George Bush is a prude.

[#1_Droogie]

Jose Padilla is a TERRORIST. Yes, he was an "American Citizen", but we didn't pluck him out of his house while he was watching American Idol and playing with his kids. He had been living in Pakistan and training with Al Qaida. We nabbed him off a plane coming from Pakistan.


We have the evidence, but cannot release how we got it. We DEFINITELY should be able to hold him.

so wait......are you the secretary of defense or something? how is it that YOU get this "evidence" and not the rest of the public?

You see....if you would learn something about the way the world works, you would know that the CIA has a shitload of information that we get from foreign sources....and why do we get it?.....because we keep it to ourselves.
In this case, Pakistan alerted us to Padilla getting on a plane to come here. They gave us alot of information on Padilla that corraborated what we had already.
Now you want us to release this information so that we can "provide evidence" to hold him. I've got news for you. Pakistan has already told us that they do not want to be involved. They WILL NOT come over here to the trial and testify against Padilla. In turn, we cannot release that information for the protection of our informants overseas.
If we release that information, we can forget EVER getting any more info from our foreign agents in foreign countries. That would be disastrous.

so, like you say, they havent released the evidence......so, again, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT? I think it's kind of funny how contradictory you are to yourself.

 

[DELIRI0US N0MAD]

so wait......are you the secretary of defense or something? how is it that YOU get this "evidence" and not the rest of the public?
so, like you say, they havent released the evidence......so, again, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT? I think it's kind of funny how contradictory you are to yourself.

It's public knowledge that Jose Padilla trained at an Al Qaida camp. That's all I need to know that he's a terrorist. If you think he was just there baking cookies, then I feel for you. You may want to pull your head up before the tide comes in.

The evidence that is not public knowledge are the operational details of anything he had planned....and actually some of it is known, but through information that Pakistan gave us. And as I said before, they won't come here to testify.
Besides, those details I do not need to know.....nor should the government release them.

It's not that difficult.

The way I see it, there can be no substantive debate with you because your mind is closed.

Anyone that would argue FOR Jose Padilla and AGAINST the President of the United States is part of the problem in my opinion.

 

[jdelpi]

First off, Bush doesn't do everything the "Christian Right" says, otherwise, there would be NO abortions (a view that Bush doesn't subscribe to), NO pornography, NO gay unions whatsoever, you would have Christian icons allowed in all buildings, etc..... As proof of this, how do you explain BUSH allowing the 10 Commandments to be taken out of a courthouse in Alabama over the STRONG objection of the "Christian Right"......again, you're just paranoid.

Bush isn't as dumb as some people make him out to be. He knows he has to pander to the Republican center, so he can safely ignore the fringe. What are they going to do? Vote Constitution Party?

Bush is against changing the definition of "marriage" and I agree. Like me, Bush is ok with gays having "civil unions". There is NO reason why gays MUST have it called "marriage". What the gays want is equal rights when it comes to "spousal benefits", "hospital visitation", etc.....they can have ALL THE BENEFITS that come with marriage without making us change the definition of marriage.

And why should the federal government control the definition of marriage? The federal government did not create marriage, nor have such matters typically been federal issues. It shouldn't have control of it.

There is a VERY good reason that he wants, dare I say, MUST make a constitutional amendment outlawing gay "marriage". The gay movement is trying to pull a fast one on the American public. Right now, they say that "it's a state's issue"....(first time I've seen liberal actually invoke the 10th amendment).....but there's a dirty little secret. If a gay couple gets married in a state that allows gay marriage, and then they move to a state that DOESN'T allow gay marriage, there's a little-known part of the Constitution called the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" that would force the state that doesn't allow gay marriage to recognize the gay marriage of that couple. Then each state would be forced to recognize gay "marriage" when the people of that state don't want it........

While I am impressed to see the full faith and credit clause mentioned on the Anthrax board, you're perverting its function.
That section of the Constitution reads:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
​

Congress utilized this power in 1996 with the support of Bill Clinton when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). As a result of this law, states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages in another state. Unless DOMA is found unconstitutional (doubtful with this current court), the Federal Marriage Amendment (to outlaw gay marriage in the Constitution to supposedly protect state powers while taking them away) is unnecessary.

Bush doesn't think that "religion should be put in biology books"....he believes that "creation" should be taught as a theory, just as the THEORY of "evolution" is taught in school. He doesn't say it should be taught as fact, just as another theory that people (most people) believe in.

