Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/29/06 02:33 AM, anitsirc wrote:

At 6/29/06 01:47 AM, bub_nydb wrote:

Uh, almost nobody in the world studies your history except for you yourselves. Everyone studies ancient rome though. Look at all the scientists, American included, going who live in Italy and study our history.

Source? In any case, I have to wonder how many people go to Italy to study only the past 300 to 400 years of Italian history.

Again, this is not correct and it is an argument based on collective ignorance. It makes more sense to ask why have people in other countries payed the most attention to the worst of U.S. food. McDonald's currently views themselves as being at least as much in the real estate business as the restaurant business. They compete on location, speed, and consistency and not taste. KFC at least provides a better glimpse at one tiny subsection of a style of American cuisine (southern cooking). Unfortunately their in store quality control is very poor, so the food one gets from them is very inconsistent. In any case, Italian and French food are not judged solely on the basis of their convenience foods.

Next time you want to take a girl out to a fancy restaraunt, go to KFC, or McDonalds. see how impressed she will be. I am giving a foreign opinion on your McDonald's, I lived in Europe, I have friends in Europe, I visit often. Not everyone even goes to McDonald's, and the people who do go there, only do it out of convinience. It is cheap and fast.

Not everyone in the U.S. goes to McDonald's and those who do primarily do it out of convenience. Read what I wrote. McDonald's sells convenience through location, speed, and consistency, not quality. No one judges Italian cuisine on the basis of its convenience foods. To judge American food on the basis of fast food is a double standard. Oh, and I don't need to impress girls because (1) I'm married and loyal to my wife and (2) even if I were single a woman who is interested in me can either accept me for who I am or be careful not to let the door hit her on the ass on the way out.

Pop originated in europe. Your "country" music I mean, who listens to that?

No, it originated in the U.S. http://www.bartleby.../65/ro/rockmusi.html

Rock music in particular was started by African Americans, and was developed in Britain. Anyhow, all the music you have carries origin from Europe, which go back to Beethoven, Mozart, and Salieri. Which go back further to the Middle ages and the Renaissance. And if you trace it back even further, it goes to Ancient Rome and Greece.

Rock does not trace back to Ancient Rome. African Americans are Americans and are not the only ones to have contributed to rock. The British Invasion didn't occur until after rock n roll was established. If you had bothered with the link you would have seen:
"Essentially hybrid in origin, rock music includes elements of several black and white American music styles: black guitar-accompanied blues; black rhythm and blues, noted for saxophone solos; black and white gospel music; white country and western music; and the songs of white popular crooners and harmony groups. Emerging in 1954–55, rock music was initially referred to as “rock ‘n’ roll.” After 1964 it was simply called “rock music.” The change in terminology indicates both a continuity with and a break from the earlier period; rock music was no longer just for dancing. After 1964 the music was influenced by British groups such as the Beatles."

No, WWII turned because the U.S. entered it. Hitler had no more significant opposition in Europe (Britain was the only significant opposition left and it was in shambles despite support from the U.S.) and had secured oil fields in Africa to power his war machine. Had the Axis powers not provoked a fight, Hitler would not have been fighting on two fronts and would have had a good shot to secure western Russia.

Please look up the date when USA entered WW-II for me. I really think you don't know the entire history of it. Germans fell on retreat after the battle of Stalingrad was won by the russians.

The attack on Pearl Harbor that was the final straw was December 7th, 1941. The German 6th army began its invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941. The battle of Stalingrad was really a campaign or series of battles ending with the announcement of the surrender by Paulus of the 6th Army to the Soviets on Feb. 1st, 1943. The Allies' (including U.S.) invasion of north Africa was in the middle of 1942. On July 10th, 1943 Allied Forces invaded Sicily. D Day was June 6th, 1945. The German defeat at Stalingrad did not happen until after the U.S. entered the war and had invaded north Africa with the other Allies. The fall of Nazi Germany did not occur until well after the entrance of the U.S. into the war. Here are Germany's surrender documents from May 1945: http://www.law.ou.ed..story/germsurr.shtml

Basically to set your own government, you didn't like communists, and you wanted everyone to be like you.

Incorrect. The U.S. didn't want authoritarian governments spreading. There was no requirement that other countries be just like the U.S. Really France already had their own authoritarian government in place, so I personally believe that getting involved was probably a mistake.

Do you know what you did to Germany after WW-II ended? Why don't you read up on your history buddy. Even you don't know your own history, and you say a people are intrested in it.

I know that people got shot by the Soviets trying to cross over from Soviet held East Germany to West Germany. I believe that says something about what the U.S. did -- prevented Soviet tanks from rolling through Germany and advanced the economy of West Germany. The U.S. viewed West Germany as a balwark against the Soviet Union and so did not push hard for reparations, instead helping West Germany and much of the rest of Europe with the Marshall Plan. Looks like it is you who needs to read up on the history of WWII and the Marshall Plan.
http://www.loc.gov/e..rshall/marsintr.html

Fact is, you weren't a superpower before WW-II.

What's your point?

At 6/29/06 12:40 AM, anitsirc wrote:

At 6/28/06 07:25 PM, JabroniBeatr wrote: We have much more history than France judging on a ratio of how long the US has been around compared to how long France has

And exactly which countries do we rob? Not yours, obviously, after WWII we had to pay for your country's sorry ass to be rebuilt

I'm not from France. And Italy has WAY more history than you. Why does everyone come to study our history and nobody studies yours?

A few people study your history. A few people study U.S. history. To suggest otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.

ha!

Fast food is the only food of yours that anyone eats. And having McDonald's as a national dish is pretty sad.

Again, this is not correct and it is an argument based on collective ignorance. It makes more sense to ask why have people in other countries payed the most attention to the worst of U.S. food. McDonald's currently views themselves as being at least as much in the real estate business as the restaurant business. They compete on location, speed, and consistency and not taste. KFC at least provides a better glimpse at one tiny subsection of a style of American cuisine (southern cooking). Unfortunately their in store quality control is very poor, so the food one gets from them is very inconsistent. In any case, Italian and French food are not judged solely on the basis of their convenience foods.

HA!

Pop originated in europe. Your "country" music I mean, who listens to that?

