Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/29/04 11:10 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 4/29/04 09:56 PM, warhblade wrote: I'm against it, women have vaginas for a reason. So lets keep it that way.

And it can be argued that men have raw nerve endings on the prostate for a reason (similar to that of the clitoras or G-spot). Tell me the purpose of this.

Wow... your screen names says everything just about now...

Yes, there are many arguments, some try to sound "scientific" or in that sort of nature. And so what if a vagina has a purpose? Doesn't need to be used that way. And what about other parts?During the 50s and 60s, there was a justice who said something that god didn't intend people to marry for the reason that he put the races on different and wide contents. But now we all know that's plain stupid.

Today I decided that I wanted to look like Sickboy, the guy from Trainspotting. He has really cool hair, really blonde, yet he has black eyebrows. I thought the look would suit me very well.

So I looped off my should leangth Latin hair, which is as black you can get, shinny and very thick. I sent it to Locks of Love, a place that makes wigs for kids with cancer... or something like that. Got this spiky/ sickboy thing going that was really cool. And then I went home with a home bleaching kit.

Two hours with bleach in my hair, I rinse it off, and it's a bright orange-- the color is just the shade of an Navel Orange, just about. I'm upset, went and did some research.

Black hair turns orange... I really wished I knew this. Lessoned learned.

Stick with what you got.

At 4/28/04 05:38 PM, bmxcj3 wrote: Why is it that when liberal Clinton bans gay marraiges its upsetting but no big deal but when conservative Bush does it then its an out cry and a travesty. Im not saying they shouldnt get there rights I just think its funny.

I do remember that. I was 16, the only thing I cared was having fun, getting homework done, and sleeping as much as possible. I didn't really care, but I distinctly remember that there was a lot of out cry. The Clinton years I'm seeing now were better compared now, except Clinton's lack of work for homosexual things. That, "Don't ask, don't tell" was just rubish. Other then that, Clinton did a better job, despite that stupid Lewinsky thing.

Makes you wonder what Bush has in his closet...

But the proposal of making an admendment closes the case once for all for gays. "Defense" of Marriage Act can be challenged, for the simple reason that it is discrimative under the Bill of Rights under the 7th admendment.

Making gay marriage illegal goes against this, and what America stands, or try to stand for.

At 4/28/04 01:02 PM, xlaw42 wrote:

At 4/28/04 12:51 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

need.. brawn we need..

And caring for people is something we really should have. Sure, our lives might be made better by not caring for the old people, but remember, you'll be old someday.

We need nothing, Animals around us do without clothes, do without machines, do without guns, they do without every LUXARY we have, notice that word LUXARY, we've become a race of Superficial beings that think shit around us is a NEED.

Because we are animals of NEED. We do not have powerful mandibles to eat unedible food, we have "fur" that is unsuitable to insulate us. (how much insulation armpit, and some body hair do for humans) But we have a thing that animals don't have (or we can't prove) The ability to think complex.

Even monkeys will use tools, using sticks to get termites. And many groups will form societies that not only raise children, but care for the sick, and etc.

You are very adament to believe that humans need nothing, but the fact is that even our primates display characteristics that are common in humanity.

Why did our earlier kin like homo sapiens, H. erectus, etc. who were so much better equiped with other abilities such as eating, digesting and getting the nutrients from unedible tuff plants such as roots, or the ability to digest raw meat, die out? They were so much better suited to live more "wildly", but they died out.

The reason was that humanity has such a big brain that not only can think logically, is concious, and in some respects, we are a little bit more distinct, thus set a little bit more futher from "Natural Law".

We humans have our guns. Our primates have their sticks. We both use tools.

At 4/28/04 01:28 PM, xlaw42 wrote: Aids shouldnt even be brought up in this conversation it comes down to a few simple things.

