Guard Dog

they made a particular point in saying that he was playing Ghost Recon (A violent video game) you know. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I noticed that too. They are already setting up his insanity defense. Disgusting.

Currently reading Cesar's Way, by Cesar Milan. It is a MUST read if you own dogs!

Just because the public wants it does not mean it's right or wise. Yes they want up to pack up and leave Iraq now but by and large do not understand the terrible consequences of that action. By and large the public wants the US government to pay for healthcare and point to other nations that do. But they don't even understand why it doesn't, can't, or even comprehend the damage it would do to our nation and society to change our system enough to allow it. We tend to elect people because we hope they are better informed about things like this than we are and if you do and those people decide based on the best information they have that a war is needed to defend the best interests of the nation then you should support that until you find out otherwise. And if it means serving and fighting, so be it.

As bad as it is, if it is ever enacted it IS legal. Would you go to jail, Canada, or the the service? The shortest route is to just go in, do your two and get it over with. I think the jail term is longer and I don't believe Canada will welcome dodgers again. Which would any of you guys take?

Jeez, that was intended to be a tounge-in-cheek comment. You guys are taking that too literally! But you are correct. Any heartache with the fiscal discipline (or lack therof) in the current government has nothing to do with the causes of the revolution. Thats why I added a second paragraph so I did not make a connection between two seperate thoughts. Anyway, let me say for the record I do NOT advocate armed insurrection against the US govt. The problem with forums is sarcasm often does not translate well!

Figuratively speaking of course!

The big point of contention was that the colonies did not have representation in Parliament. Tax was the match that lit the powder keg but the powder keg was no autonomy or representation in what was becoming an increasing hostile govenmnent in England. I find it ironic that our forefathers threw out the British over a 3% tax rate yet now we vote for politicains that have created a bloated, over reaching govenment that is crippling us with taxes, most of which the Constitution grants it no authority to levy. About time we got out our muskets again and lined up on the Boston Green.

Something else to think about everyone. Hypothetical scenario here. After the collapse of the Weimar government in Germany in 1933, Hitler became the new Chancellor and he immediately set aside the Treaty of Versailles and began arming for war. Suppose the "Big Three" had then taken military action against Germany. After all they violated the terms of their peace agreement and Hitler was promising to reannex territory now independant or owned by other nations by force. It was twenty years after the war ended so conscription would be a must and they (the allies) would have been attacking a sovreign nation. But it would have been a short fight. At the time it would have appeared like an unjust and unnecassary war and many of you would have then looked at such a conflict as you do Iraq now. But looking at it through the prisim of history, how many lives would have been saved? How would the world be different? If you had fought in 1933, perhaps your younger brothers or sons would not had had to fight in 1940. Sometimes an "unjust" small war now is better than a "just" big war later. Just something to think about.

Not to wander off topic too much but on the note of a citizens duty to pay taxes I had an idea. In 1997 I was cosidering a run for the US congress and one of the platform ideas I floated to my party manager was a bill that would make 20 year or more veterans of the US Armed forces exempt from federal income tax for life after their 20 year anniversary. If you've given your country 20 years or more of your life (and in US history there has never been 20 consecutive years without some kind of military action so most 20 year vets have seen combat) then you've done all that could ever be expected for your countrymen. It got a lot of traction in a political party that was already working to eliminate federal taxes anyway. I would love to have run with it.

I got this nickname after an... ah... incident that happened while I was in the military. It just stuck.

I just realized I was a little OT in my post. Two answer the question, yes if drafted I would go. I would not begrudge any who would not. Loyalty and love of country must never be forced. As long as it's given freely, it will always be sincere.

A little background on me. I served in the USMC from 1989-1995. During that time I participated in a number of actions including Desert Shield/Storm. With that said, there are two things stated here I agree with wholeheartedly. First, barring an event with the scope of WW2 a draft is the absolute worst thing that could be done to the USA and it's military. It would erode public support without which no war effort could succeed be it just or unjust, necassary or needless. Second, it would fill the ranks of the armed service with unmotivated, undisciplined people. It would drag down performance and be devastating for morale. Bad morale is a cancer. It kills a unit slowly from within. One could argue the US military today is the most effective fighting force in the history of man. The reason why is not just the technological advancement, its the professionalisim and espirit-de-corps of the soldiers, airmen, sailor and marines. It will never happen. Not without a major confontation with a major world power and I think WW2 was the last of the great wars. I spent my entire military career training to fight against Soviet tactics. Never once had to face them. Two more things. Sorry Raven, women cannot be drafted. Draftees are nearly always sent into the army for a 2 year stint in the infantry. Second, when we left Kuwait in 1991 we ALL thought "We'll be back". By not finishing off Iraq then, Bush 1 left us with another war to fight. Whatever you think of Bush 2 and Iraq, right or wrong, the war MUST be won. Or 10 years from now we'll be back there again.