No, it originated in the U.S. http://www.bartleby.../65/ro/rockmusi.html

Last I recall it was Europe who started most of the wars we got into. And you obviously have no idea what "fascist" means.

You got into the wars a little late. When you came to wwII the war had already turned. And just because you haven't had a fascist dictator doesn't mean you never will.

No, WWII turned because the U.S. entered it. Hitler had no more significant opposition in Europe (Britain was the only significant opposition left and it was in shambles despite support from the U.S.) and had secured oil fields in Africa to power his war machine. Had the Axis powers not provoked a fight, Hitler would not have been fighting on two fronts and would have had a good shot to secure western Russia.

Yeah, we're terrible people for killing those poor defenseless nazis and terrorists....

Want to tell me why you went into Vietnam? You were setting order?

The U.S. went into Vietnam for several reasons. Helping our ally France was one reason. Unrealistic fear of the Communist movement in Vietnam that was exacerbated by China and Russia's support of Communist rebels was another reason. The U.S. rightly saw that so-called Communist governments ended up being authoritarian regimes that deprived people of their rights and put power in the hands of a few instead of in the hands of the people. U.S. leaders feared a domino effect of one country becoming Communist controlled leading to other countries becoming Communist controlled.

What was Rome's excuse for conquering neighboring lands to create the Roman Empire? Greed and lust for power.

I wonder why...

WWII stolen money.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how, where, and from whom a country that started as colonies of poor farmers could have destroyed developed countries and stolen their money.

Guess again, Jack. We have money because of our revolutionary (for the 1800's at least) government and economy and supirior industrial power that, even with the WWI/II hinderance, endured to this day. Now if you'll excuse me

Actualy it is because of WWII before that you weren't a very "involved" country. It was all about Great Britain and Germnay.

After two world wars the people of the U.S. had enough of Europe's follies. Americans realized that leaving the security of Europe to Europeans just hadn't worked for some reason and they didn't want yet another world war. Hence, laissez faire foreign policy and isolationist doctrines fell out of favor. Having a more active foreign policy is not what brought economic prosperity to the U.S. What brought economic success to the U.S. was an abundance of natural resources, a relatively well-educated population, and an environment that was favorable towards innovation and economic development.

At 6/28/06 01:22 PM, anitsirc wrote:

At 6/28/06 04:32 AM, bub_nydb wrote:

Uh-huh. Of course everybody has their own national dishes. It's just that our dishes are enjoyed all over the world. How often does somebody go into a restaurant in Canada and go "I'll have some Boston Baked beans please." And Canada is your neighbour. Our neigbours have lots of Italian restaraunts. I've been to alot of places and haven't seen ONE American restaraun, beside the fast food.

Canada's food is very similar to U.S. food and in Quebec to French food. Shanghai has a Cajun restaurant and several U.S. style steakhouses that I know of. I've seen no Italian restaurants in Shanghai outside of chain stores from the U.S. In any case, you are just using an argument based on collective ignorance.

Not everyone gets off on ancient history. Some people are more interested in the present and others in more recent history.

Your cities resemble no history at all. Our cities are beautiful.

Yes, U.S. cities do not resemble history, they have history. They are not merely archeological sites, but rather places where people live in the modern world.

Yeah in 3rd world countries. But still Italian sports cars would turn more heads. And not just in China. Everywhere around the world. You drive a Ferrari around, you see people staring.

People stare at the hotdog car too. That doesn't make it a good thing.
http://www.xerog.com..ctures/Hotdogcar.jpg

Some Italian women are fat, but not 300+lbs like American women. And I am telling you, you can't judge our women until you come here for yourself. I've been here and in USA. Come here for yourself and see.

Very, very few women in the U.S. are 300+ lbs. I'm sure many Italian women are quite beautiful. The U.S. has many of Italian descent.

I find showing off such labels to be arrogant, not classy. I care about value, not where something is made. But if I'm ever in Italy I'll have to put a "Made in Italy" sticker on one of my turds to create a classy gift for you.

Everything made in Italy is considered classy and expensive, everything made in China is considered cheap crap. Maybe you don't want to consider it crap because your wife is chinese.

Haier is one of the best high tech companies in the world with top notch technology and a reputation of excellence in customer service and customer satisfaction. My wife has nothing to do with Haier's success. If I go to Italy and take a dump, my turds are still just crap despite being made in Italy. If you want to consider a turd classy simply because it was excreted in Italy, I guess that's your choice.

Give credit where credit is due. China developed China's economy. Many countries trade with China, including Italy.

USA is it's major trading partner.

One of several major trading partners.

You Americans have nothing to be proud of. You have no history, no culture, nothing at all. All you can say is that "We are a superpower." USSR was a bigger superpower when it was around. Now China will take it's place. And being a superpower is nothing to be proud. If all you can do is kill and rob everyone of your money, well that's your curse. Nobody thinks well of your country, and nobody ever will. What so great about being the most hated nation in the world?

Americans have nothing that ignorant people from other countries think we should be proud of. Ignorant people from other countries often don't know of or forget the U.S.'s important contributions to the world in peace and wartime. Ignorant people don't seem to know that rock, blues, and jazz were born in the U.S. Ignorant people don't seem to know that in a few hundred years the U.S. has developed its own folk music (country, western) and its own classical composers (e.g. Copland). Ignorant people don't know that the U.S. has its own foods (New England, southern, Cajun, Creole, Tex-Mex). Ignorant people seem to have forgotten that while the U.S. has certainly made (and continues to make) mistakes in foreign policy, the U.S. has never had a militant fascist government like that of Hitler's Germany or Italy's Mussolini. Ignorant people also seem to forget that the U.S. helped to rebuild those same countries after defeating their fascist governements. Ignorant people also like to spew hateful, ignorant crap on message boards using computers that employ technology that comes from the U.S.

I think it is you who are the ignorant ones. Nobody eats your food, or listens to your music. You say you haven't had a fascist government? Well just wait, you're only a couple hundred years old. You brought more wars to this world than anyone. Killing people on a mass scale is nothing to be proud of. Sur you've developed computer and helped a few countries after destroying them. Well no shit, you have all this money. You stole all this money from those countries. You use the money you stole to develop new technologies. If not for WW2 you wouldn't never be anything more than Canada.