1. Is it morally right ?

A. From a religious standpoint its not. To the non-religious person most likly they arn't going to care. Basically summed as as clinton said " Dont ask, dont tell "

2. Does Homosexualy couples benefit America?

A. Speaking strictly guy homosexuality the answer is overall no. A couple's worth is in their ability to reproduce which gay guys are unable to do. But this than brings up the idea of adoption at which point the 2 guys could raise the kid. The only concern I'd have with that would be first off how would the kid be raised? and secondly how would the kid's like be in School when the other kids find out that he not only is a foster kid but raised by 2 gay guys.

A couple's worth is reproduction? Just one minute... ahem... this just in... people have babies without marriage... (gasp) *don* *don* *don*! Yes, marriage could be seen something as to reproductive, but there are many married couples who aren't able to have children, or will not have children. But this is a religious view, and since this is the United States whom we can't favor one's religious point of view over another, your point is moot.

I was raised by my mother for many years by herself. Kids are raised by foster parents. Some kids are raised by thier grandparents. Some kids are raised by a whole household of many generations as in case with Asian and Latin cultures. And kids are raised by homosexuals all the time despite them not being married. My concern with children is if 1.) They aren't being harmed, 2.) They are getting healthy food, excercise, and a good education, 3.) Getting love, being taught that fear, hate, etc. are terrible things.. There are other things, but what is your point of gays raising children? We're not capable of doing such a thing for the fact that we're gay? Gays and straights are at the same level of raising children, and both could be bad parents or good parents.

If we are not working on such an instinctual level now, does it mean we are drifting away from our instincts? If so, what do you reckon, should we just go with the flow and let all our instincts vanish?

As far I know, I do not know how many attributes a person may have that could be credited to instincts.

A baby just knowing how to suck... that's instict.
Fearing snakes, the dark, etc. is very instinctual, common world wide in many cultures.

And perhaps your other argument has validity; we may not be sniffing out our potential partners or doing weird mating rituals like animals, but using tools such as lipstick and perfume to look better and thus probably creating better chances of mating.

Now for your other argument: Let our instincts vanish? If one were aware of one's instincts, then it's not really instinctual. There are probably a few instincts that will probably never leave with concious effort, such as babies knowing how to suckle, and perhaps our defense mechanisms when we are frightened. I believe many people already know the Fight or Flight thing...

I hate Bush...
I hate USA...

I love... FREEDOM OF SPEECH

I live in San Jose, CA... White house with white gate, metal post box. Lots of flowering plants, shrubs, and roses. Can't miss it. Chao... I'll be seeing you guys soon...

At 4/28/04 01:07 AM, jonmcnamara wrote:

well, generally i sit, since i don't have a penis and i don't like to piss on my own shoes

you dont have a penis? well thats to bad. but i would like to start a campain for guys. it is called the not miss, wash hands policy. It would be difficult im sure, to not pee on the floor and then walk out without washing your hands. But think of the ease and convience it is to PEE IN THE TOLIET AND FLUSH IT GODDAMMIT, and then wash the hands please!
this makes me mad every single day when i have to stand with my legs 2 feet apart cause some moron cant aim into the toilet. Violators of this policy will have standing rights removed and they will possibly be shot.

hey but if the world changed at least i would have boobs to play with.

Hey, I'm with you. I feel sorry for girls who have to sit down to pee. Some toilets I've seen are disgusting, and the men who pee on seats should be the ones sitting on them.

Well, I don't know about sudden sex change, but I do know that when I was younger, I always wanted to look white (even though my skin is white) But I wanted to be with blonde hair, colored eyes, etc. But now I really appreciate how I look. I believe that I'm sexy, and even more because I'm Latino attributes.

Think about it... Race change... hum...

I am sorry you fail to see it, but to not notice that gay marriages has never came up until now. Why isn’t homosexuality looked down upon as much as I thought it would have, I don’t know, I guess having so much freedom is getting to there heads.

My gay-dar is going off... coming from this direction. Self denial? Just to let people know: I once used to taunt and called people fags too... Ofcourse I was trying to make myself feel better.

Gay marriages hasn't come up till now because gays are facing a whole host of problems that comes from loving each other and wanting to live together.

It is not a failure to see what's not there... Santacty of marriage is equally sacred to gays.