Yes, only the "theory" of evolution has boat loads of evidence to support it while the so-called theory of intelligent design has nothing besides a few criticisms of supposed deficiencies in evolution. We don't allow alchemy in chemistry class. We don't allow astrology in discussions of astronomy. Creationism was already banned in public schools by the SCOTUS.

As far as Tommy Chong, it DOES have to do with "a" movie, but it has nothing to do with using his past movies as evidence in his trial....as you have suggested. During the trial, Tommy (although he blatantly broke the law) laughed about it and said that he should use this situation in his next movie. The prosecutor took this as Tommy not taking the charge seriously and having such a cavalier attitude towards breaking these laws (just as he WAS doing). In the end, Tommy did not get the minimum sentence, nor did he get the maximum sentence. I believe he got 9 months and no fine instead of 10 years with a "6 figure" fine.

Yes, of course you fail to mention Tommy Chong committed a VICTIMLESS "CRIME."

 

[DELIRI0US N0MAD]

Bush isn't as dumb as some people make him out to be. He knows he has to pander to the Republican center, so he can safely ignore the fringe. What are they going to do? Vote Constitution Party?




And why should the federal government control the definition of marriage? The federal government did not create marriage, nor have such matters typically been federal issues. It shouldn't have control of it.



While I am impressed to see the full faith and credit clause mentioned on the Anthrax board, you're perverting its function.
That section of the Constitution reads:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
​

Congress utilized this power in 1996 with the support of Bill Clinton when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). As a result of this law, states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages in another state. Unless DOMA is found unconstitutional (doubtful with this current court), the Federal Marriage Amendment (to outlaw gay marriage in the Constitution to supposedly protect state powers while taking them away) is unnecessary.




Yes, only the "theory" of evolution has boat loads of evidence to support it while the so-called theory of intelligent design has nothing besides a few criticisms of supposed deficiencies in evolution. We don't allow alchemy in chemistry class. We don't allow astrology in discussions of astronomy. Creationism was already banned in public schools by the SCOTUS.



Yes, of course you fail to mention Tommy Chong committed a VICTIMLESS "CRIME."

Nice post.
First, of course he's going to pander to the center, every politician does. However, I was addressing the statement that Bush caters to the far-right's every request, which I said he doesn't and I backed it up with facts. Now you're saying that he panders to the middle. In essence, you're actually proving my point.

I agree with you, the federal government "shouldn't" have control over the definition in the generic sense, since it is historically a "state" right. However, in this specific situation, the state that doesn't want to recognize a gay "marriage" may HAVE to because of another state's laws. In that case, the federal government, in my opinion, should at least define "marriage" so that one state (and it's entire population) doesn't have to recognize it against their will. Now, keep in mind, this has nothing to do with the rights that a gay couple will have, just the definition of marriage.

Yes, there is a "possibility" that the Federal Marriage Amendment "is unnecessary", but the is also the possibility the it IS needed. If this were to be challenged in a state, there are 2 possibilities....it's either allowed by the state, or struck down. If it is allowed, it will surely be appealed and could end up in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and I'm sure you are aware of how left-leaning that court is. And I'm not so sure the current Supreme Court wouldn't declare it unconstitutional. Keep in mind, this is the same court that said a state can allow an individual's private property to be taken away and given to a private business just because it can generate tax revenue. And now the court is currently without one of it's most conservative judges. I wouldn't put anything past this court. It currently leans much more to the left. So where the law "may" be unnecessary, it "may not" either. In the immortal words of Hicks in "Aliens"....."It's the only way to be sure".

Evolution may have more evidence, but Creationism is accepted by more people. So that arguement can go on forever. I happen to have no problem with it being taught as a theory. That could be legitimate debate.

I "failed to mention" that it was a "victimless crime" because it's irrelevant.
So are you saying that because it is a "victimless" crime that it should not be punished? I'm not sure I follow you on this one.
Now I'm not fully knowledgeable about the details of this case, but if I understand correctly, part of the indictment was that he was marketing his materials to minors....maybe even selling them to minors....but I don't want to be quoted there because I could be wrong. IF that is the case, then it wouldn't be a "victimless" crime.