Pop rock and rap (including both U.S. music and Chinese imitations of U.S. music style) are popular in China, a country of over 1.3 billion people. Italian opera is not. U.S. movies are popular in China and around much of the world. Italian movies are not that popular.

Explain how a country that started as heavily taxed colonies of poor farming immigrants with no history that you recognize was able to "destroy" other countries (including Italy and Germany) and "steal" from them. Next list all of those wars that you claim the U.S. started; I'm sure everyone would love to see your distorted view of reality.

Canada is a great country. There's no shame in being like Canada. Italy has a lot to offer as well. Any yet ignorance and arrogance are still ignorance and arrogance regardless of whether it originates in the U.S., Italy, France, or elsewhere.

At 6/28/06 01:40 AM, anitsirc wrote:

At 6/27/06 09:36 PM, seventy-one wrote: But In-n-Out owns, and is fresh. Do you guys have In-n-Out? No.

Fats food = crap. American food is nowhere up there with Italian pasta.

American food is not all fast food. To equate American food with fast food is a demonstration of ignorance. Manhattan clam chowder, Boston baked beans, southern BBQ, pumpkin pie, and variety of Cajun and Creole dishes are not fast food and are not "crap". Additionally, red sauces used in Italian pasta have a tomato base. Tomatoes originated in the Americas and made their way back to Italy through Italian-Americans.
http://www.tomato-ca../tomato-history.html

Well, if you want that to be your national glory...it really doesn't matter.

We have many natinal glories. You have none.

Clearly there is no agreement here on what constitutes national glory.

So? You guys speak Italian.

Yeah, but our ancestors spoke Latin. And your ancestors' language came from ours.

English is a Germanic language. Certainly English has become a linguistic melting pot with, IIRC, somewhere near 60% of words coming from Romance languages, 35% from Germanic languages, and maybe 5% other.

Our cities are practical, useful, the Rome's of today. Rome's cool for a vacation and all, but I'd rather live here.

I guess you've never beet to Italy then. Rome is an awesome place to live. But you should visit Venezia, this place kicks ass, way better than New York or LA. Your cities are boring, nothing historical, nothing ancient.

Not everyone gets off on ancient history. Some people are more interested in the present and others in more recent history.

:: We have better sports cars then you. Germans have better family cars than you. Your cars suck. How many times does somebody turn their head and go "Wow, look, it's a Dodge!" Our sports cars look and perform way better than yours. German family cars look and perform better than yours.
How often does someone turn their head for an American car? All the time in China. Buick has a reputation for the best domesticly produced cars in China. VW in China is crap. Italian cars are extraordinarily rare. Of the cars that are common in the U.S., Toyota currently dominates the quality ratings. Sports cars are pretty irrelevant except to those who need them in order to boost their egos.

Matter of perspective, we'll call it a draw.

Women from Europe are on average hotter. Most of your women are obese. I've never seen women that big in my life.

That's interesting, since Italian women have a reputation for being particularly fat due to diets high in starch (pasta) and fat (cream sauces). In any case I don't find a society with a high degree of genetic homogeneity to be a particularly good source of attractive women. I especially wouldn't like to only have women to choose from who all looked as though they might be my sister or cousin. If I were forced to choose, I'd go with some Asian ethnicity, not Italian. As it turns out, my wife is ethnic Chinese.

10. Everything that has a "Made in Italy" sticker on it is considered classy.

Too bad everything is "Made in China", including the "classy stuff"

I find showing off such labels to be arrogant, not classy. I care about value, not where something is made. But if I'm ever in Italy I'll have to put a "Made in Italy" sticker on one of my turds to create a classy gift for you.

Not everything is made in China. And BTW it's all your fault. Way to buy their merchendise and feed their economy. You have developed their economy, and now they pose danger to you.

Give credit where credit is due. China developed China's economy. Many countries trade with China, including Italy.

You Americans have nothing to be proud of. You have no history, no culture, nothing at all. All you can say is that "We are a superpower." USSR was a bigger superpower when it was around. Now China will take it's place. And being a superpower is nothing to be proud. If all you can do is kill and rob everyone of your money, well that's your curse. Nobody thinks well of your country, and nobody ever will. What so great about being the most hated nation in the world?

Americans have nothing that ignorant people from other countries think we should be proud of. Ignorant people from other countries often don't know of or forget the U.S.'s important contributions to the world in peace and wartime. Ignorant people don't seem to know that rock, blues, and jazz were born in the U.S. Ignorant people don't seem to know that in a few hundred years the U.S. has developed its own folk music (country, western) and its own classical composers (e.g. Copland). Ignorant people don't know that the U.S. has its own foods (New England, southern, Cajun, Creole, Tex-Mex). Ignorant people seem to have forgotten that while the U.S. has certainly made (and continues to make) mistakes in foreign policy, the U.S. has never had a militant fascist government like that of Hitler's Germany or Italy's Mussolini. Ignorant people also seem to forget that the U.S. helped to rebuild those same countries after defeating their fascist governements. Ignorant people also like to spew hateful, ignorant crap on message boards using computers that employ technology that comes from the U.S.

Every country has its good and bad points. Flinging hateful or merely ignorant crap doesn't help anyone regardless of the direction it is flung.

At 6/15/06 10:03 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

At 6/15/06 09:01 AM, bub_nydb wrote: By "whatever" I meant "etc." or "whatever floats your boat."

No you mean something very different than that. Otherwise you would have just said, "whatever floats your boat."

You must have had a short circuit in your Anuki mind reading device.

I live in Shanghai.

Sure you do bub...

As I said before, I'm in the Qibao area right in the flight path for jets to land at the Hongqiao airport. But if you prefer, you can believe I live on the Anuki homeworld.

Hey whatever floats your boat, pal. You obviously are not contributing anything to this discussion.

Zhende ma?

I'm from the U.S., not China. My wife is from Chengdu. And you can believe that Xenu and the Thetons control China for all I care.

By "whatever" I meant "etc." or "whatever floats your boat." It wasn't a slam on the Bible, Qur'an or other religious texts.

I live in Shanghai. I'm sure there are lots of people that come to China and distribute hundreds of Bibles without getting arrested for it. The point is that they can be arrested for it.

I don't care for "crazy" evangelists, but the sane ones don't bother me. As long as they are not infringing on the freedoms of other people it is okay with me.