Having so much freedom to our heads? I didn't ask to be gay. I did things to make myself feel better. The worse thing I did was to beat up an 8th grader during middle school because people thought he was gay, even though I knew that it could be me. But some how, I knew I eventually needed to be truthful to myself. That day happened when I walked infront speeding cars, but then I had this existential moment: I don't want to die, I want to live, and I'm going to do the whatever frigging hell I want as long I was able to accept consequences.

I had to fight myself to be myself. I had to fight other people to show who I truly want to show. I am fighting to destroy what causes unjust cruelty and vicious hurt to future Gays, who may very well may be your son or daughter. I am fighting because I am patriotic, and won't allow someone else's belief system dictate anothers' lives.

I am going to put up a good fight, no matter what. And they bloody hell if someone killed me. I would rather die blissfully being true to myself, then miserably live being what other people believe is normal.

At 4/27/04 08:58 PM, ThePatrioticAmerican wrote:

At 4/27/04 08:55 PM, chibi_warrior wrote: So back the hell off by saying that homo-sexuality is a disease

It is. It's a social disease.

Tell me, how it is a social disease? I am very intrested, but I don't expect much.

At 4/27/04 08:00 PM, ThePatrioticAmerican wrote: Perhaps this article will be enlightening to you liberals who support gays marrying.

Honest to god, do you believe that just because a person is gay that he will be having affairs, and straight couples won't?

Let's see, in my neighboorhood alone, I know 3 women whom cheated on their husbands.

Sexual fidelity is a two way street. It also applies to hetros. Ever heard of "swinging"?

I'm off, take a dump, and I will wipe my ass with a printed page of your article.

:Or we would be looking for healthy, strong women with large, child-bearing hips.

Right on! If I was working on a instinctual level, I would be looking for heavy strong and healthy women with large child-bearing hips. If we were truly on the instinctual level, Rosie O'Donnell would be a better mate then say, Calista Flockhart.

At 4/27/04 12:27 PM, hired_goon wrote: Society usually frowns upon the notion that the strong survive and the weak perish. There are concessions made to help the weak at the expense of the strong, like benefits, facilities for the disabled etc. But our instincts are geared towards the former. Women want to look as good as they can, full of make-up and wanting thinner ankles and stuff. Their instincts make them attempt to attract the strongest male. When a female (or male) looks at the opposite sex, they determine if the mate is healthy and strong, and is attracted to the strongest. All this “it’s what’s inside that counts” is bullshit, because instinct dictates. This mating mechanism is just one instance of instinct in society, and how it is suppressed in modern times. I’m just interested in whether you lot reckon we should continue to suppress, or set ourselves free and live closer to how it was intended.

We as humans, we are quite distant in many qualities that our primates possibly had. 1st, we have bigger brains, capable of conciousness. 2nd, we are rather dependent on other human beings to reach a level of maturity for independence. There's a whole lot more how we aren't exactly connected with nature and thus with instinct.

Beauty is something rather subjective. For me, I can't stand the sight of women with hairy armpits or legs, but for Italians, and some Mexicans, it doesn't matter.

But beauty could be seen as a survival mechansim in one sense. The more beautiful, or let's say, the more symetrical a woman's features are, the more likely that woman may attract a mate that will perpetuate their DNA.

But that's the base level that hopefully not all people function on.

This sounds very cliche, but it is in order: Beauty comes from the inside, not from the outside.

And instincts isn't all about people wanting to fend for themselves as your disable person example. On the contrary, there are examples in the animal kingdom of animals displaying human like qualities such as mourning.

An elephant will never step on elephant bones, often herds of them will travel to visit grave sites. I believe I remember that elephants will cry, as they touch bones with their feet and trunk.

Doves and other types of birds will often pine away when their partner is dead, or gone. I have two doves, and when I had to remove a sick one and put it in a incubator to make sure that the other one won't get sick, that other one wouldn't eat or drink unless I shoved it in its throat with a special instrument. Only once I returned its mate it started to eat and drink again.