Along those lines, I could probably find some common ground with many of my detractors here because I'm a Libertarian at heart. Quite frankly, if I want to smoke pot, snort cocaine, or do PCP, I should be able to do so in the privacy of my own home......as long as I'm not hurting anybody, it's my own business. (And don't start about how my support of that habit feeds the system and hurts children in Columbia, that's not what I'm talking about) However, those laws have been on the books forever and a day, so it ain't Bush's fault that we cannot engage in that kind of activity. (For the record, I don't do any of that....never have )

Nice post, though. I always enjoy a substantive debate.
Hats off to you.

Thanks

 

[jdelpi]

Nice post.
First, of course he's going to pander to the center, every politician does. However, I was addressing the statement that Bush caters to the far-right's every request, which I said he doesn't and I backed it up with facts. Now you're saying that he panders to the middle. In essence, you're actually proving my point.

I agree with you, the federal government "shouldn't" have control over the definition in the generic sense, since it is historically a "state" right. However, in this specific situation, the state that doesn't want to recognize a gay "marriage" may HAVE to because of another state's laws. In that case, the federal government, in my opinion, should at least define "marriage" so that one state (and it's entire population) doesn't have to recognize it against their will. Now, keep in mind, this has nothing to do with the rights that a gay couple will have, just the definition of marriage.

Yes, there is a "possibility" that the Federal Marriage Amendment "is unnecessary", but the is also the possibility the it IS needed. If this were to be challenged in a state, there are 2 possibilities....it's either allowed by the state, or struck down. If it is allowed, it will surely be appealed and could end up in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and I'm sure you are aware of how left-leaning that court is. And I'm not so sure the current Supreme Court wouldn't declare it unconstitutional. Keep in mind, this is the same court that said a state can allow an individual's private property to be taken away and given to a private business just because it can generate tax revenue. And now the court is currently without one of it's most conservative judges. I wouldn't put anything past this court. It currently leans much more to the left. So where the law "may" be unnecessary, it "may not" either. In the immortal words of Hicks in "Aliens"....."It's the only way to be sure".

Evolution may have more evidence, but Creationism is accepted by more people. So that arguement can go on forever. I happen to have no problem with it being taught as a theory. That could be legitimate debate.

I "failed to mention" that it was a "victimless crime" because it's irrelevant.
So are you saying that because it is a "victimless" crime that it should not be punished? I'm not sure I follow you on this one.
Now I'm not fully knowledgeable about the details of this case, but if I understand correctly, part of the indictment was that he was marketing his materials to minors....maybe even selling them to minors....but I don't want to be quoted there because I could be wrong. IF that is the case, then it wouldn't be a "victimless" crime.

Along those lines, I could probably find some common ground with many of my detractors here because I'm a Libertarian at heart. Quite frankly, if I want to smoke pot, snort cocaine, or do PCP, I should be able to do so in the privacy of my own home......as long as I'm not hurting anybody, it's my own business. (And don't start about how my support of that habit feeds the system and hurts children in Columbia, that's not what I'm talking about) However, those laws have been on the books forever and a day, so it ain't Bush's fault that we cannot engage in that kind of activity. (For the record, I don't do any of that....never have )

Nice post, though. I always enjoy a substantive debate.
Hats off to you.

Thanks

I agree with you on pandering to the center. Public choice theory rocks.

You can't really say the court leans to the left or to the right. You say eminent domain. I say Bush v. Gore. You say Texas sodomy law being struck down, I say Gun Free School Zone Act being struck down.
If there were going to be a constitutional amendment to allow states to refuse to recognize gay marriages, shouldn't it say just that rather than preventing all gay marriages?

Creationism, in some water-downed form, may have more popular support, but popular support doesn't equal science. There are controversies in science, but creationism isn't one of them. As a libertarian, I am not a fan of government involvement in education, but it's something I have to live with. Since that's the case, I'd like to keep the quality of education high, rather than pandering to some group who doesn't like the scientific method because evolution doesn't go along with their literal reading of the bible.

I mentioned victimless crime, because, quite frankly, I think it's stupid to waste any resources on throwing Tommy Chong in jail. His arrest was a cheap (in value, not cost) political victory over a harmless man and nothing more.

Congrats on your coming out of the libertarian closet. Eventually you will realize that Republicans really aren't your friends and that every once in a blue moon, the liberals might get an issue right. It was a long and torturous road for me, but it's a journey well worth making. You start with guys like Neal Boortz, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell so you can be a manly Republican. Then you find your little niche in libertarianism.