No, it is not really so good. People can get arrested just for giving another person a book (Bible, Qur'an, Annunaki Scriptures, whatever). Sure, nobody wants to be harassed or intimidated to accept somebody else's beliefs, but the laws go well beyond that.

Evangelism has been banned for a long time in China.

Catholics, Protestant Christian groups, and Islam are all in China along with Buddhism, Taoism, and "folk religions" (spirit and ancestor worship). The far western parts of China have significant populations of Muslims. China borders on Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afganistan, Pakistan, and India. China currently controls 1/6 of Kashmir (ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963 and never recognized as legit by India).

brief religious overviews:
http://countrystudies.us/china/61.htm
http://sacu.org/religion.html

Beijing propaganda explanation of religion in China:
http://chinesecultur..aper/blsreligion.htm

map of Kashmir area:
http://www.lib.utexa..hmir_region_2004.jpg

At 6/15/06 05:22 AM, altanese_mistress wrote:

At 6/15/06 05:11 AM, TwO_FaCeD_PaRaNoID wrote: i know chinese goverment has its own state church, they make their own bishops and so... the pope hates china for that.

Thats just plain not true. I've never heard anything about that, and I KNOW there isn't a significant enough Catholic population for that. In fact, if you look at China today and it's history, religion as a whole has generally had little influence on government; same goes from most other East Asian nations.

Please read this::
http://news.yahoo.co..ongress_060614000313

At 6/14/06 01:17 PM, wuxiaochao85 wrote: I will not be affected by the midia of our gov. I have independent jugement

I’m sure that you will not let others think for you, and yet I don’t see how anyone cannot be affected by the media.

Are you sure? hehe. History will prove it. we don't mention the sarcasm,we never mind .
But one thing i want to tell you is that we really want threaten Taiwan.if war borken between mainlland and Taiwan that means we are doning the same tihing just as what President Abraham Lincoln did in 1861!
So simlple, Mr Lincoln had no choice,so do we.

Lincoln had a choice. Many congressmen opposed his choice. While there are similarities in the two situations, there are also important differences:
• Lincoln was democratically elected in a vote that the southern states citizens voted in. Hu was not democratically elected and the people of Taiwan had no say in his coming to power.
• There is no dispute over the slave trade between Taiwan and the mainland.
• Lincoln recognized that under the U.S. federal system if states were allowed to pull out of the union because a law was passed by Congress that they didn’t like, then the federal government would have no power and the union would completely dissolve. The fragmentation of the union would not have stopped with just the southern states. Under the mainland’s highly centralized and authoritarian power structure, Taiwan remaining separate poses no threat of other provinces declaring independence.
• The Confederate government did not start until the Confederate states decided to succeed from the union, just as the current government on the mainland did not start until the Nationalists had been forced into exile in Taiwan. The Nationalist government that moved to Taipei was in existence before the Communist government, just as the U.S. government existed before the Confederate government. From that perspective, it makes more sense to compare the government in Taipei with the Union and the Communist government on the mainland with the Confederacy.
• Lincoln didn’t wait 57+ years to begin military action to preserve the union during which time a great deal of social divergence and economic change occurred.
If it comes to military conflict, everyone will lose. People will die unnecessarily, Taiwan’s economy will be devastated, the mainland economy will be heavily damaged, the world economy will be damaged, and China’s standing in the world community will plummet.

I went to the trouble of asking my wife if she thought that Americans were more arrogant and/or ignorant than people elsewhere. She said that Americans didn’t seem any more arrogant or ignorant to her than other people, including Chinese. She said that it just gets expressed in different ways.

IRT FAB0L0US,
Falun Gong is essentially a cult. I say that not because the Chinese government says so, but because some of my wife’s classmates are avoiding people they know who have joined it because those Falun Gong members are getting up at odd hours of the night to curse leaders in Beijing under orders from Falun Gong leadership and otherwise allow Falun Gong’s hierarchy to overly control their lives. The cursing is not simply foul language, but rather praying for the death or suffering of others. That strikes me as evil, cultish behavior.

At 6/12/06 04:52 PM, Xiaohuanghua wrote: I am a college student live in China.
Coming this site my first purpose just want to find some flashs, but not carefully ran in this page and saw these words.
my English is broken , even like the CET6 I have failed to pass, originally I do not want to say any, because I knew whatever I said,it is also cannot change anything, but I thought,as a citizen of the country , I have the duty to make an explanation for her, even though it is the futile effort.

Your English is good enough for me to understand. I don't know why you would think communication is futile.

these words to bub_nydb :
China is a developing country, definitely have some not good system or phenomenon, but we continuously in diligently, so as to prove to the world that we are industrious, capable, and deeply loves peace . Chinese are such friendly to the others,But you actually satirize and slander us by this, this is your American's manner ?

When did I ever satirize or slander Chinese? Again, I explained what people in the U.S. know/think about China. Personally I like China, Chinese people, and for the most part Chinese culture. The U.S. in general has no animosity towards China, only differences with the government of China just as China has differences with the government of the U.S.

And ,Taiwan is a inalienable part of our country , I hope you can respect the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of our country.

I already addressed this issue.

At 6/12/06 01:05 PM, wuxiaochao85 wrote:

At 6/12/06 11:34 AM, bub_nydb wrote:

according your words, you seems arrogant just like your gov. YOU are the first country called (Iran, Syria) terrorism country (gangster country),before it. None country do this.It is the first evidence. Secondly, "oura rapidly growing economy (with lots of piracy)" from your point,it most owe to piracy. In fact you can search the data in our media or made a social investigate or some theme of west investigate company. From that you will find most of our export is just like "TV SET" " PC SET""washing machine"

Perhaps you misunderstand. You wanted to know what people in the U.S. know/think about China. I told you. If you wanted a sugar-coated story, you shouldn't have asked what do people think about China. The majority of Europe, North America, South America, and Australia recognizes that Iran and Syria support organizations (Hamas and Islamic Jihad) that carry out suicide bombing on civilian targets in Israel. In my opinion most of China's wealth today comes from legal manufacturing and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of Americans would go along with that assessment. Haier is one of the best companies in the world. That being said, piracy is rampant in China. It see it every day I go to the grocery store. There's always someone there selling pirated movies next to guys running unlicensed motorcycle taxis.

cloth ,shoes, hap, toys, bed cloth......and so on. Such like soltware ,they is very little in our export,even less than 1%. I accept the fact of piracy,but i never agree your that point, the wealth is not steal from others!!!!!!!Not!!!