In humans, it pratically instinct to help the weakling such as babies, and even once those babies have grown and matured, parents still help their children.

I could go on talking, but I got to leave for work.

At 4/27/04 12:52 AM, Chronos_the_almighty wrote:

Straight up: what is your opinion on same-sex marriag arrangements?

I have no problem with it; as far as I can see, it's natural for homosexuality to exist. See, what I figure is that homosexuality exists to keep a species from overpopulating itself into extinction, and therefore is completely acceptable and should be legal on all accounts

Who knows why exactly homosexuality exists. Just happens. I for one wouldn't be one if it was something switched on and off if it meant not all the BS I have to face such as secrecy, redicule, the same ol' stuff. But I'm not going to go into nature vs. nurture debate...

Better... now understanding you.

At 4/26/04 11:19 PM, bmxcj3 wrote: spanish no kidding? You dont have to go to a church to get married? You mean you can get married at a court house? Or oh shit anywhere you please? Thats crazy. And NO my opinion doesnt dictate your life. If you want to be with a man go ahead. Do it. I like women and I wouldnt let you change that. Just as im not going to take men away from you. Like I said in case you werent paying attention Im not against the rights. Your rights should be given to you. The terms for Civil unions should be changed so that insurance companys have to go through with it. I think you SHOULD be able to get the items or the house. My problem is that there are to many gay people out there worried more about getting items in a death or a piece of paper more then anything else. You think when I asked my fiancee to marry me I sat down and thought hard about all my fancy tax deductions and how if i die id get a sweet house. No I thought I love her and that means the world to me. And if I didnt have the paper would I care. NO! If my wife died would I care about the house? NO! Why? The fucking house is the least of my worries my wife the person I loved just died. Youd have a lot more on your plate then that. Take away everything I have except her and I will tell you here and now that means everything to me even more then some stupid paper, tax deductions, or anything else you want to complain about.

Oh my god, you are so unreal. Well, since you don't care about your house getting taken away from family members, since the only thing most important is grieving. I've read your argument. You believe that gays are marrying just for the documents and lacking other things such as love, etc.

Don't redirect the argument. The argument isn't about, "If I love you" The whole point of Gay marriage is for that piece of paper. Love is a different issue. Of course if my partner died, I would be mourning, and all that. But just because I'm mourning doesn't mean that I nothing else is important. I want to make sure that the things we've obtained together doesn't go to people whom we don't want to be given.

This isn't an argument of sentiments of marriage, of course I would be crying and all that. But it doesn't mean I'm not going to disregard everything else because I don't want to appear as a greedy bloodsucker who cares only property, material wealth, etc.

At 4/26/04 11:07 PM, DesertEagle17 wrote: lol. well there are a lot more gays then there used to be so yes they are increasing

No, gays aren't increasing... just more people coming out of the closet.

Very often, gays are forced to appear straight in fear of rejection. And so they get married, have children, etc.

I have talked to many older men who have grandchildren, and have gay affairs. I am disgusted by them, but I feel very sorry for them for being born at a different time.

Some movies I've seen have brushed on that subject. If you seen American Beauty, the Colonial was a gay basher, but was gay himself. In a movie with Salma Hayek (Callejon de los Milagros) or in English, Midaq Alley, a secretly gay father and husband of 20 something years has an affair with another gay man.

Gays aren't increasing. There always have been gays, and most likely, someone's father, mother, sister, brother, family memeber, etc. on this fourm are gay but are just acting straight in fear of rejection, and sometimes, murder.

At 4/26/04 10:48 PM, bmxcj3 wrote: Im against homosexuality. However I do think if someone wants to be gay let them be so. I am however against gay marraige. I am not against homosexuals having civil unions or allowing gay partners to have the same rights as anyone else. Marriage is a religious term. It means a binding marraige between a man and a woman. It doesnt say a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Allowing them there rights is one thing. My problem is that most gays are doing it because they want to be left in a last will in testament or a tax deduction. If thats not the case who cares if its not a legally binding marraige. You can get married just not under the eyes of the government. Why should it matter if you get to have deductions or wills? If the person loves you so much they would have left you in there will anyways so dont get upset at the government. Marraige is more then just paper. If you dont understand that then you dont need to be getting married.

