*sigh* Clinton caught a lot of flack after the fact for doing nothing, but at the time if you remember the headlines, he was being accused of zealous behavior to mask the issues he was having with his "lady friends". He is actually quoted as saying, "The next President is going to spend a lot of time dealing with Osama Bin Laden." Fun activity, why don't you look up old articles that reference Bill Clinton being obsessed with Bin Laden

I think it's hilarious how he is literally being bashed for two opposing viewpoints...I mean, how can you be obsessed with the middle east and then much later yelled at for doing nothing.

Oh, and the plan that we are using, the military technology and tactics...yeah, that's Clinton's military. He had left the plan for good 'ol GW; but that didn't get implemented until 9/12.

Hehe, good point Creation, sorry for going off topic

Erm...I don't want to get too involved into this, but there is a good reason we went to war...to protect our currency.

Currently the agreement that we have requires that all oil purchased over there must be purchased with American currency, that's an agreement that we made.

However, due to...EVERYTHING that has been happening over there, there has been talks/negotiations to also include the Yen or the Euro. The impact that would have on our currency would be devastating. No longer would America be involved in each and every oil transaction that takes place; our money would lose a LOT of value on the world market, which would in turn devastate our economy by causing massive inflation.

Well said!!

LOL, fair enough Zapchaser, no one person gets to decide normalcy, but do you think that also extends to morality?

Also, there have been numerous studies supporting that stable emotional environments have a higher percentage of children having 'normal', productive lives. As for what they use as a standard for normal, they talk about the ability of an individual to act in an emotionally balanced manner. Would you agree that there is a "good" or healthy way to respond to a situation, and a "bad" or unhealthy way? For example, would you agree that flying into a destructive rage because your favorite TV show is a rerun would be considered "bad"? If not, what would it be?

And I couldn't agree more king, education is important, but a part of that education should be a sense of value and respect. Kids that are making decisions to have sex at young ages typically don't consider the consequences of their actions. What's more, there is no sense of wonder that a "good time" can lead to a little miracle. Remember when when waiting for marriage was a point of pride? Why have young kids, as fast as they are "growing up", lost this concept? And I say it is lost due to increase of babies having babies. (Don't forget the "Prom baby" phenomenon *shudder*)

I'm curious, what if anything do you guys and gals think we may have lost alongside that sense of ...I don't know what to call it; pride, accomplishment, appreciation?

Thank you!

The relaxation on our standards of language is just a pet-peeve of mine; I've seen a lot of problems caused by people simply having alternate definitions of word before, I'd like to see that prevented if at all possible.

That being said, I think that Wild has mad an extremely valuable point; the power of language and the importance of definition should never be shifted to the side lines.

I too am an agnostic, and I am one of the ones who gets offended when a religion gets blamed for fanatics. To use your example Fuzzy, if a bunch of Cubs fans burned down Shea Stadium, how would you feel if they blamed the entire sport of baseball? I bet you would make sure that nobody associated you with those fanatics; after all, they aren't representative of baseball enthusiasts as a whole.

So there is no "despite language". The irresponsible use of language is a major contributor to ill relations between various groups. You can't discount language, because it is how we interact with each other. Cut out language and you are cutting out the "glue" that holds us together.

Back to the main point of the topic, when you fail to separate the zealots from the religion, you undermine the teachings that are inherent. Should Christianity be discounted because a handful of folks calling themselves Christians murdered a bunch of innocents? Should Buddhism be discounted because Buddha was a dead-beat dad? Should we eliminate soccer because of soccer hooligans?

Any day I make someone happy is a good day.

To R Glad I could make you laugh!

and B, I read a lot! That particular book I read in a forensic psychology class, back when I was interested in becoming a criminal psychologist. LOL, I flirted with psychology from a number of perspectives, before I decided it wasn't for me.

Another book you might like by virtue of its insights is something I had read YEARS ago called, "If it wasn't for stupid people we'd all be broke." I was pretty young when I read it, but I would have to say that it completely changed the way I look at the world; and it was funny too.

I couldn't say it any better than that

*golf clap for spider and hawaii

Thank you, but I think you express yourself very well! As for what I write, well I find that it's easy to be eloquent if you speak from the heart.

LOL Thanks for the complement, I don't quite know what to say, that's very sweet of you.

If I do anything right at all, I'd have to blame it on my parents, hehe.

As for the dress...I find it's very slimming

LOL, My favorite pick-up line is, "So, do you Yahoo?"

Mahatma Gandhi said, "We must become the change we want effect in the world."

We must not let the behavior of others dictate our actions. Killing someone who is attacking you is a fair step away from killing or harming someone because we need information. What good is it if you gain the world if you lose your soul, ne?

The standards we set for interrogation are a metric of our humanity. How do we dare "impose justice" if we do not hold ourselves to a higher standard. American troops may die because we don't use torture, but at least they can die knowing that they fought for something noble, something good.

The fact is, we violated the Geneva conventions because our current President flouts every law and rule that gets in the way of what he wants...and what he wants has nothing to do with the well-being of the nation.

Awww pooh! And I never got a chance to hit on you in a weird and altogether unsettling way .

Anyhoo, have fun with your new beau!

LOL, I said I wouldn't mind, but unless I'm dating Superwoman I don't think 10 is very probable.

Although, I've always wanted be a twin or triplet, it would be almost as cool to RAISE twins and triplets....

Oh that would definitely be a deal-breaker for me !

I want at least one kid, but I wouldn't mind having 20 as long as I can support them, lol. I'd really like a son, so that I can give him my name (like my dad did with me).

Other deal-breakers are not wanting to take my last name (I know, it doesn't seem important, but it means a lot to my father and to me, so it's actually reeeeaaaaly important).

Oh, and trying to get me to *snip* or tie-off a certain area...I don't mind if you try to convince me so long as you don't mind failing consistently. Other than that, I can't think of anything out of the ordinary (i.e. infidelity, being a guy, etc.)

It's times like this when I wonder why people find it so hard to be honest ... Ah well girlie, they aren't all liars, and they aren't all frogs

I knew I liked this site for a reason...it's the people.

Yeah, I can be a little harsh at times - I do TRY not to be so abrasive, but tact can be a difficult tool to use.

As far as the mothers in England thing, that's British Common law. It doesn't matter what the circumstance is (it usually involves a diagnosis of Münchhausen's Syndrome by proxy), the woman gets off "due to temporary insanity". The thing about that is, temporary insanity isn't applicable for men who are diagnosed with MSbP, which is typically a feminine issue. And it is very different from Post-partem depression, which is what I'm assuming your talking about. In those cases an argument of temporary insanity is fine, however, post-partem cases are hardly comparable to a woman who is poisoning her six year old child for the sympathy she gets.

You make no bones about being a feminist (ugh to the internet and the limitations of subtlety...I don't think feminism is a bad thing - insofar that it promotes equality in gender neutral situations), but I can see that you most likely don't turn a blind-eye to reverse prejudice due to some extreme arguments. You might find a book called "When she was bad" really interesting. It does a really good job of unmasking certain assumptions that society makes about gender roles and how they apply to many situations.

I had actually spent a lot of time researching the role that gender assumptions play in reverse prejudice (i.e. spousal abuse, homicide, infanticide, recidivism rates of female versus male repeat offenders, etc.). It was quite an eye-opener. While it does nothing to argue against various "glass-ceiling" arguments, it does do a lot to dispel many of the myths that radical feminists support. It's cool stuff. Well to me anyway, but then again I'm a big nerd .

Howdy! I'm in Orlando, UCF area

I'm also usually located outside of my mind, but that's a different story, ne?