Again, I never said that China's wealth came from piracy, just that Americans know China has both a rapidly growing economy and problems with piracy.

Beside above,i want tell your Taiwan is the province of China! You,not a chinese do not have the rights to intervene our interior! I am not politician, but i also never can bear foreigners say anything on this topic! Taiwan is one part of my country!

Again, you asked what people thought. I told you what people think. Yes, Taiwan is (at least nominally) a province of China. And yet ask yourself if the will and well-being of the people of Taiwan should be ignored. Why is the democratically elected government of Taiwan, which originated from the government that moved there in a time of war from the mainland, to be considered less legitimate than a government on the mainland that was not elected by the people? (Yes, I know the Nationalist government at the time was horribly abusive.) Why would threatening the people of Taiwan with military annihilation be a good thing when Taiwan poses no threat whatsoever to the mainland?

Never think you are living China ,then you is certainly a Chinese knower!

Of course living in China does not mean I know everything there is to know about China. Never think that the government tells you the truth either. Never think that you know me from what I tell you people in the U.S. know/think. Wo zhidao ni juede wo bu zhidao Zhongguo. Keshi ni mei renshi wo. Ni bu zhidao zenme wo juede.

There is so many things left you don't know on China.

The same could be said for anyone, but I readily admit that I don't know much about China compared with someone who has been born and raised in China. I know nothing compared with my beloved wife of 11 years.

In the end , i want to say one thing,don't hold the arrogant oppion. I write the words here fairly,openly in order to communicate with American friends. In order to release

I won't, thanks.

misunderstand between each other.

Reducing misunderstanding would be good.

If you want complain to chinese and China, you sat wrong seat! Atmosphere here is open and fair. i am so regret my limited English, there is more i can not press in English

You asked what people thought. I told you what I believe people think in the U.S. The atmosphere cannot be open and fair if people are not free to complain. You've certainly complained about the U.S. and labeled people from the U.S. as first ignorant and then arrogant. How many people from the U.S. have you actually gotten to know before deciding that?

Notice what I have never written. I have never said that the U.S. is perfect and the rest of the world sucks. The U.S. government has major problems with the way it has carried out foreign policy and the Bush administration has trampled all over the U.S. Constitution and international agreements on human rights. I've already explictly written that the U.S. news organizations aren't very good at informing the public and the public seems happy to get what little international news they do get and just be entertained the rest of the time. Would you like me to go on with criticizing the U.S. or do you really want to know what other people honestly know/think about China?

Bush is always on the news here in Shanghai. Before him I'm sure Clinton was on the news. In comparison China's leaders are rarely shown on U.S. news programs. U.S. news organizations are seemingly more interested in capturing attention to sell airtime for commercials while CCTV educates the public and advances the party's propaganda.

Honestly, China has very little bearing on people's day-to-day lives in the U.S., so people don't pay it much attention. People in the U.S. know that China has a huge population, a rapidly growing economy (with lots of piracy), a large military, nuclear weapons, and a government that is little better than an oppressive dictatorship that deals openly with nations that sponsor terrorism (Iran, Syria) while constantly threatening to attack Taiwan and its democratically elected government. That's scary enough for most people, so they don't look further and the newsmedia doesn't provide them with much else.

I live in Shanghai and my wife is from Chengdu, so I know a fair bit about China. I've picked up a bit of Mandarin, but I'm not at the conversational level yet. I'd say that the average person in the U.S. doesn't really know that much about China and has a fair amount of misconceptions, but to be fair the average person in China doesn't really know that much about the U.S. For example, the typical U.S. citizen thinks Chinese food equals the food they get in Chinese restaurants in the U.S., including the fortune cookies which were invented in the U.S. The typical person in China thinks American food = McDonald's or KFC. Really there's a tremendous variety of food that originates in both countries.

Should you go to the U.S., most people would be pretty friendly towards you, but that friendliness would be different than what you are used to experiencing. For example, if you say you don't want to drink any alcohol, they'll accept that easily. After the second offer, they'll stop. If you want to drink a little, but not much then that's fine too. Alcohol doesn't even play much into business in the U.S. In China you pretty much don't get to say no to drinking. If you are a man, then you drink and drink a lot or you and the other guy just aren't buddies and will have a hard time doing business. A host in China expects that out of some sort of modesty that you would have difficulty accepting anything from them unless they repeatedly insist on it. A host in the U.S. would trust you to be open with them about what you'd like.

Things can get a bit rough in poor neighborhoods of heavily urbanized areas and you might run into someone who is racially prejudiced in rural areas. Usually that's not much of a problem and one quickly learns where not to go. My wife and I have only had a couple of uncomfortable moments that might have been racially related, and I was the one who sensed something was odd. Everywhere else people at most had some odd preconceived notions, but nothing hurtful.

People often think they know a lot about the U.S. from books, TV and movies but really they don't know much unless they spend some time in the U.S. and travel around a bit. Newsmedia, TV shows and movies give a very distorted and extreme picture of things -- and we should expect that since they are designed to get people to watch and sometimes used to promote political agendas.

On the censorship worries front, just avoid blatant political activism and you'll be fine. Lots of websites are blocked by the Chinese government and certain web search keywords won't work. That just keeps you from getting to certain information. Posting politically sensitive stuff (such as about the Cultural Revolution or the 1989 student demonstrations) on blogs or forums is something you definitely don't want to do, especially on Chinese language websites hosted in China.

Frankly all of this good/evil and other extremist stuff from either end of the spectrum annoys me, and yet I find it important to understand the mindsets.

At 6/12/06 04:37 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: Thanks for stalking. Please come and look me up again.

Oh good, you enjoyed it. Perhaps that means you'll stop accusing people of being racist and acting racist yourself in the process. Here's more for you to ponder ... or argue with yourself. Whatever:

"Nah guys don't have pussies so I can't agree with you. And you need help.
Oh yeah and Virginia is full of racist black people who even diss black people outside of virginia."
http://www.newground..id=267346&page=2

Oh and by the way, I'm black.
http://www.newground../topic.php?id=318885

At 6/11/06 05:54 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 6/11/06 12:47 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

Incidentally, are you aware that your continual whining that "I am black, why do you hate me" is racist in itself?