And why in the Hell would I want to get married but not get the things that comes from marriage. THAT's the reason why we homos are fighting. We want to be in the will, and have deductions. Look, would it be fair that if you married (a guy I'm assuming now) with your girl, work to get a house, and all of the sudden, she dies, but don't keep the house? That's what's happening to gays. When a will is dictated, usually family members of the deceased gay, who are very often spurned them, will challenge the will. So the family of the dead gay gets everything while the living gay flips the bill.

I don't care if you're against homosexuality or gay marriage. But I will NOT have your opinion dictate my life. This is a civil rights issue.

And another thing... Gays know that marriage is more then a paper. Gays know what love is. If I marry, then you pretty damn sure know that I'll be doing it for love. Gays have been married, before all this ratfink started. But these marriage aren't valid in the eyes of the government, but we do them anyways because we do it out of love.

At 4/26/04 10:34 PM, spanishfli wrote:

At 4/26/04 07:05 PM, xXx_Shadow_xXx wrote: Why stop at gay marriage.. lets let people under 18 get married.. what if 40year old and 13year old are "partners"..and they have a child..but they cant get marrige rights.. is that fair? no..so why stop there..let marrige have no limits.

Just looked at your profile. Well, your 13... mind not fully formed, haven't seen the world yet or experianced things. Haven't taken higher education courses either... So, I'm not expecting much from a kid.

But let me say that as an older person (and I'm not much older, just 22) let me say that you should learn how to be a critical thinker, even if it means going against the crowd. Not many people do become critical thinkers. But you can begin, and this maybe a subject you should think: What will happen if Gays marry? Is the world and society truly going to crumble? Etc.

At 4/26/04 07:05 PM, xXx_Shadow_xXx wrote: Why stop at gay marriage.. lets let people under 18 get married.. what if 40year old and 13year old are "partners"..and they have a child..but they cant get marrige rights.. is that fair? no..so why stop there..let marrige have no limits.

and if you think thats sick...well..your..a..uh..a...underage-marrige-phobe

Muwahaha... Muwahaha... first gay marriage... and then, THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD! Muwahaha, Muwahaha *don* *don* don!*

Yup, the ol' "landslide argument". Obviously you can forsee the future of humanity with crystal ball in Tra-la-la-land. And you saw men marrying their dogs, women marrying toddlers. Of course you don't need any evidence since you are the Great and Almighty...

Get real person. First off, in the US there are consentual laws. No child can't go into an agreement or contract. But in gay marriage, the people who want to marry are older than 18, and thus under persecution of the law.

You have provided no agrument, just bolstered dissentient with just a tad bit of sarcasm. Otherwise, what in the friggin Hell is your point? Tell me what will happen if I married today with my guy.

The purpose of gay marriage is to allow us to live together without the cruelty and heartache that comes from not having legal status (hopefully, you do know that gays are already in relationships <gasp> *don* *don* don!*)

Again, give me a solid argument.

At 4/26/04 05:53 PM, Zeratul86 wrote: Straight up: what is your opinion on same-sex marriag arrangements?

There's one thread already, but I will never tire about this subject. As some folks can percieve in my past posts, I have a male partner or had one in the past. And so I'm fighting for my rights.

Gay marriage should be allowed. It is horrible that Gays should be put into more trouble to arrange property, costodial, rights and plus etc... what a marriage can do.

It's unfair that wills are challanged.
It's unfair that if I'm a vegetable, that my same sex partner can't visit me, or have the decision to what to do my fate should be.
It's unfair that if I do decide to split up with my partner, that there is no consistant law about to certain properties to whom it belongs.

People against gay marriage have no true evidence or arguments against it, and the real reasons they are against it is that they are uncomfortable, disgusted and scandalized by the sight of two men or women kissing, or having a family together.