 

[DELIRI0US N0MAD]

Yep...some (most) of those debates can be beaten to death. I think we could find alot of common ground.

I think we'd agree on quite a bit. I have no problem with your suggestion regarding the "gay marriage" thing and I also think government involvement in education is a mistake. Give me the worst private school over the best public school any day.
Heck, NOTHING the government does (in any party) is efficient. The private sector will always do a better job at everything.

Yeah...I don't always agree with the Republicans, but I rarely, if ever agree with the Democrats. The Republicans are the closest thing I have. I'm not going 3rd party again and hand the country over to a Clinton/Gore/Kerry.

I listen to all 3, Neal Boortz, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. They are all great guys.....especially Walter Williams.

I'll always have Libertarian in me, but there are quite a few issues that they have that I don't agree with....but that's for another day.

Right now, I have few problems with Bush. There are issues, like border security, that I disagree with him on, but I have confidence in him until he proves me otherwise. Time will tell.

Rock on.

 

[stab]

yup

 

[Arg_Hamster]

Privatization is from my experience not a good thing, when the communications and electricitymarket was privatized things went bad, there had been campaigns and lobbying for years about it. And when it was done prices skyrocketed and services were well, for us that were lucky bad and for the unlucky ones non-existent.

Sorry I know this is another Dubya-bashing thread but I did my bashing back in 2002 I think.

 

[DELIRI0US N0MAD]

Privatization is from my experience not a good thing, when the communications and electricitymarket was privatized things went bad, there had been campaigns and lobbying for years about it. And when it was done prices skyrocketed and services were well, for us that were lucky bad and for the unlucky ones non-existent.

Sorry I know this is another Dubya-bashing thread but I did my bashing back in 2002 I think.

I think there's actually more Dubya-defending going on here than "Dubya-bashing". I actually enjoy this thread.

But about your comments...I'm certainly not putting words in your mouth, as I am not familiar with your situation, but I think you may be talking about "deregulation" as opposed to "privatization". Deregulation can be debated legitimately. Both sides have valid arguements. I'm not going there now, though.

I will stand by my statement that says, "anything the government can do, the private sector can do better".....Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but I can't think of any at the moment. :Spin:

out.

 

[ImAlwaysHungry]

Ummm...all I gotta say to all that is.....my eyes hurt

 

[jageorge72]

here's something for you: BOTH PARTIES SUCK. And Unfortunate for america, our political system and country are so re-fucking-tarded that no 3rd party candidates have even a SLIVER of a chance. Clinton may have been bad, but we had a fucking surpluss(sp?) because of the moves he made.

For your info....... just because the budget was balanced during Bill Clinton's term, doesn't mean he did it. Actually Newt Gingrich and a team of Republican leaders shut down the government, forcing Clinton into signing a bill that would lead to the balanced budget that you speak of.

Bush..... although I think overall he's done a good job.... is a spending fiend.

 

[jageorge72]

Ah yes....the wonderful "huffingtonpost"....Ariana Huffington, a beacon of intelligence.

I'm glad to hear that you would like to see Jose Padilla roaming the streets. Something tells me that you wouldn't let your family hang around that guy.
Although you shouldn't worry about him, he wouldn't waste his time sawing off your head because he's got bigger plans for more significant people.

Jose Padilla is a TERRORIST. Yes, he was an "American Citizen", but we didn't pluck him out of his house while he was watching American Idol and playing with his kids. He had been living in Pakistan and training with Al Qaida. We nabbed him off a plane coming from Pakistan. We have the evidence, but cannot release how we got it. We DEFINITELY should be able to hold him.

You see....if you would learn something about the way the world works, you would know that the CIA has a shitload of information that we get from foreign sources....and why do we get it?.....because we keep it to ourselves.
In this case, Pakistan alerted us to Padilla getting on a plane to come here. They gave us alot of information on Padilla that corraborated what we had already.
Now you want us to release this information so that we can "provide evidence" to hold him. I've got news for you. Pakistan has already told us that they do not want to be involved. They WILL NOT come over here to the trial and testify against Padilla. In turn, we cannot release that information for the protection of our informants overseas.
If we release that information, we can forget EVER getting any more info from our foreign agents in foreign countries. That would be disastrous.