He should be aware of it, seeing as how he posted this:

"There are racist people out of every color of skin and nationality. You have people in Japan that don't like anything that isn't Japanese. And have some Africans and Pakistan individuals of the same ordeal. It doesn't matter if you are Black, Arabic, White, Hispanic, Oriental, Native American, or Pacific Islander you are still going to find someone completely racist towards you. I mean if you go to Virginia you'll find all kinds of black people that are racist to everyone that isn't black, or as black as they are or a Virginian Black. Which is why most African Americans that live outside of Virginia can't tolerate blacks that live in Virginia, because they just can't handel being around someone that takes advantage over their minority rights. African Americans had to fight a difficult and long battle to win those rights they have right now, and some of them really don't like it when a black person comes up to a none-racist white person and starts calling him or her racist, just because he or she is white. And the same thing goes for other ethnicities as well.

So you are going to find racist people of any race and you are going to find people who can't tolerate this mockery of an anti-racist attitude as well."

I added some bold for emphasis. Here's a link to the original post:
http://www.newground..id=279677&page=2

At 6/12/06 03:18 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: Again that wasn't my post. I simply just stoled it from someone else. So BOOYAH! And who says I can be plagaristic here on this domain?

So you are saying that you didn't write it, you are just a plagiarist who doesn't see anything wrong with making ungrounded accusations of racism. Your mama must be proud.

At 6/12/06 01:18 AM, Jayemare wrote: a warm apple pie

Mmmmm. Pie. Can I skip marrying the pie and just eat it? If my wife helps me eat the pie, would that be a ménage a trois?

Oh, and I feel I should confess something. I am pie-ist. I prefer apple, cherry, pumpkin, and various berry pies. I discriminate against rhubarb and pecan pies. How shameful of me.

At 6/11/06 05:15 PM, Kenzu wrote:

At 6/9/06 11:16 AM, bub_nydb wrote:

At 6/8/06 08:25 AM, Kenzu wrote:

Government has of course some say. And all companies will have to pay taxes, and those who are less successful might get some subsidies. Of course companies will have to employ also people, even if they don't need them. The workers will have to work less to achieve what has to be done. The government might for example pay the "additional" workers wages, instead of the companies itself, or the companies might get some tax cuts. The money would flow from the governments tax revenues. (Also don't forget that a government will also own some companies, so it can place many people in its own firms)

Sounds interesting, though I'm not sold on the idea. What mechanism would exist to encourage people to pursue the type of work that needs to be done? Government bonus? How would that be determined? Market forces mostly take care of that by themselves (though imperfectly when public good is involved -- such as pollution cleanup). Additionally it seems to me that some people need attitude adjustments before being given any sort of job -- people have ability and yet won't get anything done and impede the work of others.

PS: Why do you quote me? Do you quote me out of agreeing with me, or out of sarcasm? I'm confused, since you are left, but still "less left" than me.

I liked what you wrote that is now in my .sig. I agree that welfare programs are socialist elements.

I wouldn't say that I'm left, but in the middle of the U.S. political spectrum. I'm a bit mistrustful of government; hence a strongly socialist economy is out of the question for me for that reason alone. Efficiency-wise I'd say that a mostly capitalist economy with effective government regulation of industry (for environment, fair labor practices, combat anti-competitive practices, etc.) and social welfare programs (public school system, progressive tax structure, social security, Medicare, welfare -- or workfare for those who can) gives the most overall economic promise. My preferred form of government is close to what the U.S. has, but with third parties getting the same access to the ballots as the current top two and having a fair shake at representation in government. I'd like there to be a viable centrist party (well, U.S. centrist anyway). Right now I'm rather ticked at Bush for taking what I view as a gigantic dump on the Bill of Rights.

Now I'm going to try something unusual. I'm going to try to provide arguments for gay marriage addressing the point of view of the right -- first the social aspects and then the economic ones. I would appreciate hearing any well-reasoned arguments from the right that would counter what I present or input from the left that would supplement what I have here. I've intentionally left out fairness arguments, since I severely doubt that a fairness argument from one side will ever be found compelling by the opposing side on this issue.

Unnatural/sinful choice?
First off, granting social equality to homosexual relationships is not something the right is every going to be in favor of since they view homosexual acts as unnatural &/or against God's will and a matter of choice. Scientific evidence demonstrating that while individual acts involve choice, sexual orientation (attraction to same gender) is linked to genetics would help to soften the stance of some. Even if someone is opposed on the basis of morality, one can still view it as not the government's job to legislate morality but society's job to encourage morality through social pressure.

Corruption of youth?
Evidence suggests that sexual orientation is linked to genetics, so gay marriage is not going to make heterosexuals suddenly become attracted to people of their own gender. With or without gay marriage the social pressure to be "normal" will still suppress some homosexual activity. If someone's family, friends, and church are against homosexual relationships, then there will still be strong pressure for someone to live a heterosexual lifestyle. It should also be pointed out that the debate will not go away until gay marriage is legally accepted. Until that time gay rights activists will make sure that everyone knows of homosexuality and provide regular "shock therapy" to try to gain acceptance. The bigger the deal that is made of it, the more likely youth will experiment with homosexuality in order to rebel against authority -- especially since unlike drugs or alcohol that has no significant legal consequences. Also, homosexuals locked into gay marriages should be less likely to "lead youth astray" with chance encounters.

Promotes promiscuity?
Part of the right's opposition to gay marriage stems from their view (doesn't matter whether it is accurate or not) that homosexuality promotes a promiscuous lifestyle (viewed as wrong on its own and leading to transmission of disease). It should be pointed out that gay marriage would provide a legal structure that encourages close partnership in homosexual couples and reduces promiscuity. With less promiscuity there will also be reduced transmission of disease and less burden on the nation's health care system.