The Bible, Koran, or Torah are good things, but these sacred instruments of a faith cannot be used in the United States Government for the reason that we cannot choose one over another, and that we have to try to keep church out of state. The only sacred instruments of our government should use is The Bill of Rights and The Constitution.

If you don't like gay marriage, fine. Perpetuate that idea to yourself and your family, not on my government. I should be the one who to CHOOSE what I want. People whom say that marriage is sacred... don't you know that Gays already know it's sacred? Are we excluded from it because we're different? Do people honestly believe that gays marry so that we can debase marriage? No, we just want the legal rights that comes with marraige.

The majority of Americans don't support gay marriage. But this is a Civil Rights Issue.

There.

At 4/26/04 05:59 AM, frankenblow wrote: I am an Australian and i am proud of it. first off enough with the down under bullshit I belive that the world is upside down and Australia is on top! Its not a shrimp its a prawn! And yes it snows here too! We are the most Under estimated country in this heartless world
by every other country. We arnt just a bunch of sweaty redneck yobbos who wear hats with corks on the end! any way we have been waiting TOO long to be recognised! TOO long to be treated with respect TOO long have we been used as tools. Germany had their time Russa had their time America is having its time now my Australian bothers and sisters ITS OUR TURN!

Woa... I wonder what set you off... yeah, Australia COULD be a superpower. But I doubt no one will know for the mean while. It seems the US may be the super power for a while longer, but at the rate companies are leaving the country for cheaper labor... who knows.

I say Tomato, you say tomoto... who gives a damn, shrimp and pawns... Nothing that people should be upset about. I didn't know Australia had rednecks, although it could be in a diffrent sense other then what North America percieves redneck (ala Jeff Foxworthy material...)

To the person whom made that rather unflattering remark about prisoners: The US itself was a place that England sent its prisoners. To which state, I have to look back in my textbooks, but it may very well be Virginia, if not one or more of the original 13 colonies.

Plus, we had slaves, stole Mexico, tried to steal Canada, and a whole other stuff skeletons in our closets, so there, don't be so haughty. Bring yourself a notch, we're not all that or a bag of chips.

Such tests on racial IQ have been redicules. Most tests conducted are not done blindly, and such scientists are already biased. During the early 1900s, these tests were conducted between IQs of Mexicans and Americans. Considering that the tests administered was in English... you knew that the Mexicans were going to be stupid according to results. At the same time, it concluded that the Mexicans' short frame was suited for bending over in crop fields since "nature breed the Mexican" that way.

Give me a double blind test whose test subjects are are varied, but share a similar background. Meaning, not comparing a Black from rural South with a WASP from New York.

Nature vs. Nurture... I tend to believe it's more nurture...

At 4/26/04 03:19 AM, Fiend_Lore wrote: what would you do if you just woke up and just realized, you were the opposite sex. try to make an intulectual statement, and not just say "id kill myself." and nothing to sick or nasy, guys especialy.

Go to the psycologist, and make sure that I WANT to be the opposite sex, and not because of other factors. If I feel strong enough about it, and if the psycologist says that my desire to be the opposite sex isn't due to other problems, then why the Hell not?

At 4/25/04 01:44 AM, Lil_Vova wrote: i am not new to flash or ng i just made another name. I am out of ideas and i need a good writer to give me a story. it can be a series w/e i'll take anything i like. no anime ideas!

I am an excellent writter, and have produced at least two plays. One of which, "Waiting for God in the City of Angels" will be produced this year at my local community college. I have lots of theatrical experiance which varies from acting, improv, children's theater, and other stuff... I have taken a Script Anaylis class, so I have some kind of formal training in script writting. I do not to be paid, but I like to be given credit.

If you have ideas already on what you like, and what you can work with, I can make a fairly decent script.

At 4/25/04 08:51 AM, DarkBlueFlame wrote:

At 4/25/04 08:45 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/25/04 06:31 AM, air_boy75 wrote: what on earth are you on about lol

He's saying that he likes Karry because he keeps state and church separate.