I'm curious, how do some of our Canadian members feel about Quebecs nationalist aspiriations? Quebec is the industrial heart of Canada and I wonder if they ever did break away how well the remainder of Canada would survive. Also is language really at the root of the issue? I live in South Florida and there have been a number of attempts to make Spanish the official language for local governments particularly in Dade (Miami) County. I always point to the situation in Canada as an example of why this is a bad thing. When one group/region/political entity begins to divorce itself culturally from the whole, national identity will be inevitably lost and a schisim is only a matter of time. It's a little different in Canada because the French heretige in Quebec predates the nation itself whereas the spanish influx in South Florida is a relatively recent thing historicly speaking.

It is ok to kill trees and animals when necassary. my house is made of wood and I'm no vegetarian. It is wrong to do these things recklessly or wantonly because even plant and animal life have value. But if Sand asserts that life begins at cognition (which in a human higher brain functions begin to kick in arounf 9-14 months) Then he is equating human infants with animals. Somehow Sand i don't think you meant that. BTW Sand, check out my post 237. i answered some points you made last night.

That was totally out of line Lucius.

I know this thread is WAY off topic, but doesn't this beat the hell out of discussing what you are wearing, watching, listening to, etc, etc, etc. The threads in the Way Off Topic forum are usually not this good. Thanks to the mods for the latitude here!

Fair enough, but to continue to play devils advocate here, if a woman decides to abort in the last trimester, the fetus is now fully viable and can eat and breathe unassisted in most cases. It is still legal to kill the child via abortion at that point. But if she waits another week or two, gives birth and then throws the baby out a window it becomes murder. What is the difference between the two then? Why does a late term babys life have no value when a post birth babys life does whrn they are in nearly the same state of development. Does that sound like a double standard to you?

I might also make the same argument about an infant. It too is utterly helpless on it's own. When do you think a human life becomes alive? For me, it's the moment brain activity begins which is 4 weeks after conception if I remeber correctly. But you never answered my original question. Outside of religous teachings, does human life have value?

I have to take issue with you here Calax. I posted my thoughts on this issue earlier so you already know I think abortion is wrong but should not be illegal. But you stated that other than the fetus no ones health or welfare is harmed by abortion. Should the fetus not get some consideration? It is by definition alive. Dosen't human life have sanctity irrespective of religous teachings? As Di pointed out, murder was illegal in most all societies even before Moses came down from the mount. If life were worthless, why is murder wrong? Just trying to give you a different angle to think about.

To Calex: So we're screwed either way? To Lucian: I stand corrected To Lare: Thank you for illustrating my point. The biggest problem with the world today is, humans are losing the ability to live and let live. The antireligous zelots are becoming as fanatical as muslim suicide bombers.

Heh, that's 2 hours 58 min past my attention span!

Heck Moth, that IS happening. Just last month a high school football coach in Live Oak FL was fired for leading a prayer on the sideline for an injured player. Someone in the stands took offence at seeing high school students praying at a school function and either was a lawyer or hired a lawyer and went after the principal and the coach. Reading back on this thread you have been called, Bilbe Boy, Fundie, and a few other nasty derrogatory terms by a few posters. When did Christian become a four letter word? What is it about that religion that raises so much ire? I am proud to call myself a Christian and I insult no one and hold malice towards none. Why is it those who do not believe in it, it is simply not enough to not believe themselves. They cannot suffer others to believe it. Case in point, Michael Newdow in San Francisco. It is not enough for him to just be an atheist. He cannot sleep at night knowing school children are acknowldging the existance of God when the say the Pledge of Alligence in the morning. Even Sand, who seems like a pretty reasonable guy gets upset at the very notion of teaching I.D. in school as an alternate theory of the origins of life. No one of any intelligence can deny the process of evolution. And the theory that man and apes may have had a common ancestor has merit. But no evolutionary chain from single cell organisims to higher forms of life has ever been established. That is the basis of the theory of Irreducible Complexity upon which I.D. is based as Sand correctly points out. He says it has been discreditied and is is derided by the scientific community at large as relying on the old "God-of-the-Gaps" idea. But, IMHOP that is simply a straw man argument. The Avida artificial life program at MSU has gone a long way towards proving I.C. and it is not universally rejected. "Mainstream" science reacts violently whenever an idea arises that challenges what it believes to be canon. Clarence Darrow argued that in the Scopes trial in 1924 that laid the way for evolution to be taught in schools to begin with. The point I was coming to before getting sidetracked was that I'm finding more and more hostility to christian beliefs in society and even here on this board. Right now the topic is treated with scorn, but hate usually follows scorn. And after hate comes gunshots.

You got it taks.

Just curious Sand, where did you ever see the Repubs violating the establishment clause? It states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If you were referring to introducing intelligent design in text books it was to be taught in addition to evolution. Not to the exclusion. And I just searched www.house.gov using the terms "intelligent design". There are no and have been no bills about it. Is there another one I missed?