Stop being paranoid how Bush is taking over the world!!!
Get your head out of the Huffington Post, do your homework, stop drinking the Kool-Aid, and start taking this war on terror seriously.

We in America are too concerned with instant gratification. Let me tell you, the terrorists will wait generations for their chance to strike. The 9-11 attacks weren't planned overnight. They took over 10 years to implement. They are here. They want to kill YOU and your family. They believe that you WILL convert to Islam or they are to "take knives to their necks" as directed by Muhammed himself.

Quit with this delusional crap about Bush being the worst thing that ever happened. We heard the same crap about Reagan and ALL of the horror stories never came true.

Get a life, live it to it's fullest, stop worrying about the government coming over to your house and throwing you in jail and taking all your Anthrax CDs, it ain't gonna happen.....except maybe them taking your Antrax CDs.

p.s. - John Bush Rules!

Nice post!! I had to double-check to make sure it wasn't one of my posts! :Spin:
It is great to be on a METAL board, and actually see people with the balls to stand up and defend President Bush... when it's clearly not the "cool" thing to do.

The war on terrorism IS serious. People can say Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, but Saddam was dangerous, and all intelligence (ours, and foreign intelligence) said they had/were producing weapons. To do nothing could be a critical mistake. .....and exactly how do you fight a war against terrorism? What country do you attack? Everyone complains, but no one has a better answer than Bush does.

I really believe Liberalism must be stopped. I'm tired of pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-God, anti-Religion, anti-American, blame-America-first, no-accountibility Liberals ruining the country.

 

[ThraxDude]

Nice post!! I had to double-check to make sure it wasn't one of my posts! :Spin:
It is great to be on a METAL board, and actually see people with the balls to stand up and defend President Bush... when it's clearly not the "cool" thing to do.

The war on terrorism IS serious. People can say Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, but Saddam was dangerous, and all intelligence (ours, and foreign intelligence) said they had/were producing weapons. To do nothing could be a critical mistake. .....and exactly how do you fight a war against terrorism? What country do you attack? Everyone complains, but no one has a better answer than Bush does.

I really believe Liberalism must be stopped. I'm tired of pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-God, anti-Religion, anti-American, blame-America-first, no-accountibility Liberals ruining the country.

Yes. This thread rules.
I'm glad you remind us Saddam was a threat. He was. He refused to let weapons inspectors in... what the fuck are we supposed to think?? Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction, he was misinformed.
Taking out Saddam was really important to our safety. Yet the lefties will always say, "No blood for oil."
Sure it may have something to do with oil. But if somehow all the oil was in, say, the UK... would we go to war with them for it? Fuckin hippies.

 

[DELIRI0US N0MAD]

Actually Newt Gingrich and a team of Republican leaders shut down the government, forcing Clinton into signing a bill that would lead to the balanced budget that you speak of.

Bush..... although I think overall he's done a good job.... is a spending fiend.

Yep....I thought about bringing that up, but I didn't even want to go there at the time. That could branch off into an entirely new debate.

I agree with both of those statements.

Nice!

 

[DELIRI0US N0MAD]

Nice post!! I had to double-check to make sure it wasn't one of my posts! :Spin:
It is great to be on a METAL board, and actually see people with the balls to stand up and defend President Bush... when it's clearly not the "cool" thing to do.

Yeah..I like it to. I tend to get heavily into political debates when they pop up. I actually prefer that politics stay off the board because it usually just causes problems. I never, ever start them, but I will jump in and defend my point of view vigorously when someone else starts them.
I'm probably not your typical "metal head". I don't think you'd look at me and think I listened to this type of music, but I grew up listening to all of the 80's bands like Overkill, Anthrax, Exodus, Testament, Slayer, Armored Saint, Mercyful Fate, Megadeth, etc.....I was also heavy into alot of the lesser known bands like Juggernaut, Mistreater, Tsunami, and the like.
Now I am a current events and political junkie. I study and research as much as I can. It's my hobby.....and I still listen to the same music.

In fact, I will be going to see both Overkill and Exodus in the next month. Both are coming to my home town and they're playing in a tiny club that used to be a gas station. ...up close and personal, just the way I like it.


Thanks for the kudos.
Rock on!