He appears to keep church and state seperate now we all know that the religious wing is gonna come out in there little passion drovels to vote for Bush making it that much harder to get that ass out of office.

Nailed it! Yes, I quite admire this man, although I am far from deciding to whom I shall vote. In one hand, I do like stance on war, and being a Vietnam vetran, I am more impressed that after fighting the war and experianced it, he went against it. And the fact he defied Vatican orders and accepted the Body and Blood, but keep his religious life out of his political life-- well, I'm a whole lot more impressed.

But in the other hand, perhaps he is too defiant. How would I know he won't do something becuase of this character trait that I'm so far enjoying? I can't think of any situation right now.

I do not care if any politician is a religious, what I care most is that that type of behavior won't affect that person's duty in office. JFK was a Catholic (although they way he acted, me thinks not...) and yet he didn't allow that upbringing to affect the decisions of the US (as so far I know...)

Kerry seems like a spiritual man, and that's good. But as long he don't bleed that into his politics (like Bush) then I may very well vote for him. Although it's not clear. We got several months to study and observe...

Being an ex-Catholic (although much of my behavior stems from my early Catholic teaching), and very much against the Christian Agenda, and I am careful of electing another official who may be a zealot. But I must say, that I admire Kerry. He knows how to keep the two seperate, despite the media attention he made. He is a Catholic, a very strict religion on many issues. Kerry supports women's rights, the Catholic Church does not.

The Vatican announced to its priests to not give communion to politicians whom support abortion rights. Now this pisses me off a great deal, but what I could do. You can be a Catholic, or not. But I admire Kerry (for the mean while) just for the fact that he doesn't allow his beliefs ink his politics.

That is a 2nd reason why I may vote for him, the first one being his position of opposing the Vietnam War even when he fought in it. Although I'm not going to say I will vote for him yet. I am still reading up on other politicians, but Kerry seems like someone who can fix Bush's mistakes.

At 4/24/04 06:17 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: While were at it, lets ask ourselves the age old question that everyone is dying to find out the answer; Do black people really have bigger penises than whitey?

Ha, ha! I love that one... Who cares who can swim if you a big floatation device in your pants...

I didn't see any names of people or companies whom specialize in genetics whom provided evidence that blacks can't swim because of their genes.

It is a much more likely that a high rate of lack of swimming ability is due to exterior factors. Blacks are frequently more poor then whites and don't have access to things that richer whites have more readily available, which could mean money for long trips to the beach, money for a personal pool, etc.

You implication that blacks can't swim isn't fully correct. You have only seen ONE article with no expert evidence, and not have taken in other factors. *tsk* *tsk* *tsk*

At 4/16/04 02:04 AM, ReiperX wrote: Here's a non Religious, non Iraq, non Bush/Kerry topic that I'd like to hear your opinions on.

What do you guys think of assisted suicide? To me, I honestly have no problem with it under certain circumstances such as being terminally ill and suffering. What do you guys think?

Suicide-- hey, why not? Some people need deserve a non painful death. I would rather snuff myself out with one quick movement then to be draged out and forced to feel too much pain. And to be doped out on morphine would be humiliating to me and my family.

At 4/19/04 02:40 PM, Skunkbxpat wrote: to be fair, though, jane fonda did suck. she made the mistake of hating the soldiers, most of whom were drafted against their will. it's not like these kids were the ones waging the war. that was actually a mistake often made by protestors of vietnam, and also a mistake made by many now, during the iraq war.

but john kerry was against the war because he killed a vietcong soldier to save his friends, and had such a hard time living with the fact that he had taken a life. so he left the army and decided to protest. he was against the war, not the soldiers.

The more reason I have to vote for the man... I'm sorry republican folks, Bush hasn't done a very good job. And if people are going to take in account personal lives of canidates (as people did with Clinton) I'm going to say that I will vote for Kerry just for the reason that he went against what it seemed to him not right. I would rather vote for a man who used his concious and decide what he would fight for, then another whose past have been very questionable.