Link to pedophilia?
No study I have seen has shown a link between sexual orientation and likelihood to become a pedophile. However, let us consider if someone has suppressed strong sexual desires and eventually comes to the conclusion that only someone who is trusting and can be easily manipulated is a possible outlet for relief without getting caught. It would seem to me that having an acceptable outlet with a consenting adult would be preferable to imposing that sort of dilemma -- and the more stable the relationship, the less likely for pedophilic temptation to arise. Take the Catholic Church’s requirement that priests be celibate and their problem with pedophilic priests as an example.

Preservation of marriage and the family?
Gay marriage would expand, not reduce marriages. The only reason there'd be more divorces is because there would be more marriages. Allowing gay marriage would not change the vows that straight people make to each other. Children of a gay parent would be no worse off having their parent married to a same gendered person than just living with that person. The children may benefit from having a more stable environment due to the legal commitment of marriage, even if it is a "gay" one.

Increased burden on government services?
The right estimates 1-2% of people are homosexual. Gay rights organizations estimate that 5-10% are. Religioustolerance.org, which doesn't seem to have a particular agenda other than promoting understanding of opposing viewpoints, gives an estimate of 2-5%. If the right is correct, then at most we should see a 1-2% increase in marriage related government services. However, since gay couples rarely have children the net effect should be far lower as such services are more often than not tied to children. Most legal benefits of marriage are contractual conveniences that deal with things like inheritance and medical decisions and don't really have a cost to tax payers.

Shifting of tax burden?
Since most homosexual couples do not have children, they are more likely to both work. When both spouses work and have income that is not too far apart, currently they pay more taxes and not less. If the number of homosexuals is as the right says (1% to 2%), then the effect will be negligible. If the number is as gay activists say (up to 10%) then that probably means a modest tax windfall and shifting of tax burden from heterosexuals to homosexuals.

I believe the arguments above complete my slight shift from marginally against gay marriage to marginally for it. I still feel that redefining marriage on a national level is unrealistic at this time and a waste of effort in government. I also feel that it is not something that should be done without a lot of careful consideration. For the foreseeable future the definition of marriage is likely to remain a state issue, as it has been since the founding of the United States.

At 6/10/06 05:10 AM, Occluded wrote: Sorry for the late reply. I actually got out of the house.

I completely understand. I've been occupied with the Mrs.

At 6/6/06 09:53 PM, bub_nydb wrote:

Citizenship. We are talking about US law. And I see that citizenship may have been the wrong word. I feel that bringing animals into this discusion is completely off point. In the eyes of the law you would in effect be married to nothing. Animals don't fill out tax returns. Animals don't apply for medicare. I do see your point. But giving animals equal treatment under the law would cause massive universal change to the law. Marriage being the least of which. So, I feel there is little point in folding the topic into this one. I'm a bit of a libertarian. Redefining marriage. Marriage is traditional. If we want to keep it as a legal entity (and I believe we should) then it needs to change.

Fair enough to exclude non-humans, though polygamy and legal age still remain to demonstrate that the current definition of marriage is a bit arbitrary.

It is not as objective as first appears. The Golden Rule says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Correct? Well, suppose I would like to have my neighbor's wife do something naughty unto me and so I do something naughty unto her. Even if she wants that, is it moral? What about her husband and family? My wife and family? How do competing needs get balanced? Subjectively. Pardon the silly example.

It is that simple. Just apply it unilaterally. You do something naughty to the wife you are also doing something to her husband and family. Indirect results are ones you are still responsible for. Pardon my recycling of the silly example.

Yeah, so then indirect results of changing the definition of marriage must be considered as well as direct results. And with multiple parties involved, there are conflicting needs.

And I may be wrong here, but adultary isn't an offense against the people is it? I know it's grounds for divorce, but the state can't actually press charges can it? It's a contract violation. No more illegal than any other contract violation. Government doesn't invlove itself in this on the behalf of society.

Adultery has in certain times and places been considered a crime against society and been deemed worthy of severe punishment up to and including death, but under current U.S. law it is only a contract violation and sometimes a tort (civil wrong). There have been cases where the affair partner who was outside the marriage has been sued successfully for damages for interference with the execution of a legal contract. Government does involve itself to make adultery legal grounds for dissolution of the marital contract. Similarly in most places government currently involves itself to make man+man or woman+woman not meet the legal requirements for entering into a marital contract. The big difference is that government leaves the decision for marital contract status mostly in the hands of the two spouses in the case of adultery whereas government allows the homosexual couple no such decision to enter into a marital contract. Come to think of it, homosexual couples right now could probably enter into legal contracts with each other that approximate marriage. However, their contracts would not be granted special recognition by government and they would not reap government granted marital benefits.

I'm arguing that some distinctions are legal, right, and necessary. Others are not. Which are right and which wrong is often a matter of opinion. Tradition has no bearing.

The law makes distinctions by the rules of human rights. Those that are violated and those that do the violating. Race, sex, religion, and class have to be irrelivant. Should it not be this way? What distinctions are right? What are wrong? And why?

There's no universal agreement on human rights. Certainly I do not want discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin, or caste. And yet we have formalized racial and gender discrimination known as affirmative action which seeks to reverse the effects of past discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of behavior is another matter.

Not all humans have recourse to become citizens and yet they still may marry, but non-humans never have recourse. My wife was also nationalized through marriage -- and is distinctly lacking in fur.

Wow, I just realized how civil this discourse has been. Thank you.

It is a refreshing difference from the flame fest that such discussions often become on the internet. I should be thanking you for that and the opportunity to exchange ideas and think about the issue from different angles.

It isn't about people in general. The population at large would be entirely unaffected by gay marriage. Yet everyone feels they aught to have a say in it's legality. It is about the universal application of human rights. Sometimes the rights of the few outweigh the whim of the many. We have to let go of our desire to force our standards to a universal so that no one forces their standards onto us. The only universal laws should be the ones that are inheritly.

In my view these are for the most part fair statements, though the population at large would be affected slightly. I'll have to address this in another post.

Do you feel that gay marriage may unfavorably discriminate against the larger population? If so, why?

Put that way, I don't see how it would unless gay marriage gave greater benefits than straight marriage -- and noone has proposed that. And to be fair, heterosexuals could marry a same gendered person and get the benefits of a gay marriage. Turnabout is fair play for the "homosexuals can already marry" argument, is it not?

I have to wonder then, what benefits for heterosexuals people see in "gay marriage".

