how is this tone, dogstar :rolleyes:

all this bitching about the oil, people say that we only went there for the oil, my question is, why haven't we seen any of it yet? and it is not like we could ship it out of the country secretly, those oil fields are huge. but if people out there think that this was only about oil, where is it?

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

whoa im staying out of this one