 

[DELIRI0US N0MAD]

Yes. This thread rules.
I'm glad you remind us Saddam was a threat. He was. He refused to let weapons inspectors in... what the fuck are we supposed to think?? Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction, he was misinformed.
Taking out Saddam was really important to our safety. Yet the lefties will always say, "No blood for oil."
Sure it may have something to do with oil. But if somehow all the oil was in, say, the UK... would we go to war with them for it? Fuckin hippies.

Oh boy...don't get me started... :Spin:
That's a whole other can-o-worms.

 

[Dr.TEETH]

I really believe Liberalism must be stopped. I'm tired of pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-God, anti-Religion, anti-American, blame-America-first, no-accountibility Liberals ruining the country.

The "Liberals" aren't anti-religious. They're against mixing Religion and Government. Giving a religion Government powers would be tyrantical. For example: The Taliban, The Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials, Virgin Sacrifices, The Genocide of the Christians by the Muslims in an African country (i forget which one), and especially The Old Testament of the Bible (The punishment for adultry in the old testament was a public stoning to death, and was the Jewish law in ancient times.) Imagine if we gave Satanism political power. Murdering Christians would be legal. The "Liberals" think that religion is a personal thing and not to be forced onto anybody.

As for your comment on gayness, who are you?? the sex police??? It is none of the government's business what somebody does in their personal life. And it sure isn't any of your business what goes on in somebody else's bedroom. How would you like it if Jerry Falwell had you arrested for having sexual relations outside of marriage and charged you with infidelity. That sounds absurd, but if you let the religious kooks make the laws, we would be faced with all kinds of absurd laws and brutal, Taliban-like punishments.

 

[Arg_Hamster]

I think there's actually more Dubya-defending going on here than "Dubya-bashing". I actually enjoy this thread.

But about your comments...I'm certainly not putting words in your mouth, as I am not familiar with your situation, but I think you may be talking about "deregulation" as opposed to "privatization". Deregulation can be debated legitimately. Both sides have valid arguements. I'm not going there now, though.

I will stand by my statement that says, "anything the government can do, the private sector can do better".....Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but I can't think of any at the moment. :Spin:

out.

Well one leads to the other. The government deregulated the monopoly and private companies took over.

PS. If you would explain quick the differences between a deregulated market where private companies act and "pure" privatization, that would be great so I´ll understand more what you mean! DS.

 

[Dr.TEETH]

Bush doesn't think that "religion should be put in biology books"....he believes that "creation" should be taught as a theory, just as the THEORY of "evolution" is taught in school. He doesn't say it should be taught as fact, just as another theory that people (most people) believe in.
Rock on!

There is no debate.
Creationism may be a religious theory,, but it is not a scientific theory.

A scientific theory is based on cold, hard, mathematical facts. It can be proved or disproved with further investigation.

Evolution is based on physical evidence, such as fossils, carbon dating, and genetics. Hence, it is a scientific theory on the origins of life, and should be taught in certain Science classes. ( Biology and Anthropology)

Creationism is based on spirituality, philosophy, and faith. It cannot be proved or disproved in a science lab.

Creationism is not science. It is a religious theory. It can be taught in Theology classes and Philosophy classes, and even Sociology classes, but it is not Biology.

 

[Ragman_kd]

Alright guys, heres a different spin on this. The Bush administration is fucking with the US tourist trade. How you ask, well heres the reason. Now if you want to visit the US from here in the UK, if your pasport is under a certain age(cant remember the exact time limit) you have to apply for a visa. No problem there you may think, but if you have any kind of conviction, you will be refused. This includes a driving penalty, which almost 1/3 of UK drivers have. Now to get your visa, if your alowd one, you have to go for an interview to an American embasy. That isint to bad either, untill you consider that I myself live in Scotland and would have to travel to London (over 800 miles round trip) take my partner and baby with me(as they need visas aswell), stay overnight in a hotel, and take 3 days off my work. Now all that will cost a coupla hundred pounds. Now I love your country, but I'm afraid I wont be back for a long time now. Im not alone in this as I have friends who are in the same position as myself who wont be coming back. I also have a friend whos family are now US citizens, but as they have a driving conviction cannot get into your country to see her mum and dad. This is the same rules being applyed to everyone from every country in the world. So watch your tourist trade drop rapidly over the next few years and your debt to mount cause there isint as much forign money coming into your federal bank. They say these security measures have been put in place to stop terrorist's and criminals entering the US, but how does a speeding ticket make you a terrorist.