Our freedom. By protecting the freedom of homosexuals I am, in effect, protecting my own.

Actually the Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There's no requirement that those in government put aside their religion.

Yes, but when those in government try to 'legislate' their religion then it becomes unconstitutional. I know I dragged this out of another conversation. Couldn't help it.

Yep, fair enough. I don't want sharia or the Christian equivalent of it.

At 6/11/06 05:06 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

At 6/11/06 01:37 AM, bub_nydb wrote:

At 6/10/06 05:26 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: pfft racist.

Gee, who was it that wrote:

There are racist people out of every color of skin and nationality.

It certainly wasn't me. I know for certain that the term racist generally implies a cruel hatrid towards a certain individual base on their racial origin.

I never said that he was a racist white or imply anything to his origin. Therefore, STOP MAKING UP THINGS!!!!

No, it was you who wrote that. You know what you have been doing by flinging around unfounded accusations of racism in a vain effort to "score points". And here is the link to what I quoted for everyone to see.
http://www.newground..id=279677&page=2
Again, maybe you should take what you once wrote to heart.

As for the rest, you are arguing with www.dictionary.com.

At 6/10/06 05:26 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: pfft racist.

Gee, who was it that wrote:

There are racist people out of every color of skin and nationality. You have people in Japan that don't like anything that isn't Japanese. And have some Africans and Pakistan individuals of the same ordeal. It doesn't matter if you are Black, Arabic, White, Hispanic, Oriental, Native American, or Pacific Islander you are still going to find someone completely racist towards you. I mean if you go to Virginia you'll find all kinds of black people that are racist to everyone that isn't black, or as black as they are or a Virginian Black. Which is why most African Americans that live outside of Virginia can't tolerate blacks that live in Virginia, because they just can't handel being around someone that takes advantage over their minority rights. African Americans had to fight a difficult and long battle to win those rights they have right now, and some of them really don't like it when a black person comes up to a none-racist white person and starts calling him or her racist, just because he or she is white. And the same thing goes for other ethnicities as well.

So you are going to find racist people of any race and you are going to find people who can't tolerate this mockery of an anti-racist attitude as well.

Sound familiar? Maybe you should take it to heart.

Social Democracy (or Democratic Socialism) is not "pure democracy."

Yes it's pure democracy.

Pure democracy = people vote directly on the issues of the day rather than electing representatives. At the country level it is merely theoretical since such a thing is not practical.

Socialism=government ownership of capital

Uhh... wrong...

political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.

Uhh... wrong...
so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital (syn: socialist economy) (ant: capitalism)

Source: WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University

Which in sense implies democracy = people controlling.

No, which in a sense implies the government controls the capital, just as it states in the dictionary. Whether the people control the government (and hence indirectly the capital) is another matter. Now certainly to Kenzu et al. what seems to be important is not how socialist/capitalist an economy truly is, but how well the people are cared for by the country.

Democracy=government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives

Actually that's a democratic republic.

Try dictionary.com or any dictionary for that matter. Exercised directly = "pure" democracy; exercised through elected representatives = democratic republic.

I'm not sure why there continues to be confusion as to their definitions.

Maybe because you don't actually know the definition to those words. You imply republicanism when it comes to democracy and you imply communism when it comes to socialism.

Communism: the political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of that society.

Or basically everything can be owned by the government, in which all of it's members are equal to those in society.

But this can also imply dictatorship, because the one who is in control can decide who has what in society.

No it can't really imply dictatorship, since then the dictator would be in a separate class from the common people. Hence it would be communist in name only, but a dictatorship with a socialist economic system in reality. The reason people equate communism with dictatorship is that "advancement" towards communism has always stopped at dictatorships with socialist economies, and mostly pretty oppressive dictatorships at that. Such "communist" countries also fall well short of the ideals that give the reasoning for state or collective ownership of capital.

At 6/9/06 08:23 PM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

:<shit deleted>

Fine since you can't look it up on your own, I'll just do so for you.

http://en.wikipedia...y_of_same-sex_unions

Wikipedia is blocked by the government of China. In any case it is not a very reliable source.

Would you care for some tea with that, master bub_nydb? Or should I go back out into the cotton fields and harvest some more cotton for you and your humble agricultural business, Sir?

No, instead you should put aside your racially driven anger and adjust your attitude in general. Nobody wants to hire someone with an attitude problem.

At 6/8/06 08:25 AM, Kenzu wrote:

This doesn't have to be so. economic power should be distributed among the workers and management of that facility as well as wages.

So workers could have a more direct say in how a company/work unit is run rather than having things in the hands of a central government. Interesting and preferrable to having economic power centralized IMO. I have to wonder how that would work out while trying to achieve the lofty goal of 0% unemployment. What happens if companies/work units (as determined by their workers) don't want to take all of the additional employees that are entering the workforce? Would the central or local governments step in and give companies/work units hiring quotas?

At 6/9/06 09:50 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: You still aren't getting it. Dickweed.
… you are infact stupid and idiotic. … dickweed.
… Mr. Soccermom.
… it complicate things with your vanity issue.
… how can I do so with someone like you?

If it makes you feel better, use all the ad hominems you want; it won’t bother me though. Sorry to have upset you so much. I can see why you might think I’m being a condescending bunghole. That wasn’t my intent, but if you want to take it that way that is your choice.

Certainly some can take others seriously and act with a measure of maturity.

Like you? Please...

How about like you? I’ve read you respond to people with civility on more than one occasion. Occluded and Kenzu have acted with some class while expressing their disagreement with my posts and posts from other people. Sure there are some people who post seemingly with no other goal but to offend. I thought you posted your views because you believe in them and would like others to see things your way.

Pfft... just another fabricated piece of BS.

Source demonstrating that it is “fabricated BS”?

Oh please... there was marriage between men in Greece, China, and in Japan long before Christianity came to shores of America. And still it was probably practiced there too, well before christianity came into their lives.

Source?

At 6/8/06 11:10 PM, general_bloodless wrote:

2. The constitution says that the innailiable (I don't know how to spell that) rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we deprive anyone of marraige, we are preventing the pursuit of happiness.

Actually that is the Declaration of Independence, but the point is still valid.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

3. The constitution also states that religion and government can't mix.

Actually the Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There's no requirement that those in government put aside their religion.